Accusations continue to fly back and forth between supporters and opponents of an embattled family court judge as one of South Carolina’s most contentious, controversial judicial competence debates rages on …
We’re referring, of course, to the ongoing dispute over the reappointment of Charleston, S.C. family court judge F.P. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews, whose rulings have apparently pissed off several members of her local legislative delegation.
Segars-Andrews’ very presence on the bench may also be an annoyance to powerful Senate President Glenn McConnell (RINO – Charleston) who is reportedly eager to appoint one of his former law partners, Angela B. Mulholland, to her position.
These considerations are obviously important in South Carolina.
Why?
Well, for reasons surpassing understanding – Palmetto State lawmakers are solely responsible not only for electing judges, but for determining their competence to continue serving. And given the predilection of state lawmakers to dispense political favors to their friends and allies, this has not surprisingly been a source of constant controversy.
We first addressed this brewing controversy in a post last week, although new details are emerging on both sides of the dispute.
Specifically, FITS has obtained a copy of an affidavit filed by Sue Limehouse – wife of S.C. Rep. Chip Limehouse (RINO – Charleston) – in a family court case in which Judge Segars-Andrews ruled against the wishes of the lawmaker’s wife.
“This is the kindling that started the firestorm,” a source familiar with the case tells FITS.
Mrs. Limehouse was seeking to have a guardian ad litem removed from a family court case involving one of her friends, although Segars-Andrews ultimately ruled against her wishes. In the affidavit, Mrs. Limehouse repeatedly refers to the “social class” to which she and her friend belong, and the “social standing” in which they are held.
Nice …
Anyway, Judge Segars-Andrews’ opponents maintain that she’s no crusader, but rather a corrupt judge who routinely “fixes” cases for those close to her.
Specifically, multiple sources have alleged to FITS that Judge Segars-Andrews and her husband, local divorce attorney Mark Andrews, run a sophisticated racket that steers favorable rulings to Andrews’ clients.
Another judge, whose name was not provided, is also said to be in on the scam – which allegedly includes another prominent Charleston attorney and the very guardian ad litem that Mrs. Limehouse and her hoity toity socialite crowd was seeking to dismiss from the case we referenced.
So which “back story” is true?
We have no clue, people. This is one of those rare instances in which we don’t have a dog in the fight.
In an effort to get to the bottom of the drama, though, FITS has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission seeking all documents related to Judge Segars-Andrews.
As always, we’ll let you know what sort of a response we get …
By Toyota Kawaski December 8, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Hotty toddy Ole Miss Gosh ole mighty
By Ynot December 8, 2009 at 3:31 pm
foia woohoo
hope yours get answered.
mine never do
By Pat Hendrix December 8, 2009 at 3:35 pm
That Queen Mary Law School in London?
By Crooner December 8, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I used to believe that the SC system of appointment by the legislature was a better one than popular election. After all, who, other than the attorneys who appear before them, really cares who the judge is? Further, who else would actually contribute money to a judge’s campaign?
It is clear, however, that in SC a judge who has been found qualified and appointed by the legislature remains beholden to that group (and their friends) because they otherwise run the risk of being found unqualified at a later date. This undermines public trust in the judiciary.
I’m not talking about impeachable offenses here: I’m talking about slights, both real and imagined. After all, our system of justice is adversarial. Someone has to win and someone has to lose. Those decisions shouldn’t be made on the basis of an attorney’s influence with a state senator.
The legislature should set strict objective guidelines for the removal of a sitting judge and jettison the current system.
Who thinks the SC senate will give up that kind of power, though?
By Natalie Bluestein December 8, 2009 at 4:36 pm
For the record, Mark Andrews has not practiced in Family Court for at least the past five years. His practice has been limited to mediation for quite a while now.
By columbia insider December 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Agreed, Crooner. Though it is not just Senators who would be giving up power, but also Representatives. All legislators have one equal vote.
The only thing missing in this fiasco to date has been motive, and the Limehouse affidavit puts that piece of the puzzle in place.
By lee December 8, 2009 at 4:50 pm
How about posting the affadavit? That would help with understanding the backroom dealings.
