Robert Marks’ Case: Everything That’s Wrong With ‘Justice’ In South Carolina

How about the fact that this judge is only 36 years old and might be in this position because his dad was mayor and grandfather was attorney general?

There is another part of Judge Coble’s record that the public should know about: his role in my long?running civil case, in which he affirmed an order that does not exist anywhere in the record. After fifteen years of litigation, the Kershaw County probate judge intercepted and returned my motions to compel complete documents that would have shown a promissory note was never fully paid, and then ruled on that issue using an incomplete record. On appeal, oral argument was held remotely before Judge Coble; opposing counsel’s audio was effectively inaudible, which made it impossible to hear his argument and allowed him to reframe the finding under review from “the note was paid” to she never asked for payment status, raising a new issue in the appellate court.
?
When my objections to this were not filed, I sent them directly to Judge Coble’s clerk, who acknowledged receipt but never provided any response or ruling. I then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which said I should have pursued Rule 60 motions in the lower courts, even though the key evidence was already in the record. When I tried to follow that directive and file the required Rule 60 motions, Judge Coble instead ordered the case closed and directed the clerks not to accept further filings, creating a procedural barrier that prevented his own order—effectively affirming a non?existent order—from ever being challenged as void.

The case is now being taken to the United States Supreme Court to address these due?process violations and the broader problem in South Carolina where the judiciary largely polices itself. In such systems, self?regulation without meaningful external accountability can operate to shield and protect insiders rather than the public. These “procedural dead ends,” used to block serious oversight, prevent ordinary litigants from ever obtaining a neutral hearing on substantial federal rights violations. Amicus support from organizations and individuals concerned with judicial accountability and meaningful access to the courts would be greatly appreciated to help ensure that these issues of self?policing judiciaries and “procedural dead ends” receive the careful consideration they deserve.