South Carolina Judicial Coup: Are Legislators Coming to Their Senses?

Okay FITS, here is my comment again:
You would think that Jay Lucas is a crazed moron and that the world would end if he were elected to South Carolina’s Supreme Court replacing that arrogant faux intellectual and womanizer John Cannon Few, who has no moral compass, only love of the sound of his own voice.
Have YOU, Will Folks, read Jay Lucas’ PDQ and his testimony before South Carolina’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission?
I did not know the man and never met him.
And frankly, my favorite candidate is Administrative Court Chief Judge Ralph King Anderson, III, a superb person and intellect in his own right and the heir of one of the best legal minds South Carolina ever saw in its judiciary: the late Ralph King Anderson, Jr., who, incidentally, was first elected to the trial bench from the General Assembly.
But after reading Jay Lucas’ PDQ and testimony, I thanked God I do not have to vote on this because I would have torn between Anderson and Lucas.
Will Folks, you served Mark Sanford, whose animosity to the Legislature was legendary. Sanford’s legacy is hiking the Appalachian trail.
What right have you to transform Jay Lucas’ honorable and capable service in South Carolina’s House of Representatives into a scarlet letter?
Why is prior service on South Carolina’s bench itself not a scarlet letter?
If, according to you, South Carolina’s current Legislature is corrupt and current governor is useless, why should we think of South Carolina’s Judiciary as the beacon of integrity and sense in a rotten state?
Your choice of the word “coup” is telling. It betrays your thinking that John Cannon Few owns his thrown and anyone who challenges “a sitting Justice” in a fair and free election is seditious.
Let’s see if you run this comment of mine.

FITS of the supposed open-mic policy, here again is my second comment:
“no finer group of judges in the country”?
Really, FITS, you are either now paid by John Cannon Few, on whose personal shenanigans you previously reported, OR in reality Jay Lucas does not have a chance and you know it BUT you are opposing his election so that, when his candidacy is defeated, you can take credit as the most powerful media outlet in the state.
Let’s examine your, and David Pascoe’s, supposed “logic” and the supposed “logic” of Jay Lucas’ detractors.
First, Jay Lucas has long ago VOLUNTARILY left South Carolina’s Legislature after having served there capably and honorably for a decade.
Jay Lucas has NO more POWER over South Carolina’s House of Representatives than any other lawyer in private practice.
Indeed, having only a solo private practice, Jay Lucas has LESS POWER over South Carolina’s legislators than private lawyers from large law firms such as Maynard Nexsen, previously Nexsen Pruitt, which has groomed for election Michelle Childs and Tanya Gee among others.
The large law firms have power over lawyer legislators because they can hire lawyer legislatures or their relatives.
Jay Lucas’ private SOLO practice cannot do that.
Jay Lucas has EVEN LESS POWER over South Carolina’s legislators that candidates from federal or state governments such as the U.S. Attorney’s office or even county magistrates before whom any lawyer legislator might come as a criminal defendant or as a lawyer for a criminal defendant.
And Jay Lucas has ZERO financial POWER over South Carolina’s legislators because, as a private community-minded solo practice, he has no wherewithal to throw lavish parties or make corporate deals which might benefit a sitting legislator of his/her relatives or friends.
All power Jay Lucas has is the MORAL AUTHORITY of his prior honorable public service which rightly won the affection and admiration of his colleagues.
But you make it sound as if it were a crime to stand for election to any office without prior experience related to that office.
Need I remind Jay Lucas’ detractors that Donald Trump has NO GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER when he first ran for President in 2016?
Need I remind the Democrats that Jimmy Carter had no FEDERAL experience when he ran for President in 1976 and no state government experience when he ran for Georgia Governor before that?
There is NOTHING more democracy-and-freedom-promoting-and-reinvigorating than an outsider challenging an entrenched incumbent and, hopefully, winning.
Back to “no finer group of judges in the country”! That is NOT determined by a South Carolina’s lone sitting legislator’s say-so.
There are OBJECTIVE criteria of how a judge or “group of judges” is rated “in the county.”
These criteria include how often their opinions are favorably cited by other courts and how often their judicial ideas are adopted by other state courts. Same for federal circuit courts of appeals. And for all state courts of last resorts and federal circuit courts of appeals, an additional important criterion is how often they are REVERSED by the U.S. Supreme Court.
By these OBJECTIVE criteria, South Carolina’s CURRENT and PREVIOUS supreme courts do NOT rank much better than South Carolina’s educational system.
Perhaps an outsider might, God willing, help shake that mediocrity off if FITS and David Pascoe would leave that outsider alone to have his fair chance at a free, fair, and transparent election.

“throne” not “thrown” in my previous comments.
In the rush of the moment, the mind sees what it intended to type, not what the hand actually typed.
But a cooler second look sees the prior errors.
I pray FITS and David Pascoe see the error of their opposition to Jay Lucas’ candidacy.

Notice something?
