Comments on: FITSNews Exclusive – S.C. Supreme Court Could Be Investigated

By: SCAnon

SCAnon — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:13:38 +0000

IMHO, # 31 nailed the real issue. If we are to accept the story of the SC, the WTE examiner, having already graded, tabulated, and reported the scores, just “happened” to notice one transposed grade out of over 500 while packaging up his materials to be sent to the SC. NOT BLOODY LIKELY. Much more likely is that an inquiry about the accuracy of the WTE result came down from on high and only then did he notice this purported error. We know from screen shots of Ms. Harrison’s facebook that she was trying to identify others who failed WTE so that daddy could then make a call for them all. Bottom line — the statement from the SC may be accurate so far as it goes, but what it leaves out is the key. Just like in the oath we expect witnesses in a trial to take — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — our SC likely did only the first and woefully failed in the second and third.

By: Bar

Bar — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:19:53 +0000

“He failed because he was two points off on one essay that just happened to be Wills, Trusts.”

Sorry, I meant “just happened to NOT be Wills, Trusts”. (if it had been Wills that student would have passed).

By: Bar

Bar — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:16:11 +0000

Well, Mens Rea, one thing that I would not suggest is to pass 20 who we know for a fact failed that section. As far as telling someone they failed after telling them they passed, well that has been done many times by many other states. In fact, the MBE had a scoring error in ’03 I believe and many students all over the country were told that they had in fact failed the Bar after being told they passed. So this is not unheard of.

On the same note, however, I agree that it would be unfair to allow this individual who failed wills to pass when others failed due to that essay. The problem with what the Court did is this. They have tossed out the Wills section only. I’m sure there were students who failed the entire Bar based solely on a different essay section. Say for example, that a student didn’t pass the MBE and failed the Insurance essay. This student would be in the same exact position as a student who failed the MBE and failed the Wills essay. However, under what the Court decided to do, the student who failed Insurance failed the bar while the student who failed wills passed the Bar. This is fundamentally unfair.

Not only that, but that student who failed Insurance has no avenues available to him for ensuring the score of his Insurance essay. I have heard from many students in that exact position who have asked for the court review their essay (not regrade, but review) to ensure that no scrivener’s error or scoring error occurred while adding up the points for the total score they made on that section. I know one person who failed due to an essay that he made a 68 on. The required score to pass an essay is a 70. He failed because he was two points off on one essay that just happened to be Wills, Trusts. The Court told him after he asked for a review that Rule 402 prohibited reviews for scrivener’s errors or scoring errors.

This is completely contradictory to what they stated in regards to the Wills section as they threw the whole thing out for a scoring error that occurred. However, they will not even recalculate other essay sections. The actual Wills essay or method of grading was not why it was thrown out… it was thrown out for a scoring error.

This leads one to believe that there was an issue of the court showing favoritism to certain individuals.

By: Mens Rea

Mens Rea — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:26:24 +0000

I stand corrected as to procedural due process. I do remember now reading some cases about applicants challenging character and fitness denials in court.

I’m not sure what else the Court could have done in this situation. They can’t go back and fail the person who was accidentally passed–that person would have a very good argument under the rules to remain in, and as a practical matter I think any applicant would go right off the rails if that happened. Suicide risk would be about a 7-8 out of 10 for me. If they allowed one person who failed WTE to pass, however, THEN the other applicants who failed WTE would have a strong due process argument!

Much is made of both Harrisons’ comments. It is probably a coincidence. My hypothesis–J. calls the clerk and says, my daughter C. and a bunch of her friends failed WTE. Clerk looks and sees WTE was failed by a lot of people. Clerk alerts scorer, who reviews his/her work, finds mistake and reports to Court.

What do y’all suggest the Court should have done differently, assuming what they said was true?

By: Toal trying to serve another 10 year term

Toal trying to serve another 10 year term — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:24:23 +0000

I seriously cannot believe that a bill is before the Judicial Committee, which Jim Harrison chairs, in the near future which would extend the mandatory retirement ages of justices, which would allow Jean Toal to serve another TEN year term.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Can I say “motivation for a grade change”?

By: Just Another Embarassed SC Lawyer

Just Another Embarassed SC Lawyer — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:22:19 +0000

to all who know that Harrison has some power over the SC but can’t quite put your finger on what that is- I’ll tell you what it is-

When the SC wants something, like more money, changes in retirement ages, better retirement benefits, etc., any legislation proposing those changes goes before the House Judiciary Committee, headed up by Harrison. If Harrison doesn’t want the bill to go anywhere, it won’t. Period. If Harrison does want the bill to go, it will. Period. So, when the clerk of the SC answered the phone call of Harrison on the fateful day that daddy called on behalf of his 25-year old law school graduate, the thought definitely ran through his mind, “hey, this guy could really f*&@ us over.” Whether the clerk, or anyone else, made decisions based on that fact is unclear. At that point in the game, in my humble opinion, the only one who committed a wrong was Harrison.

Here’s what is still troubling me- results came out Oct 26, and I believe I’ve read that daddy made the phone call that day or the next (Oct 27). Allegedly, Poston (T&E examiner), reviewed his transcription of grades on Oct 30 and reported the “error” to the SC at that time. Why, you may ask, did Poston feel the need to review the T&E grades at all?

Timing is everything, isn’t it?

By: Bar Exam Thursday Roundup « Not Very Bright

Bar Exam Thursday Roundup « Not Very Bright — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:49:03 +0000

[...] The usual bluster from FITSNews, but with interesting comments, here. [...]

By: ToTOALed

ToTOALed — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:01:26 +0000

randy, shut up. we’re perfectly fit, and have the indomitable courage to judge ourselves. you can’t stop us, nobody can.

we’re not afraid of you, sic willie, or anyone. when you bump into cars, you call police, afraid of getting a ticket. not us. we have the guts of a rap star who says f*** the police. we just drive off and dare the m**********ers to stop us.

yeah, wait ’til we’re on your block, then you’ll see how afraid we are of you.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:53:07 +0000

The Bar is full of cowards.

By: Question Regarding Supreme Court's "Explanation"

Question Regarding Supreme Court's "Explanation" — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:03:31 +0000

I have a question regarding the Supreme Court’s “explanation” on the “scrivener’s error”. If the problem was a “scrivener’s error” and had absolutely nothing to do with Harrison’s or Burche’s calls to the powers that be, then why is Mr. Harrison quoted in the Greenville News saying that it was his daughter’s hard work that got the scores changed and not his? If it was a scoring error found by the examiner then what hard work is he talking about? What hard work is his daughter talking about on facebook? Why was hard work needed to fix a grade change that was found by the examiner and had nothing to do with favoritism?

Here is a link to that article.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007311