Comments on: FITSNews Exclusive – Another Lawyer-Legislator Shakedown

By: Arviso

Arviso — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:31:00 +0000

Nice post! GA is also my biggest earning. However, it?s not a much.:)

By: S.C. Republican Caucus Notes | FITSNews For Now

S.C. Republican Caucus Notes | FITSNews For Now — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:26:44 +0000

[...] Frankly, we think the legislature shouldn’t have anything to do with electing judges, particularly when so many of them are profiting off of the decisions they make. [...]

By: Pay To Play | FITSNews For Now

Pay To Play | FITSNews For Now — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:12:48 +0000

[...] to The State , they are Sen. Catherine Ceips (the only Republican who took the bribe) and Democrats Doug Jennings, Herb Kirsh, Yancey McGill, Robert Ford and Creighton Coleman. Senators Randy Scott and Ralph [...]

By: SC HOTLINE EXCLUSIVE â€“ â€œJOURNALISTIC BLACKMAILâ€ AT THE STATE NEWSPAPER « SCHotline

Tue, 20 May 2008 09:01:36 +0000

[...] newspaper has also refused to cover a major ethical scandal involving several State Senators looking to make millions of dollars off of suing the payday [...]

By: Educate, Not Overregulate | FITSNews For Now

Educate, Not Overregulate | FITSNews For Now — Fri, 09 May 2008 05:17:14 +0000

[...] – May 9, 2008 – Since the mainstream media refuses to pick up on the blatant legislative shakedown that’s going on with respect to the payday lending debate, we view it as our obligation to [...]

By: Annonymous

Annonymous — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:18:03 +0000

Next to criminals, lawyers know the laws the best. So, naturally they know how to get around obeying them. But, I can’t remember when one particular lawyer was liked by everyone. However, some lawyers are hated by everyone, and, with good reason. But, just because a lawyer is good at his job, doesn’t mean he’s a scumbag, unlike the owners of these payday advances who never give a second thought when taking away the only thing some people have worked all their lives to get. Vincent Sheheen is very kind person that the majority of the people who say bad things about him will never know. How many lawyers actually go out of thier way to help people who can’t afford an attorney, or take cases they know they can’t win because someone needs help. People shouldn’t be so judgemental about people they don’t know. After all, he may just help this state more than one would think. It sure didn’t get like because of him.

By: Seeding Spartanburg » SC is a Mess

Seeding Spartanburg » SC is a Mess — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:14:00 +0000

[...] the Spartanburg delegation to realize that, do I? We’re getting ready to watch it happen. Will Folks has already warned us about John Hawkins. He’s getting ready to ‘retire’ from public office (in [...]

By: SC

SC — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:08:40 +0000

What is our assurance that these errors will not happen again on future exams? What is our assurance that these errors did not occur on other essays taken on the July exam? The Supreme Court’s Rule 402 is absolutely NO assurance that these errors have not occurred elsewhere.

By: Logic vs. Life

Logic vs. Life — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:58:39 +0000

#10

Do not attempt to apply logic to the Bar Scandal, it can cause physical injury. I thought about it for a while and then my nose started bleeding and I started having hallucinations. I think that Toal may have called upon the black arts to keep people quiet.

By: Bad times in SC

Bad times in SC — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:53:05 +0000

Saw this on a blog all the way up in NYC… I thought this writer’s comment was right on que. Just imagine the situation he/she describes… do you think that Justice Toll or Justice Pleicones would have been so forgiving of the described scrivener’s error? Sadly enough, I somehow doubt it. But then again, it is becoming more and more apparent by the day that attorneys in SC have to live by a higher and more strict standard of ethics than does the the high court in SC (yeah seems kind of reversed from what its supposed to be).

This is what the blog said:

WTE = WTF.

I mean, seriously – this explanation has all the credibility of “the dog peed on my homework.”

Imagine telling the South Carolina Supreme Court that because of a scrivener’s error, the due date of your client’s opening brief on appeal was written down as November 26 instead of November 6; as a result, since your brief was rejected as untimely filed, it would be more equitable to allow you and everyone else who ever turns in a brief late in the future to be allowed an extra 20 days from the date it’s due to actually file it.

Wow.