In the lower right corner of the photo, John Cannon Few stands alone glaring at groups of legislators who are talking to each other and not interested in him.
Notice another thing? John Canon Few lists one of his crowning achievements as chairing the Access to Justice Commission; YET, he co-signed order after order requiring ME, who thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER did for myself what Alex Murdaugh’s entire defense team could not do for him, to hire a lawyer to appear before SC’s civil courts as a plaintiff or appellant and to use the tedious paper filing when ALL OTHERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA including disbarred lawyers and serial murderers and rapists may appear pro se and avail themselves of filing by e-mail.
Indeed, John Cannon Few co-signed an order putting ME in the dreaded Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (“ASGDC”) where I was struck with Atrial Fibrillation which has since become permanent and incurable and where SEVERAL other inmates DIED due to neglect of medical needs, SOLELY BECAUSE I had allegedly used POLITE four emails to enquire about the processing of my cases WHEN THE COURTHOUSE WERE PHYSICALLY CLOSED due to CoViD-19.
“Access to Justice” indeed!
Again, it is crucial for SC’s Legislature to see the COMPLETE record of SC Appellate Case 2021-000815 and show the public how different John Canon Few is in the dark of sealed records from under national camera lights.

Remember in reading this transcript that ALL their beef against me were four POLITE alleged emails inquiring why my cases disappeared from the public C-Track docket when the PHYSICAL courthouses were closed to the public due to CoViD-19.
For those mere alleged four POLITE emails over a 22-month period “Justice” Few first forced me to reveal my medical intimacies to recover my BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to speak for myself but later threw me in jail anyway after promising equal and fair treatment.
And he somehow expects me to be grateful?!?!?
Here, God willing and FITS permitting, is the complete transcript:
[Page 1] ORIGINAL
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Before the Supreme Court of South Carolina
COUNTY OF RICHLAND TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD CORRECTED ORIGINAL
In the Matter of: Marie Assa’ad Faltas, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2021-000815
A Hearing was held in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of South Carolina beginning at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 22, 2022 to confirm the desire of the Respondent to proceed pro se in an upcoming Rule to Show Cause Contempt Action to be held on March 22, 2022.
The Court consisted of Justice John W. Kittredge; Justice Kaye G. Hearn; Justice John C. Few; Justice George C. James, Jr.; and Former Court of Appeals Chief Judge James E. Lockemy.
The Office of the Attorney General was represented by Donald J. Zelenka, Esquire.
The Respondent appeared pro se.
Ms. K.A. Snelling, CVR-M Court Reporter for Office of Commission Counsel
RECEIVED MAR 09 2022
S.C. SUPREME COURT
[Page 2] INDEX TO EXAMINATION
Dr. Marie Assa’ad Faltas
Examination by Justice Few —————– 5
Certificate of Reporter ———————– 22
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
There were no Exhibits Submitted during this Hearing
[Page 3, lines 1-2] (Whereupon, the Hearing commenced at 1:35 p.m. on the 22nd day of February, 2022)
[3] CLERK OF COURT: All rise.
[4 to page 4, line 5] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: [4-9] Please be seated. Thank you. Good afternoon, we’re on the record in the South Carolina Supreme Court, this is In the Matter of Dr. Marie Faltas, who is pre-sent. Chief Justice Beatty is not sitting, and in his stead we’re pleased to have Judge Lockemy with us. Thank you, sir, for sitting with us here. [10-16] The proceeding today arises from a Rule to Show Cause Contempt Action against Dr. Marie Faltas. Dr. Faltas is present, as is Mr. Zelenka from the Attorney General’s Office on behalf of the movant. The limited purpose of today’s hearing is to confirm what ap-pears to be Dr. Faltas’ desire and decision to proceed pro se in this contempt proceeding. [17-23] And Dr. Faltas, we thank you, ma’am, for being here today. We understand from your submissions that you wish to represent yourself, and we understand that and respect that. [24 to page 4, line 3] The law requires that a court ensure that an accused is properly informed of her rights before waiving the right to legal counsel and granting a request to proceed pro se, in other words, self-representation. Dr. Faltas, you’re going to be asked questions from the Court, primarily, if not exclusively, from Justice Few. And it’s nec-essary for us to ensure that whatever decision you choose to make, you do so freely and voluntarily of your own free will. [4-5] I will tell those in the Courtroom if you wish to remove your mask, you’re free to do so at this time.
[6] DR. FALTAS: Judge —
[7-11] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: It’s also necessary that I place you under oath before we begin the ques-tions about your decision for legal representation or your desire to proceed pro se. So at this time, Dr. Faltas, I’d ask if you’d raise your right hand please, ma’am?
[12-17] DR. FALTAS: No, sir, I do not swear for religious reasons. And I also handed to the Clerk a motion for this hear-ing, and it includes documented that both my knees are fractured. So I need at least permission to address the Court from a seated position, unless this is going to be a torture Star Chamber.