By Todd December 8, 2009 at 9:08 pm
PEOPLE GET A GRIP!!!! If your chosen Queen of all things relevant, the honorable Jean Hoefer Toal, Supreme Empress of the South Carolina Supreme Court were not corrupt to her very drunken, corrupt core with four absolute spineless do-boys behind her, then the South Caroline Judicial Discipline System would be honest and people like Charlie Segars-Andrews would have been taken care of years ago. McConnell and Harrison know – chairmen of the Senate and House Judicial Committees respectively know it, but….. here we go again…… It’s a matter of time, Jean…. just a matter of time……
By Frank December 8, 2009 at 10:51 pm
So right Todd!! Jean Troll should have been ran off the bench by a village of people carrying pitch forks along time ago! Jean Troll “IS” the example of what a judge should “NOT” be!
By just me December 9, 2009 at 7:12 am
It is very sad that a fair judge is being brought down by an unfair system in which the “real reason” she is being voted unqualified is not being put out there by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. Off the record, legislators will tell you there is more to this than the public is being told. The Simpson case is just a smokescreen. In any event, as my young daughter said last night, “Mommy, if she ruled right in thousands of cases, how can they take her off for one case?” Well said, daughter – and an especially good question when she was found by the Court of Appeals and the Commission on Judicial Conduct to have ruled “right” in that one case (Simpson) too.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is simply Glenn McConnell’s way to control judge selection – and curry political favors by doing so. It needs to be abolished – along with its self-important staff who try to intimidate anyone who dares send a letter or make a statement. Apparently the staff failed constitutional law – what happened to freedom of speech?
By Lynne Rock December 9, 2009 at 9:23 am
As a Constitutional conservative, I am appalled that the SC legislature has this kind of power. We already know they do not speak for the people as evidenced by the incredible pressure brought to bear on the Governor to accept federal money. All politics aside, however, I’m pretty sure we could all agree that WE THE PEOPLE are not being listened to. Judge Segars-Andrews does not legislate from the bench, she does not let pedophiles loose in the name of social justice, and apparently, she doesn’t give into political pressure. She rules in the hardest of court cases with compassion and concern for the protection of children.
I believe we have come to a point in the life of our nation where elected politicians do not fear the people, will not listen to the people and will not legislate according to the will of the people. Come November, they must all be voted out, and every year after that, until we have cleaned house.
By Wendy Hill December 9, 2009 at 9:27 am
Hey Will….The judge, husband and all her pawns have been using fear and intimidation (of having their children taken away) to keep any women from filing greviences….their fatal flaw was taking on a MAN ( Mr. Simpson) …..who was not afraid!!!! Maybe you should request Seagers-Andrews and Mark Andrews tax returns…after all she is still a public official….
By CarolinaRose December 9, 2009 at 9:57 am
Even aside from the business of federal tax evasion, although it must be investigated, what about the free trips Segars-Andrews and her husband receive after mediation with Hubby Mark? How’s Scottland these days, Mark and Charlie??
By CarolinaRose December 9, 2009 at 10:08 am
Recent entry:
“For the record, Mark Andrews has not practiced in Family Court for at least the past five years. His practice has been limited to mediation for quite a while now.”
My Response:
Have you ever wondered why his practice has been limited to mediation?Unfortunately, Mark Andrews continues to bully, harrass, and intimidate female clients with his position as being married to the infamous Charleston Chief Family Court Judge.
By Wendy Hill December 9, 2009 at 10:16 am
Wasn’t thinking tax evasion….just really high imcome for a sitting judge and a mediator (ie.excessive fees)……acording to the friendly skies is Vagas baby…..
By CarolinaRose December 9, 2009 at 10:21 am
Would love to know who that guardian was that Mrs. Limehouse was seeking to have removed? Wouldn’t by chance be S. Dey?
By Angela Mulholland December 9, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I am a private citizen and not a public figure. I have no interest in the Judge’s job and do not intend to run for her seat. Please cease publishing false rumors about me. Thank-You
By Huhhh??? December 9, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: 3 strikes and you’re out as a judge = 3 decisions overturned on appeal and you’re permanently kicked off the judiciary – from Magistrate to Supreme Court. That’s a starting point…at least, get it down to the ones who know the law.
The thing that interests me is this case is how and why this judge got sent to Clarendon County for a case. The days I used to be in Family Court in the 3rd Circuit, I never knew of a traveling judge from the Lowcountry to sit there; just may have missed ‘em.
