I pay absolutely no preference to any person regardless of their position,
regardless of their color, regardless of their sex. I think that every person
needs to be treated exactly the same.
Q. Have you ever been found in contempt by a court? Would you go into that
quickly.
A. Sure. My second year of private practice, I tried a case before Judge
Mendell Rivers. There was at that point a Family judge that had an edict that
said if you exceeded 30 minutes, you were to request a pretrial. I went over
four minutes. It was 34 minutes and 22 seconds, I believe and, I was cited for
contempt.
The case was one where he was suing for malicious prosecution against another
person and the -- it was dismissed. They said that there was no merit to it.
That it was a legal issue that he had and he never appealed, but that was
brought and it was never documented by the Supreme Court.
A. Or by Court Administration, excuse me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Members? Senator McConnell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Have you ever heard of the term Robitis?
A. Robitis?
Q. It's where the robes on a judge become so heavy, it scrambles their brains
and --
A. Yes, sir, I actually have heard of that term. Chief Justice Harwell uses it.
He says heavy of robe.
Q. Based on that experience you had, it sounds like to me, you've been a victim
of it.
A. I can tell you this, I think the best way to treat people very well is to be
beaten up yourself. I hate to say it, but I believe that. I think had I not
had the experiences that I had, perhaps I would not try so hard to be as clean
as I can be.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Mr. Alexander.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q. I notice from your resume, you were in private practice prior to becoming
a magistrate?
A. Yes, sir.
That's just something -- I think each person has a characteristic or a trait
or something that we feel very comfortable with. Some people it's a very
traditional home life, some people it's -- I don't know. This was something
that I really, really felt comfortable with and -- or wanted to do and I knew
likewise that the Magistrate's Court had some problems and it was a challenge.
And I thought it would be a new challenge to see if it would -- if it could
work.
Q. Have you been happy with the work?
A. Yes, sir, I have. We have -- and I say this not lightly, we have a great
group of people. We have four full-time magistrates and eight part-time
magistrates. And they are a very, very solid group of people and I can -- there
is one thing I'm really proud of, they're just a really great group of people
and they've bonded and they work well together.
Q. Would they hate to lose you?
A. I'd hate to lose -- there is a part of me frankly, and I don't know if I'm
going to be given that opportunity, sir, but there is a part of me that's a
little sad actually, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Russell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RUSSELL:
Q. Judge Kanes, you have just concluded a hearing and one of the attorneys
that appeared before you asked you to go to lunch with him, how would you react
to that?
A. I don't go to lunch, sir.
Q. What about if it was a friend that you had known for a long time?
A. If it was a nonattorney and they were in town then I would, but I never eat
lunch with attorneys.
Q. But you do eat lunch?
A. I --
Q. To correct your statement you never eat lunch?
A. If it was -- Senator Russell, if it was someone from out of town that called
in and said, "Karen, I'm coming into town, do you want to go to
lunch?" And it didn't conflict, sure, I would, but I really don't as a
practice eat with my colleagues.
I understand the positions themselves have been funded, but I think a lot --
you have to know what your base is in order to start creating something.
Secondly, whoever leads this is going to have to be very, very good at molding
people because I think if it's not done properly, it will be fragmented and if
there is a fragmentation from the onset, I don't know how successful this can
be.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Other questions from the members? Thank
you, Judge.
END OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OF MS. KANES.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Next is Tripp Anderson. That's good. Right
there.
RALPH K."TRIPP" ANDERSON, III, having been duly sworn, testified as
follows:
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data
Questionnaire?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, I have.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is it correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. There is one minor change.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And one of the minor jobs that I had was prosecutor for the
Medical Board. The Medical Board now comes under the auspices and jurisdiction
of the LLR, Labor, Licensing and Regulation Board now. So the Attorney General's
office is not having part of the staff doing the prosecutions, although I am
acting as a hearing officer on occasions now. So I've gone from being
prosecutor to being advisor.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Is there any objection to making this Summary and what
you just added a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MR. ANDERSON: No, sir.
1. Ralph K. "Tripp" Anderson, III
Home Address: Business Address:
321 Fallen Oak Drive P. O. Box 11549
Columbia, SC 29223 Columbia, SC 29211
2. He was born in Florence, South Carolina on October 13, 1959. He is presently 34 years old.
4. He is married to Janet LeVeque Anderson. He has no children.
5. Military Service: N/A
6. He attended Francis Marion College, August, 1976 to August, 1980; Bachelor of Science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, August, 1981 to May, 1984, J.D.