[18-23] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: [18-21] No, ma’am, you can remain seated the whole time, there’s no rea-son for you to stand. And we will certainly review the motion that you have filed with the Court. [22-23] Do you affirm that the statements and testimony you give to the Court today will be truthful?
[24] DR. FALTAS: Yes, sir.
[5 to page 5, line 4] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: [5 to page 5, line 3] Thank you, ma’am. That is sufficient for the oath, so now the oath has been administered. At this time I’ll turn it over to Justice Few. [4] Justice Few?
[5] DR. FALTAS – EXAMINATION BY JUSTICE FEW:
[6 to page 7, line 12] Q: [6-13] Dr. Faltas, as you know, you have the right to be represented by an attorney. As you also know, you have the right to represent yourself. As Justice Kittredge mentioned, you have fairly clearly indicated that you wish to represent yourself in this contempt proceeding. To represent yourself however you must make a valid waiver of your right to have an attorney represent you. [14-21] Now I’m going to talk to you about some of the things that we need to talk about today, and I want you to be cooperative with me. Because if representing yourself is what you want, then the purpose of this hearing is to enable you to do that. I’m aware that you are very familiar with all of these things that we’re going to talk about because you’ve been through these hearings before. [22 to page 6, line 3] But I’m going to talk to you about some of the things that I and the other members of this Court, first, must ask you in order to know after you’ve heard everything that I’m going to talk to you about do you still want to represent yourself? And second, if you want to represent yourself we need to know that you are mak-ing a valid waiver to your right to counsel. [4-18] So there are several subjects that are important to your waiver of your right to counsel, and I’m going to discuss those with you now. Your educational back-ground is important to this question. I am aware that you are highly educated. In fact, you have multi-ple degrees including a Master’s in Public Health from the University of North Carolina. You have a graduate degree in medicine from a university in Cairo. You have, in fact, practiced medicine profes-sionally, and you actually taught preventative medicine at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine. This educational background indicates that you are a highly intelligent woman. And I will note that you have listed that you are self-employed as a consultant in medical legal issues. And you have told the Court before that you speak four languages. [19 to page 7, line 3] Your understanding of legal principles and procedures is important to this question. We are aware that you have been involved in extensive litigation over many years at all levels of Court here in South Carolina, both federal and state. From my review of those cases over the years, and from my review of the motions and the returns and the other documents that you have filed in this case it is my impression that you have a broad and deep understanding of legal principles and procedures. [4-10] Your mental health is important to this question. In one of the cases that you have currently on appeal here at this Court you were interrogated by Judge Marion Hanna about whether you had ever been evaluated for mental illness. You told Judge Hanna on March the 28th, 2011 that you had been evaluated for mental health issues and you have no mental health issues. [11-12] Now Dr. Faltas, so far is there anything that I have said that you disagree with?
[13-14] A: Yes, Sir. You said that I have been through these hearings, in the plural, before.
[15] Q: Excuse me?
[16-18] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: Just one second. I want to make sure the Court Reporter can hear be-cause we’re on the record. Can you hear?
[19-20] JUDGE LOCKEMY: Probably need to move that microphone up.
[21-22] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: Which microphone is yours, Madam Court Reporter?
[23] COURT REPORTER: The silver one, if she could —
[24 to page 8, line 1] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: All right, let’s try to move both of them closer. And if you need assistance in doing that we’ll certainly accommodate you, Dr. Faltas.
[2] JUSTICE FEW: Let’s move the other one up too.
[3-5] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: Madam Clerk, let’s see if we can move the other one closer to Dr. Faltas? (Microphones moved closer to Dr. Faltas).
[6-7] Q: Okay. Now I didn’t hear what you said, so could you repeat?
[8-10] A: You’re asking me if there is something that needs correction. And I said yes, there are things that need correc-tion.
[11] Q: Tell me what it is?
[12 to page 9, line 10] A: [12-19] Okay. First you said I have been through those hearings, in the plural, before. I have not. I have been through only one hearing where Judge then South Carolina Circuit Judge Barber gave me the Faretta in-quiry. And I consider it a travesty, that he admitted that he agrees that I have a constitutional right to represent myself, but he said something to the effect that his hands are tied because of what you all ordered. [20 to page 9, line 3] I think judg-es take oath to the Constitution, not to the South Carolina Supreme Court. And I am indignant at what has been done to me. I think it is no better than Jim Crow when you have had at least 400 lawyers who either were suspended definite-ly, publicly reprimanded, indefinitely suspended, disbarred, debarred. And all 400 of them, including one who had con-sumed drugs or alcohol and killed somebody, and you did not take their rights to speak for themselves. [4-10] I consider it a violation of my human rights, basic human rights, forget about Faretta and all that stuff, it’s a basic human right to speak for oneself. And I consider what you’re doing to me Jim Crow revisited on lawful immigrants. And because my conscience requires me to tell the truth, that is part of the truth, so I’ve been only to one hearing where the Faretta —
[11-14] Q: So I used the plural when I described the Faretta Hearings that you had been through before, and you’ve corrected me that you’ve only been through Faretta one time?