One thing I do know, if it happens in Clarendon County, Sen. J.C. Land III has something to do with it.
By CarolinaRose December 9, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Ms. “Rock,” give us a break. You could hardly be any more transparent as a political hack, hired by the Andrews, attempting to manipulate public opinion. You claim solid conservative credentials (“Constitutional conservative”) which you know appeals to at least 75% of South Carolinians and would therefore engender a positive reception for your post, then praise this disgusting example of judicial corruption to the skies.
By Lynne Rock December 9, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Carolina Rose…your bitterness is obscuring your common sense, and I’m sorry about that. I moved to SC a year ago and I am not a hack, political or otherwise; hence the publication of my real name (no need for your snarky quotation marks). I didn’t post to “engender a positive reception”. I posted because the last time I checked, freedom of expression hasn’t been taken away and I decided to exercise my opinion of a local issue.
Calm down, Carolina Rose…there’s plenty of room for differences of opinion and differences in taste, including your right not to have any.
By CarolinaRose December 9, 2009 at 10:07 pm
You have lived here only a year yet you know Segars-Andrews’ character and motivations on the bench well enough to comment on them with assumed authority? How is it that you happen to come by such intimate knowledge of a heretofore relatively obscure, local judge? Your comments smack of Alinsky tactics, and I stand by my original post.
By Lilly Collette December 10, 2009 at 3:35 am
Here is what I filed against Segars-Andrews with the JMSC:
JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of: Francis P. Segars-Andrews
Candidate for: Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court
WITNESS AFFIDAVIT FORM
[...]
In regard to my intended testimony, I will offer information as to the following:
(1) Set forth your full name, age, address, and both home and work telephone numbers.
[...] Lilly Collette, sixty (60) years of age, residing at 0000 ooooo ooooo, ooooooo, SC 00000, telephone # (843) 740-5472.
(2) Set forth the names, addresses, and telephone numbers (if known) of other persons who have knowledge of the facts concerning your testimony.
My testimony is based on matters of public record and already readily available to the general public.
(3) State the nature of your testimony regarding the qualifications of the above-named judicial candidate, including:
The ‘nature’ of my testimony is the commission of federal and state felonies and misdemeanors against a disabled man and his disabled wife, that being Richard and Lilly Collette, in knowing, willful, wanton disregard of the laws of The United States and this state in which Segars-Andrews did knowingly conspire and participate.
(a) specific facts relating to the candidate’s character, competency, or ethics, including any and all allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the candidate:
Segars-Andrews had a duty and multiple opportunities to know and therefore did know:
1. That each and every Rule To Show Cause (RTSC) hearing filed for by one alleging herself to be Susan R. Collette (hereinafter Susan) was based on an alleged divorce agreement of September 22, 1987.
2. The decree of divorce (case file no.: 87-DR-10-0294) is, and shows itself to be, the one and only written rendition of what is purported to be the ‘Agreement’.
3. Susan has never produced any agreement to the court and has exclusively relied on the blatantly defective decree of divorce purported to be the ‘Agreement’.
4. The decree of divorce is blatantly defective on its face and in total disregard of all pertinent law, constitutional rights and rules of court. (Annotated copy of the /divorce decree/agreement/ is attached.)
5. None of the blatantly false allegations of Susan were raised to the court for a ruling.
a) Susan knowingly falsely alleged that she was married to Richard Stanley Collette (hereinafter Richard).
b) Susan knowingly falsely alleged that she and Richard acquired property during their marriage and her name was on the title to that property.
c) Susan knowingly falsely alleged that she produced one child to her marriage with Richard.
6. Susan then verbally alleged at the final hearing of September 10, 1987 that Richard had agreed to sign over his interest in the marital home to her and to directly pay her Two hundred ($200.00) dollars per month as child support and she then amended her grounds for divorce to a year’s separation.
7. The court abdicated all judicial responsibility and merely rubber-stamped Susan’s verbally alleged agreement and totally—denied—Richard any hearing on the merits.
8. Susan and the still illegitimate son born to her on October 25, 1984 have never pursued adjudication of paternity.
9. No child has ever been named or identified by any court order or acknowledgement of paternity as the child of Richard to whom any support was due.