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
In the past five years, he has focused his continuing legal education on
trial advocacy, administrative law and criminal law.
9. Taught or Lectured:
S.C. Bar CLE - "Hiring and Firing" (lectured on employment law)
S.C. Bar CLE - "Ethics Act" (lectured on the Ethics Act)
Instructed the Supreme Court legal staff on the Ethics Act (January 5, 1993)
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
When he began working at the Attorney General's Office, his responsibilities
encompassed the full-time extradition functions in the Criminal Division.
In time, and at his request, he was given additional work and transferred to
the Prosecution Section, where he handled prosecution duties as well as his
extradition duties. Thereafter, he also took on the responsibility as
Counsel to The Ethics Commission.
13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:He does not know if he is listed in Martindale-Hubbell. He has never requested to be evaluated by Martindale-Hubbell since he is a state employee.
14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - 20 times a year
Other -
15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 75%
Criminal - 25%
Domestic - None
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:\
Jury - 25%
Non-jury -75%
Chief Counsel
17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or
appellate court:
(a) State v. Dwight L. Bennett. This was a felony DUI case in which
the victim suffered horrible physical injuries and lost the baby she was
carrying. This case was used as an example as to the need to increase
felony DUI punishment.
18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Bergin Moses Mosteller v. James R. Metts
(b) Dennis G. Mitchell v. State of SC
(c) Ex Parte, Bobby M. Stichert v. Carroll Heath
(d) Patrick C. Lynn, et al. v. State of SC
(e) Paul David Tasker v. M. L. Brown, Jr.
22. Public Office: Assistant Attorney General since 1985.
24. Unsuccessful Candidate: Administrative Law Judge, Seat #3, February 23, 1993
23. Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
State Employee Grievance Committee Attorney (quasi-judicial). Since 1989, he
has served as a committee attorney for the State Employee Grievance
Committee. Section 8-17-340, S.C. Code Ann. (1976) provides that "The
committee attorney shall determine the order and relevance of the testimony
and the appearance of witnesses, and shall rule on all motions and all legal
issues. The parties shall be bound by the decisions of the . . . committee
attorney insofar as such hearings are concerned.
39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Currently, no expenditures have been made.
44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association
45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
S. C. Policy Review Committee for S. C. Vocational Rehabilitation
46. Although he lives and works in Columbia, for demographic purposes, he is running as a resident of Florence County.
47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Jack Montgomery, Vice President/City Executive
First Union National Bank
P. O. Box 728, Columbia, SC 29202
251-4449
(b) Richard C. Jones, Esquire
Jones & Seth
P. O. Box 1268, Sumter, SC 29151-1268
778-1006
(c) John R. Lincoln, Pastor
Shandon Baptist Church
819 Woodrow Street, Columbia, SC 29205
799-0652
(d) Gary R. Baker, Executive Director
State Ethics Commission
P. O. Box 11926, Columbia, SC 29211
253-4192
(e) Donald J. Zelenka
Chief Deputy Attorney General
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
734-3660
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable enforcement agencies -- let's see, we have
TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDERSON AT PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 13, 1994:
MR. ANDERSON - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Mr. Anderson, this is not a trick question or anything, but who is your
role model for a judge who has good judicial temperament, because at least one
person will be reading this transcript?
A. I think the obvious answer would be my father, but there is another and I'll
address him, and that's John Hamilton Smith. I have a lot of respect for him,
his temperament. He's a fair judge who is erudite on the law and I was always
impressed by him.
Q. What are the particular qualities that you think an administrative law judge
needs to have?
A. Senator Jennings wrote an article on administrative law judges in the, I
think it was the South Carolina Trial Lawyers, and in there he described
the driving force behind the Administrative Law Division and its enactment, was
the need for professionalism, consistency in the rulings and efficiency, the
perception of impartiality and independence, and the final one was actual
fairness.
And I thought that encompasses real well the need of what an administrative
law judge -- of what an administrative law judge needs to be. But it also has,
I think, an interesting intellectual type of approach to the way he used each
one of those words and what they really mean.
Q. You have, with the Attorney General's Office, been responsible for working
with the Ethics Commission; isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your administrative law experience in the AG's office?
A. As counsel for the Ethics Commission would be one, and I've also been a
prosecutor for the medical board cases, for engineering and land surveying board
cases. I'm the Governor's Extradition Hearing Officer and I'm the committee
attorney for employee grievance hearings.