[15] A: yes, sir.
[16] Q: Okay.
[17 to page 10, line 9] A: [17-23] The other thing is you said Marion Hanna questioned me. Marion Hanna is obsessed, obsessed with trying to get people to get mentally examined. And that’s why I made the motion for your Court to take posses-sion of her two so-called novels which are easily the worst ever written in English language. Because that is morbid. [24 to page 10, line 5] And that is really another travesty that your Office of Disciplinary Counsel did something to her, but it was — you are supposed to protect the public from women like her. Just as you’re supposed to protect the public from in-competent and ineffective and selfish and treasonous lawyers. And I do not think you’re rising to this duty. [6-9] And you are wanting me to suppress my conscience, I will not do that. I will not suppress my conscience. Now the reason I told Marion Hanna that I, and that was –
[10-11] Q: Ma’am, the reason I brought up Judge Hanna was simply to —
[12] A: She’s not a judge, I’m sorry.
[13-15] Q: — simply to point out the context in which you made the statement that you had been evaluat-ed and you didn’t have any mental health issues.
[16] A: The reason —
[17-23] Q: Let me follow up on that if you don’t mind? I’m going to ask you three questions right here, these are yes or no questions. Depending on your answers an explanation might be warranted. But I would like if you don’t mind, would you give me a yes or no answer to these questions. And then we’ll see whether an explanation is necessary.
[24] A: Yes; Sir.
[25 to page 11, line 1] Q: Have you taken any alcohol, medication, or drugs in the last 24 hours?
[2-3] A: Sir, I take, every day I need to take a replacement thyroid hormone.
[4] Q: So medication. And it’s by prescription?
[5] A: Yes, sir.
[6-8] Q: And when you take that medication have you taken it consistent with the prescription that was given to you by the doctor who prescribed it?
[9-11] A: I have had that condition for 42 years now. And it is just, it’s almost equivalent of insulin for diabetics.
[12-16] Q: But let me repeat my question, and I want to remind you this is a yes or no question. When you’ve taken this medication that you just referred to over the last few weeks, have you taken it accord-ing to the prescription that the doctor gave you?
[17] A: Yes, sir, every day.
[18-19] Q: Okay. Now how about alcohol or any illegal drugs?
[20] A: (Moves head from side to side).
[21] Q: I understand. You’re shaking your head no.
[22] A: No, no.
[23-24] Q: Okay. So are you under the influence today of any drugs or medication or alcohol?
[25] A: No; sir.
[Page 12, lines 1-4] Q: Have you been evaluated for your mental health since that incident that I referred to where you told — you mentioned that you’d been evaluated before, have you been evaluated since?
[5] A: Yes, sir:
[6-7] Q: Did those evaluations as far as you know reveal any mental health concerns?
[8] A: At different times I was very depressed.
[9] Q: Depressed?
[10-17] A: Depressed, yes. And the depression happens even classically in people who have been wrongly incarcerated. And once they are released there is a euphoria of the release, but after that when you look back on how much of your life is lost you do get depressed. To the day, to the day, on 22 February, 2010 I started the five-day jury trial before Judge Clifton Newman.
[18-21] Q: Ma’am, let’s stay focused, okay? And we’ll try to get through this as simply and easily as we can. I’m asking, my question for you is since March of 2011 have you been evaluated for your mental health?
[22] A: I have been depressed since then.
[23] Q: Okay. But —
[24 to page 13, line 7] A: But it doesn’t affect my ability to understand things. And most importantly, sir, one of the cures for depression is creativity. And one of the things, and I tell the joke which is true, that I got admitted to medical school in Egypt at age 17 is because I proved I was superbly qualified to be an engineer. So one of the things that cure my de-pression are the engineering inventions that I work on on my own and that this farce is taking me away from.
[8-12] Q: So I think what you said a second ago is that the depression that you just mentioned is not af-fecting your ability to understand. Are there any other mental issues right now that are affecting your ability to understand?
[13-14] A: I don’t think they affect my ability. But I’m very afraid of you all, I really am.
[15] Q: But you do have the ability to understand?
[16] A: Absolutely.