10. Richard and Susan are both self-declared and know to be White and the now adult illegitimate son of Susan is fully Asian featured rendering paternity a complete physical impossibility.
The following case file numbers have been assigned in this case and it is clearly shown in the record that none of them are cross-indexed to the other as is the custom and required.
87-DR-10-0294; and
90-DR-10-002881; and
96-DR-10-005482; and
01-DR-10-00721.
Now on to ‘some’ of the specifics directly relating to Francis P. Segars-Andrews:
11. Segars-Andrews is believed and shown in the record to have at least had case file no.: 1996-DR-10-005482 and 90-DR-10-002881 on November 4, 1996, May 1, 1997, May 19, 1997, February 22, 2002, October 7, 2002 and October 9, 2002.
12. All of the above listed dates revolved around Susan’s false allegations of failure to provide child support the payment record of which is found in case file no.: 90-DR-10-002881.
13. Richard was disabled with a cardiac condition on November 1, 1996.
14. Susan alleged herself to be disabled with a newly discovered cardiac condition on or about November 19, 1996 after discovering Richard had been hospitalized for cardiac surgery.
15. The May 1997 order issued by Segars-Andrews states that Richard cannot be allowed to offset child support obligations because of auxiliary benefits that Susan may receive for the support of her child if / when her application for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) was finally granted.
16. Segars-Andrews coerced Richard into returning to the job market to provide child support under duress of imprisonment on contempt charges if he failed to do so.
17. Richard was again overtaken by disability in October 2000 and reapplied for his SSDI.
18. Social Security records show that Susan was recklessly allowed to place her illegitimate child on auxiliary benefits under Richard’s award of SSDI—after clear warning of failure to adjudicate paternity and with none of the proofs required of all persons in similar circumstances.
19. Social Security records show that Susan had started receiving Five hundred seventy four ($574.00) dollars per month in auxiliary benefits for her child under—Richard’s—award of SSDI in April 2001.
20. The February 2002 order of Segars-Andrews memorializes Susan’s false allegation that she (Susan) was still providing Three hundred ninety eight ($398.00) dollars per month in SSDI auxiliary benefits and Richard’s SSDI was only providing One hundred seventy six ($176.00) dollars of the Five hundred seventy four ($574.00) dollars per month actually received.
21. Susan was laying a false foundation for her fraudulent pleadings for garnishment of Sixty five (65%) percent of Richard’s SSDI.
a) Susan falsely alleged that Richard had agreed (1987 decree of divorce) to pay her $200.00 per month as child support.
b) Susan has never produced any agreement and consistently relied on her sham decree of divorce which unlawfully purports to be “The Agreement”.
c) Susan wanted the alleged $398.00 per month auxiliary benefits provided for the support of her son under her award of SSDI subtracted from the $574.00 that she was actually receiving under Richard’s award of SSDI making it appear that Richard was only providing $176.00 per month, leaving Richard $24.00 per month in arrearage on the falsely alleged (1987) agreement of $200.00 per month.
$574.00 – $398.00 = $176
$200.00 – $176 = $24.00
22. The records verify that Segars-Andrews illegally subtracted Three hundred ninety eight ($398.00) dollars from the Five hundred seventy four ($574.00) that Susan was fraudulently receiving for the support of her illegitimate child under Richard’s SSDI to make it appear that Richard was Twenty four ($24.00) dollars per month in arrears—on child support which had never been and could never be lawfully ordered under the facts of this case.
23. Segars-Andrews knowingly fraudulently garnished Fifty (50%) percent of Richard’s SSDI award and made herself a party to Social Security Fraud.
24. Richard and I had no duty or financial means to continue paying this extortion.
25. July 17, 2002 Segars-Andrews held a secret RTSC concealed from Richard and me and illegally issued bench warrant causing the false arrest and jailing of Richard.
26. Segars-Andrews issued two orders on a hearing of Oct 7, 2002; in one she stated that, “Mr. Collette appeared and stated his position and after a full Hearing on the merits” […], and in the second order from the same hearing she stated that, “the Plaintiff (Richard) failed to appear at the hearing” […].
27. Lilly had appeared in Richard’s stead at the October 7, 2002 hearing.
28. Segars-Andrews issued an order on October 9, 2002 increasing the Fifty (50%) per cent garnishment to Sixty five (65%) percent based on contrived and concocted arrearages on child support that was never and could never be ordered under the facts of this case.
