Suit Filed Against Judicial Commission

By fitsnews • on December 22, 2009
Comment Print

judge segars andrews lawsuit

Five days ago, FITS reported that Lowcountry, S.C. judge F.P. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews was preparing to file suit against a legislatively-controlled commission that last month deemed her “unfit” to continue serving on the bench.  Oh, we also reported that Charleston-based civil rights attorney Armand Derfner would more than likely be representing her in the case – which we were told was based on “solid constitutional grounds.”

Well whaddya know … today Segars-Andrews formally filed a complaint (with Derfner as her counsel) that raises “serious issues of constitutional law” related to the commission’s controversial decision.

A sixteen-year family court judge, Segars-Andrews was deemed unqualified to serve last month by South Carolina’s notoriously corrupt Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which is chaired by notoriously corrupt Senate President Glenn F. McConnell.

To read the reams of drama associated with this case, click here, here and here.

Share 
fitsfinger

Comments

By PasserBy on December 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm

FITS:

I wonder how many times over her previous qualifications and appointments the Judge complained about the “serious issues” with the process? I’m going to go out on a limb, and say…..zero.

By Todd on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Oh, yeah. Toal’s regime is going down. It’s way past time. Derfner is not afraid of Toal and her do-boys. He knows. He didn’t get to be this rich and ugly bowing to the Queen.

By YouMakeMeFITS on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 am

The only “serious issues of constitutional law” concerned here is the judiciaries ability to review a legislative decision which does not involve the interpretation of a statute or regulation – unlike court rulings, statutes, regulations and executive enforcement actions thereof – the determination of a legislative committee is not subject to judicial review. That is the real constitutional concern here should the judge decide to make a ruling on the case.

By witness on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am

FITS -
Apparently a summation of the story is that the “notoriously corrupt” JMSC found the “notoriously corrupt” Charlie to be unqualified, and Charlie is now asking the “notoriously corrupt” Jean Toal to reverse that finding.

Whacha gonna say if there is an outside investigation finding Charlie to be, in fact, corrupt?

By Amicus on December 23rd, 2009 at 8:23 am

I’m glad to see this judge fighting back because what happened to her was unfair. The Commission report, frankly, is an embarrassment to that committee. Still, from a legal standpoint, can someone explain to me how this isn’t a separation of powers problem? Seriously. Just want to know what the argument is, if anyone is privy to any information.

By Lilly Collette on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 am

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26164

26164 – SC Public Interest Foundation v. Judicial Merit Selection Commission

[…] the State Constitution, in unequivocal terms, vests the power to determine the qualifications for judicial candidates in the General Assembly. Were we to review this case, this Court would be delving into the decision making process of the very body that determines whether the members of this Court are qualified to seek election to the bench. We decline to put the judiciary in a position that would interfere with the selection of its very own members. Accordingly, we hold that the issue of whether Mullen was properly qualified is a nonjusticiable political question. […]

By Lilly Collette on December 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 am

What goes around comes around …

Now Segars-Andrews is a “DISGRUNTLED LITIGANT” spewing “SOUR GRAPES” all over herself and the state of South Carolina. She is as socially unacceptable as the luv-guv.

Shut-up and go home woman honest people have no use or regard for your ilk.

By Guy Richards III on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm

Have you not learned your lesson yet, Ms. Collette?
The entire legal community looks upon you as an unhinged lunatic, obsessed with Judge Segars-Andrews. It is common knowledge that Judge Segars-Andrews threw you out of her court room for incompetence and disrupting court proceedings.
And for your information, Judge Segars-Andrews is not a “disgruntled litigant” because the Court has not yet ruled on her case. Go to law school and learn what you’re talking about. You sound uneducated and absolutely rediculous.

By Lilly Collette on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm

[H]onest people have no use or regard for your ilk. yada, yada, yada.

By witness on December 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Dear Guy III –
Not to take up Ms. Collette’s defense, but I do believe that Mrs. Segars-Andrews having filed suit makes her a “litigant”.
If you were to read Segars-Andrews pleadings, typos and all, I believe that one could reasonably come to the conclusion that she appears to be “disgruntled”.
Therefore, by definition, she is a litigant who gives the appearance of being disguntled.
One does not have to have received a court ruling in order to be a disgruntled litigant, and Segars-Andrews has received what she considers to be an unfair ruling, although not in the courts.