[17 to page 16, line 5] Q: [17-21] Okay. Now what I’m going to do, it’s also important to a valid waiver of counsel that you be aware of the dangers of representing yourself, and that you understand how and in what way a lawyer can help you on many of these issues. [22 to page 14, line 4] On February 17th of this year in a document that you called Respondent’s Emergency Response to this Court’s February 22nd order, which is the order — I’m sorry, February 15th order, which is the order setting this hearing, you wrote “Dr. Assa’ad Faltas reiterates that she heard the dangers of self-representation previously recited and understands what the judges mean by them.” [5-12] I have no doubt that you understand the dangers of representing yourself, but I’m still going to go over some of them now. And at the end I’m going to ask you if you understand all those dangers. There are jurisdictional issues at stake here, and you have raised some of these jurisdictional issues already. A lawyer could help you to better understand those jurisdictional issues. [13-15] You have raised recusal issues, there may be other issues that you want to raise regarding recusal. And a lawyer could help you to better understand those issues. [16-19] In every proceeding, certainly this one, there are going to be procedural issues, and you have already raised a few of the procedural issues. A lawyer could help you to better understand those procedural issues. [20-24] We have to operate in this Courtroom by rules of Court, they bind us, they bind Mr. Zelenka, and they will bind you. A lawyer could help you better to understand those rules of court and what conduct is permitted and what conduct is not permitted according to those rules. [25 to page 15, line 3] In every proceed-ing such as the one we’re going to have there are going to be evidentiary issues. A lawyer could help you to better understand those evidentiary issues. [4-11] There are substantive issues regarding contempt, and those relate particularly to what the state would have to prove and what this Court would have to find in order for you to be found in contempt of court. There may be defenses that you could assert to the contempt charge. A lawyer could help you to understand better all of the substantive issues, including whether or not there are any defenses to the charge of contempt. [12-18] There are constitutional issues that might be at stake. In fact, you have already raised constitutional issues and you’ve done it here to-day. And I just want to make sure you understand that there are many times when even the judges on this Court don’t understand the constitutional issues, so a lawyer could certainly help you to better un-derstand those constitutional issues. [19 to page 16, line 2] And if you are found guilty of contempt, there could, there are going to be punishment issues. And as you are aware, if the Court finds you guilty of Contempt of Court the Court may choose to fine you, may choose to place other restrictions on you, and even imprison you for a term of up to six months. A lawyer could help you to understand the potential consequences of a finding of contempt and help you to mitigate or perhaps even eliminate those conse-quences. [3-5] Now is there anything that I just explained to you in the way of the dangers of self-representation that you do not understand?
[6-16] A: What I do not understand is whether you’re talking about a hypothetical, rarified, romanticized lawyer who maybe graduated top of her class from Yale, or the average lawyer that is likely to be imposed on me, who works against me, who sometimes some lawyers have been described, at least one by U.S. District Judge Gergel as exhibiting stunning ignorance of the law. So I do not understand whether you mean that all lawyers have the same ability or you agree that there is a range of, number one, competence, and number two, devotion to the client?
[17 to page 17, line 4] Q: [17 to page 17, line 1] As far as I know to answer your question, as far as I know there’s really been no discussion about who the lawyer would be if you chose to be represented by a lawyer. And as you point out, there is a spectrum of quality of lawyering. We would certainly hope that we would find someone who could do what I just talked to you about, which is to help you to better under-stand all of the issues that I discussed which are what I was referring to generally as the dangers of self- representation. [2-4] Now setting the quality of the lawyer aside, do you understand all of the dangers of self-representation that I just went over with you?
[5-6] A: I even understand some that you have not mentioned.
[7-8] Q: So I understand your answer to be yes, and I understand more than what you were telling me?
[9] A: Yes.
[10-12] Q: Okay, good. Now do you have any questions for me about your right to counsel or your right to represent yourself?
[13-23] A: [13-21] I wanted to tell you that I also understand that the judges’ perception that the lawyer is better or smarter or whatever than the pro se person is itself an advantage — a disadvantage and a risk of self-representation. And to that extent, the same brilliant legal argument could come from a lawyer and you would say oh, that’s brilliant, that’s new, that gives us food for thought. But it would come from me and you would say it’s frivolous and say no more than that. [22-23] And I’ve had a natural experiment. Do you know what a natural experiment is?
[24 to page 18, line 2] Q: Well ma’am, I’m going to want us to — we’re almost done, and you’re doing great. But I want to make sure we stay focused. Do you have any other questions that you want to ask me?
[3-7] A: Yes. Do you promise to be as receptive to my pro se advocacy as you would be to a lawyer considering that my objective record so far is better than a lawyer? For one thing, for one thing I pro se, thank God, won a PCR case which withstood the state’s —
[8-15] Q: So let me answer your question. It’s really not my role to make promises here. But I will remind you, as I’m sure you know, that it is our duty to do what you just said. It’s actually part of the oath that we all take as judges to listen fairly to every person who comes in here to raise a position. So that’s my answer to your question. Are there any other questions that you have?
[16-19] A: Yes. In this proceeding you are my accusers. Do I have the right to confront you? And I have a suspicion that you want to impose a lawyer on me because you want that lawyer to force me to give up that choice.
[20-25] Q: My answer to your question is that that is one of the procedural and constitutional issues that could be raised at the trial of these contempt charges, and a lawyer could help you to better understand those procedural issues. Are there any other questions that you have?
[Page 19, lines 1-2] A: I’m sorry, sir, you have not answered my question.
[3-5] Q: Ma’am, you might not be satisfied with my answer, but I gave you my answer. Now I’m going to ask you again, are there any other questions that you have?