(b) specific dates, places, and times at which or during which such allegations took place:
Times and dates are stated above and part of the court record.
(c) [...]
(d) how this information relates to the qualifications of the judicial candidate.
I have provided sufficient probable cause under oath and supported by court documents bearing the signature of Segars-Andrews to issue a warrant for her arrest and a criminal investigation. This information relates to the qualifications of Segars-Andrews as no person in similar circumstances is / or should be allowed to serve on the bench.
(4) Set forth a list of and provide a copy of any and all documents to be produced at the hearing which relate to your testimony regarding the qualifications of the judicial candidate.
A copy of the 1987 sham divorce granted to Susan.
An annotated copy of Susan’s 1987 sham divorce.
The orders of Segars-Andrews from 1997 and 2002 as referenced above.
Pertinent law.
(5) State any other facts you feel are pertinent to the screening of this judicial candidate.
Following is an excerpt from Segars-Andrews 1993 appointment hearing:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess110_1993-1994/hj93/19930518.htm
Francis P. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews
Q I BELIEVE YOU PRACTICE WITH YOUR HUSBAND; IS THAT RIGHT?
A NO, THAT’S NOT RIGHT. […]
Q TELL ME, WHAT IS YOUR RULE GOING TO BE ON HIM AND OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT MAY PRACTICE WITH HIM OR BE AFFILIATED WITH HIM IN TERMS OF YOUR ELECTION TO THE BENCH? HOW WILL YOU HANDLE THAT?
A I WOULD NOT TAKE ANY CASES THAT HE IS INVOLVED IN, NOR HIS PARTNER.
Segars-Andrews said, “NOR HIS PARTNER”. Mark Andrews is in partnership with Lon Shull. The attorney who did collude, conspire and scheme with officers of the court and Susan Lee Rice in crimes against Richard S. Collette.
[...]
By Kelley Dupre December 11, 2009 at 12:48 am
Lilly Collette. Your rantings are spread all over the internet, making you appear more and more like a crazed, disgruntled litigant. Even if your case has merit, this is no way to go about seeking reparation. From the looks of it I would say Judge Segars-Andrews should get a restraining order against you.
And to Carolina Rose. “Mark and Charlie” (and you have no right to refer to them by their first names since you are obviously no friend of theirs) last visited Scottland almost four years ago for their daughter’s birthday who was going to college there. She’s been back in the states for two years. So get your facts straight.
There’s no use trying to reason with any of you. You will believe what you want. I just wish you knew the kind of pain you are inflicting upon Judge Segars-Andrews and her family by dragging her reputation through the gutter and attempting to discredit 16 years of hard work. I’m sure in those 16 years she has made errors in judgment–we are all human–but she has dedicated her life to using her position to do good and help children who come from broken homes. If you don’t believe me, actually do some research and read about all the programs she has initiated to help our community.
This IS a case of political corruption. How do you explain the fact that Mrs. Limehouse commented to a well-known Charleston attorney over THREE MONTHS AGO that “Judge Segars-Andrews would soon be resigning her position.” Dwell on that.
By Lilly Collette December 11, 2009 at 8:26 am
Allegations of pain suffered by Segars-Andrews presumes facts not yet in evidence.
If Kelley Dupre is not the official spokesperson for Madame Segars-Andrews duly authorized to publicly plead her case then her opinion is just that — ‘her opinion’ — and of no regard.
By Wendy Hill December 11, 2009 at 8:34 am
Hold on…Are you not Kelley Dupre ANDREWS……????? The daughter of the judge in question……??????
By John Grisham December 11, 2009 at 9:32 am
As to whether this is politically motivated: I think not. I have heard too many stories about misdealings and cronyism in this family court system.
To blame the Judicial Screening Committee’s actions on a local legislators wife, who supported a friend in a case long ago, sounds like a stretch to me. It’s a good smoke screen though… guess that’s why the Andrews camp keeps putting it out.