By Lilly Collette on December 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm

For real unhinged frivolously obsessed lunacy see, http://media.charleston.net/2009/pdf/segarsandrewsfiling_122209.pdf

Any law school turning out boring students who perform in such a shabby manner deserve to be shut down.

By Patriot1776 on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Hey Guy Richards III …. A suit is being filed in District Court against Segars-Andrews, et al.

BTW … your energy would be better applied trying to get Jean Toal into AA.

By Patriot1776 on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Some of these lawyers are just weak @ss pussy boys … *sigh*

By Soft Sigh From Hell on December 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Nah, give Lilly and Charlie and GlenniePoo all room to swing. I kind of like ladies’ grudge matches.

By Lilly Collette on December 24th, 2009 at 5:17 am

It says a lot that the only public defense offered for that trespasser to the family court bench (Segars-Andrews) is libelous attacks on those with the courage to stand up to her.

FYI: A judge ceases to be a judge and becomes a trespasser the instant they engage in criminal acts. There is no ‘judge’ Segars-Andrews; there is only the Trespasser Segars-Andrews.

FYI: Courage is not located in reproductive organs.

By Lilly Collette on December 24th, 2009 at 5:19 am

And a MERRY CHRISTMAS to all with the capacity to appreciate what this holiday is about.

By YouMakeMeFITS on December 24th, 2009 at 5:30 am

I am not saying the committee ruled correctly or incorrectly, nor that Judge Seagers-Andrews is a bad person et cetera – I was merely trying to point out the non-reviewability of Committee’s decision by the courts. Any counter point to this by anyone?

By Guy Richards III on December 24th, 2009 at 9:04 am

I got to stop smoking so much crack.

By Soft Sigh From Hell on December 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am

(Columbia) September 28, 2005 – Former gubernatorial spokesman Will Folks has pleaded guilty to criminal domestic violence in a Columbia court.

The 31-year-old Folks was arrested in July and accused of shoving his fiancee, Ashley Smith, into furniture during a heated argument. A week after Folks was arrested, he denied accusations that he shoved her.

Segars-Andrews will find work. Maybe she can get a job with fitsnews. Tell her to stop in at 1201 Main Street.

Administrative Contact:

Will Folks
1201 Main St. Ste. 1100
Columbia, SC 29201
US
Phone: +1.8037481266
Email: w@viewpolitik.com

By Soft Sigh From Hell on December 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

HEY! That wasn’t me. I guess anyone can sign up in anyone else’s handle.

Ah well. I plead, “Not Guilty.”

By Lilly Collette on December 25th, 2009 at 8:56 am

Having a case heard under law and equity — requires — that the petitioner have clean hands.

Somebody better call in the has-mat team to scrub down Segars-Andrews before she proceeds under law and equity cause she’s one dirty piece of business.

By Todd on December 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Soft Sigh From Hell: Yeah, we all know Sic is a slug. So? Jean Toal is corrupt and if she had an honest Commission on Judicial Conduct, neither Goode nor Segars Andrews would have had to endure the JMSC debacles. The legislature would not have to be doing the Queen’s work if she would do it herself. Sic is just the messenger.

By Lilly Collette on December 29th, 2009 at 8:14 am

http://media.charleston.net/2009/text/olmstead_finalpetition_word.doc

Quote:
This case involves matters of extreme and urgent public interest. Not only will the health and safety of thousands of persons who have disabilities be placed at risk if immediate action is not taken by this Court, but the failure of the State of South Carolina to spend these funds, which are undeniably “attributable” to the Section 5001 federal stimulus funds, as required by the ARRA places the State of South Carolina at risk of having to repay the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars. Those funds that have been illegally deposited into the State’s rainy day account are not the only funds at risk of federal recoupment. By violating the rainy day prohibitions of Section 5001 of the ARRA, the federal government may determine that South Carolina did not meet eligibility requirements of the Act, thus requiring the State to repay more than $225,000,000 already transferred by the General Assembly to the State General Fund, in addition to the funds held in the rainy day account.
===================================================

And all this is going on while little ms. white-trash demands the Supremes save her from the nasty JMSC.

Leave a Comment