[6-7] A: Yes. If you could please look at the motion that I just served?
[8-10] Q: As Justice Kittredge indicated at the beginning of the hearing, we will look at the motion. Yes, ma’am. Are there any other questions?
[11-14] A: Will I be allowed to require discovery from Mr. Zelenka, and will you promise to ensure that he responds to discovery within the limited time that I have? I mean what I’m trying to —
[15-19] Q: I can answer that question by telling you again that’s one of the procedural issues that could be raised. And it is our duty to rule according to the law, and so we will follow that duty. So are there any other questions?
[20-21] A: No, thank you. And thank you for being pleasant today.
[22] Q: All right, ma’am.
[23 to page 20, line 5] A: I really was afraid that if I smiled you’d say you’re taking the procedure as a joke, you’re in con-tempt. If I didn’t smile you would say she has a hostile look on her face, she’s in contempt. Because this is exactly, ex-actly what Marion Hanna did to me. And for 12 years you all failed your duty to protect the public from that. So I was afraid of you. But I want. To thank you for being pleasant.
[6-8] Q: So having heard everything that I had to say to you, do you want this Court to appoint a lawyer for you or do you want to represent yourself?
[9-15] A: I God willing want to represent myself more than ever. However, having reviewed Faretta, the Court does have the right to appoint standby counsel over my objection. So if you want to appoint standby counsel you could do that, it would be over my objection. But I just was, you know, wanting you to have your heart at ease about having done everything possible.
[16-17] Q: So to be clear, in response to what you just said, you would object to standby counsel?
[18-19] A: But Faretta says the Court has the right to do standby counsel over —
[20-21] Q: But let me make sure I have this, you object to it though, right?
[22] A: Yes.
[23 to page 21, line 2] Q: Okay. Now I want to ask you one more question. Has any person or any other cir-cumstance put pressure on you or forced you in any way to make the decision to represent yourself, or in your mind can you tell me that you are doing this freely and voluntarily?
[3] A: Freely and voluntarily.
[4] JUSTICE FEW: Okay. Thank you, ma’am.
[5] DR. FALTAS: Thank you.
[6-7] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: [6] Thank you, Justice Few. [7] And Dr. Faltas, thank you, ma’am.
[8] DR. FALTAS: Thank you.
[9-17] JUSTICE KITTREDGE: [9-13] I will on behalf of the entire Court echo what Justice Few said about our duty to treat all litigants, represented and unrepresented fairly, equally, and in accordance with the law, both procedurally and substantively. [14-17] Are there any questions from other members of the Court? (No response). Hearing none, that concludes this matter. Thank you all for being here today. We’ll issue an order in accordance with our ruling.
[18-19] (Whereupon, the hearing concluded at 2:01 p.m. on the 22nd day of February, 2022)
RECEIVED
MAR 09 2022
S.C. SUPREME COURT
[Page 23] CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, the undersigned K.A. Snelling, Official Court Reporter for the Office of Commission Counsel and Notary Public for the State of South Carolina, do hereby certify:
That the foregoing is a true, accurate, and complete transcript of record of all the proceedings had and any evidence introduced in the captioned matter on the 22nd day of February, 2022.
I do further certify that I am neither related to nor counsel for, nor interest to any party hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this 23rd day of February, 2022.
[s/] Kathy A. Snelling CVR-M
Certified Court Reporter
Notary Public for South Carolina
My Commission Expires: May 16, 2028

“22-26 February 2010” not “22-26 February 2026”
That is 16 years to the week they have been punishing me for having been innocent and having proved it without a lawyer.
And the proof that they have been punishing me ever since is that transcript which proves they mounted a whole new criminal case against me for allegedly violating an edict that all South Carolina litigants can communicate with the courts by email and phone ESCEPT ME.
That is why I say John Canon Few has no moral compass: instead of investigating those who knowingly and maliciously brought false criminal charges against me in 2009 and before and since, they were prosecuting me as late as 2022 for allegedly violating an unfair edict of theirs.
Again I ask you to see the truth: John Canon Few is NOT a victim of retaliation for a principled opinion he wrote, he is VERY unprincipled in the dark.
And I am physically tired and sorry for myself that no one, not even Judge Clifton Newman, who complimented me during that five-day jury trial as “most pleasant and gracious” and “not frivolous at all,” stood up to defend me against John Canon Few’s & Co.’s LIES about me and their branding me “frivolous and vexatious” just because they can.
I pray that John Canon Few is not re-elected and that he then takes some time to view it as divine justice for what he joined in doing to me when he could have just as easily dissented and defended me.
God bless nonetheless.

Because John Canon Few’s questions in the oral arguments of Murdaugh’s case is counted among the reasons to keep Few on his throne, I have several corrections to questions in the oral arguments; and an important lecture on some principles of science.
First, the scientific method is what brought humanity out of the dark ages and witchcraft into the light of modern tech.
You do not need to be a scientist to understand, and use in your everyday thinking and decision-making, the scientific method.