By just me December 11, 2009 at 6:56 pm
The Limehouse story is NOT a smokescreen. It is all over Charleston that Chip has been trying to unseat Segars-Andrews for years because of the Smith case. Hell hath no wrath . . . . After all, the JMSC is trying to unseat her because of one case. This is a political vendetta. Anyone who has read the transcripts of the JMSC screenings (I have; have you?) can see that it is a kangaroo court. The Judge cannot cross-examine witnesses. And just today the staff announced they will not release emails/papers etc to the press. What are they hiding?
We have something called separation of powers. It was created to avoid England’s one person rule system. Unfortunately, here in SC we have “King McConnell” and his band of courtiers.
By Lilly Collette December 13, 2009 at 7:28 am
I have been speaking out against issues of public corruption in the Charleston County family court for years now. I have focused on a case involving my husband as a victim of that corruption—because I am qualified to testify on those facts through first-hand personal experience.
I have not had to use or rely on exaggerated personal opinions—because my stand is firmly based on documented evidence and facts found in public records. I have not had to re-interpret or re-argue established law—because every shred of law pertinent to the case issues stands in favor of my husband and me. I do not owe or offer any apologies that the ‘evidence’, ‘facts’ and ‘law’ stand in our favor.
The people that have profited from the crimes against my husband and me and their minion’s have mocked and ridiculed me for defending my husband and daring to speak out against this criminal enterprise. While that was the risk I took when I stood up and fought back, no public official has had the courage to stand with me—not a single one.
I offer thanks to God alone that as a disabled old woman I still have the strength through his grace to stand up for what is right. Where others stand is not my burden to bear.
By Lilly Collette December 17, 2009 at 5:00 am
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/dec/17/legal-dispute-to-go-through-courts/
Legal dispute to go through courts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
lillycollette wrote:
I like where they are going with this fraud case and the allegations:
[…] acted as custodian of […] accounts linked to […] and, knowingly or not, aided in the […] financial scam. […] instructed […] to transfer […] accounts to […] then proceeded to drain the money. […] As custodian, […] mailed out monthly financial statements “without verifying (or requiring […] to verify) the false account values,” according to a court document filed last week.
These arguements could easily apply to other arena’s such as family court.
By Just us December 18, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Constant comments referring to Judge S-A steering clients her husband’s way are absolutely false. Any attorney who practices in Family Court knows that this is not done AND also that Mark Andrews has not accepted ANY clients for the past 8 years. His practice is limited to mediation, and has been for 8 years. People who seek his services in mediation are NOT his clients – they each have their own attorneys. References to his bullying or intimidating his female clients are a joke, containing no truth whatsoever. Everyone who expects perfection from the judge assigned to his or her hearing is asking for miracles. Under the circumstances of time crunch in which all judges work – often only 15 minutes being scheduled for many hearings – it is mind-boggling to consider the volume of data which they are expected to absorb and process. Judges in Family Court do not have clerks to help them. They do their work alone. They each have a secretary in their offices, and that is all the help they have. Other levels of the judiciary have clerks to assist with paperwork, review details, and manage the process. All of this hoopla over Judge S-A and one case is so clearly unfair and so clearly politically-driven. She has probably handled 15,000 cases in her tenure, and probably more. If you demand that she get each and every detail correct in each and every case, the only way to work on that is to give our judges the time and the help that they need to devote to this number of cases. Even then, perfection is an impossible task for any human being.
By Lilly Collette December 19, 2009 at 4:45 am
TRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS FROM HEARINGS FOR JUDGE SEGARS-ANDREWS
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/judicialmeritpage/TranscriptInfo120209/TranscriptInfoDecember2009.html
By Oshun Aja April 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm
SC family court is one of the most ass backwards, good ol boy goat show.
It’s more about keeping their circle of friends happy than citzen/taxpayer most tragically not about the innocent children who need protection.
By Just us October 17, 2011 at 9:59 pm
“Oshun Aja” daughter of a SC judge that even pulling all the strings he could could not save this woman from herself. She is in the run for back childsupport payments, GAL fees and legal fees, disability fraud and most recently IRS fraud. After she kidnapped her son early last year and running to SC, she tryed to manipulate the system with the help of her father to hide her son. At the end, the judge found her short of “Insane” and has order her to pay, then she ran. However she has been located, she doesnt know yet and she is being watch for a few weeks now. So please dont bother with her post, she is just mad because her Dad could not fix her mess for once. He has in his hands a 40 year old “Mental Case”