To capsulize it, the scientific method relies on OBSERVATIONS, controlled quantified replicable experimentation, and CALCULATIONS.
That is THE OPPOSITE of speculation.
Yet, speculation, and speculation alone, is what made the first responders on the scene suspect Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”); and the media-consuming public followed these speculations, most recently rehashed by Ever-Bluffing Eric Bland (“EBEB”), who profited abundantly from both the deaths of Paul and Maggie and from the murders being pinned on RAM.
The speculations go essentially, “RAM must be the shooter because I WOULD HAVE BEHAVED DIFFERENTLY if my wife and son had been shot by someone else.”
That is THE OPPOSITE of scientific thinking.
Of course, it is unethical to take a group of male lawyers in their fifties, shoot their wives and sons in their absence, then observe and quantify their reactions upon discovering the bodies.
But Science has a work-around to observe what cannot be done by controlled experiments. That work-around is THE NATURAL EXPERIMENT.
For example, it would be unethical to take a large group of heart patients, leave half of them asleep as normal, but brutally awake the other half from sleep to see if lack of sleep would increase the heart-attack deaths among them.
The natural experiment there is the change of the clock twice a year for daylight saving time.
And INDEED, it is observed that the NATURAL increase or decrease of one hour of sleeping time due changing the clock is correlated with increase or decrease of heart attacks and heart-attack deaths.
Do we have a NATURAL EXPERIMENT on how a spouse reacts IMMEDIATELY when the other spouse is fatally shot by someone else?
YES we do.
That natural experiment is the then-first-lady’s IMMEDIATE reaction when President Kennedy was shot.
And that reaction is documented in the Zapruder film.
Jackie Kennedy may have LATER hugged her husband’s lifeless body and not wanted to let go of it for burial. But Jackie Kennedy’s IMMEDIATE reaction was to jump AWAY from that body and help a secret service man to the presidential limousine for protection.
Please review the Zapruder film and stills from it for yourselves.
Self-protection is INSTINCTUAL and CONSISTENT with RAM’s running back to the house while on the 911 call to get a gun.
Law enforcement officers and investigators should be better trained to NOT use their own speculations about what they “would have” done if innocent INSTEAD OF the observations derived from natural experiments.
I have other mini-lectures about touch DNA and firearm markings which I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, post later.

(Detected typos corrected)
Second mini-lecture: Actually, two snow flakes COULD be alike. Two unrelated people COULD have the same finger prints. And two bullets fired from different firearms COULD have the same markings.
Touch DNA shall, God willing and FITS permitting, be explained in the third mini-lecture.
Just as a single lottery ticket OR fifty different lottery tickets sold in fifty states COULD hit the jackpot in the same draw.
How so?
Actually, the mathematical principle is rather simple: combinations and permutations. One looks at the probability of a limited number of subjects being selected AT RANDOM from a larger set of subjects IN ANY ORDER. The other looks at the probability of the same number of subjects being selected AT RANDOM from the same larger set of subjects IN A PARTICULAR ORDER.
Some lotteries have the winning numbers in ascending order only (for example 1, 2, 3); others have them in any order (for example 1, 2, 3, OR 1, 3, 2, OR 2, 1, 3, OR 2, 3, 1, OR 3, 2, 1, OR 3, 1, 2).
The probability of selecting 1, 2, and 3, AT RANDOM from a set of 1 – 9 IN ANY ORDER in three draws in which the already drawn number is figuratively put back in the hat is 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 = 1/729.
But if the already-drawn number is NOT put back in the hat, the probability is 1/9 x 1/8 x 1/7 = 1/504, which is a greater probability.
If the larger set were only 1 – 6, the probabilities are 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/216 and 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 = 1/120, respectively, which are still greater probabilities.
But if the larger set were only 1 – 3, the probabilities are 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27 and 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1 = 1/6, respectively, which are still much grater probabilities.
The certainty is 1/1 and that is of drawing 1, 2 AND 3 IN ANY ORDER out of a hat with only 1 – 3 when the already drawn number is NOT put back in the hat.
The purpose of that exercise was to demonstrate that the smaller the bigger set, the higher the probability.
I do not know about snow flakes because, as soon as you capture one to examine it, it melts. Thus no scientific validation of “no two snow flakes are alike” is possible. So, stop saying it!
What about fingerprints?
There are only ridges and grooves (and some scars) which form loops and whorls in THE LIMITED AREA of the size of a human finger tip multiplied by the number of fingers a normal uninjured human has. That denominator is large BUT MUCH SMALLER the billions of human beings on earth. So, the probability of two unrelated human beings out of the billions on earth having the identical prints of one, for example right index, finger is NOT ZERO. In fact it is substantial.
So, the idea that fingerprints are unique is NOT scientifically valid.
First, there is no biologically-plausible need or evolutionary reason for it to be so.
Next, to actually positively validate it, ALL human beings on earth would have to be accurately ten-finger-finger-printed with PRECISELY the same technique. All that is required for it to be disproven is to find two unrelated human beings with the same prints of one finger, which believe it or not, has already happened at least twice in documented court cases.
That is the same for tool markings on spent bullets. There is a finite number of markings on the very small area of a bullet; so, it is QUITE POSSIBLE for two bullets fired from different weapons to have the same markings.
In the Murdaugh case oral arguments, Justice Few WRONGLY stated that the theories of uniqueness of finger prints and of tool marks are valid but they are not applied rigorously enough in the field.
Really, except for DNA, almost nothing forensic was applied rigorously enough, if at all, in the Murdaugh investigation. But the underlying theories of uniqueness of fingerprints and of tool marks are mathematically invalid.
Ready for mini-lecture 3?

John Cannon Few’s last-minute withdrawal is an act of cowardice, selfishness, arrogance, and for a former Duke mascot, total lack of sportsmanship. Yes, it is customary for the lowest-vote-pledge-getting candidate to withdraw; BUT that is for open seats when the screening had already been done for an open seat and the withdrawal of the unfavored candidate does NOT halt the election. The rules are different when the incumbent is a candidate and withdraws at the last minute. The other candidates have to be re-screened and the election rescheduled, perhaps to a date AFTER Few’s current term expires. Thus, he plans to continue on the bench UNELECTED beyond his elected term. Few should have stood up like a man in the election and let the world see how few, if any, votes he had earned. Instead, like an unruly child, he took the football and went home. Or, like the Biblical Samson, Few brought the temple down on himself and his competitors. Ironically, Few boasts an article of his titled “The Courage of a Lawyer.” What Few did is the OPPOSITE of courage. Few talks the talk but does NOT walk the walk. That alone suffices to explain why few, if any, electors in South Carolina’s General Assembly liked Few for a second term on SC’s supreme court. A man’s character matters when he wants to continue as a judge. And character is revealed, not by a man’s word, but by a man’s instinctual acts in a crunch. Instead of graciously acknowledging the competitor who bested Few in vote pledges, Few threw a temper tantrum and delayed the likely-successful candidate’s election, perhaps indefinitely.

One more source of “pride” for John Canon Few must be the ramp-to-nowhere, now and apparently hurriedly placed there before the 11 February 2026 Murdaugh oral arguments, at the front of South Carolina’s supreme court building.
In prior comments on this media outlet, I noted how Kittredge had forced his new clerk, Pat Howard, to send me a letter LYING about an ADA-compliant ramp being built in 2023 at the front of the building when there was, and there still is, a perfectly good ramp in the back of the building only the Court does not want the great unwashed public to use it.
2023 no new ramp.
2024 no new ramp.
2025 no new ramp.
2026 a new ram to nowhere pops up for the photo ops.
It has too steep a slope and no adjacent handicapped public parking spot.
For a wheel-chair bound litigant/visitor to SC’s supreme court building to use that new-found ramp, (s)he had to be dropped on it from a helicopter.
And then the wheel-chair would tumble back from the steep slope.
Quite possibly that unnecessary and non-functional ramp cost tax-payers more than the legislature pay raise SC’s supreme court struck down and is now playing victimhood and martyrdom for having done so.

Interestingly, Shane Massey, who was only two weeks ago FITS’ hero for opposing Jay Lucas’ candidacy, just became FITS’ villain-of-the week for opposing Jenny Wooten’s elevation to lead SC Votes.
This comment is timely because YESTERDAY, SC’s supreme court FINALLY made public the extent of self-dealing and nepotism of Abbeville County Master-in-Equity Curtis G. Clark.
I repeat my previous-stated solutions to judicial corruption: it is not in the method of appointment, but in (1) STRICT recusal rules with possibility of impeachment for willfully defying mandatory recusal; (2) mandatory annual or even semi-annual disclosure of all the financial interests and sources of outside income of (a) the judicial officer, (b) his/her up-to-second-degree relatives by blood or marriage, and (c) all other members of the judicial officer’s household, including co-habitants “without benefit of the clergy.” Again the possibility of impeachment should be built-in for any judicial officer who intentionally falsifies/conceals matters in his/her financial disclosure; and (3) statutes/rules of court allowing the re-opening within a reasonable time after discovery of any ruling/decision later discovered to have been tainted by an improper interest/motive of the judicial officer.
Returning to Jenny Wooten, whose beauty apparently cast on Will Folks, Jr. a spell so strong his yesterday’s heroes became today’s villains.
Jenny Wooten is the very definition of nepotism (from the root words for niece and nephew). She is literally the niece of now-Senior U.S. District Judge Terry L. Wooten (the twin brother of Jenny’s father, Jerry) and the BFF of now-totally-retired former U.S. District and Circuit Judge Dennis W. Shedd.
Both Terry Wooten and Dennis Shedd served in the late Strom Thurmond’s office when his fathering of a biracial daughter through his statutory rape of a black teen-aged house maid was a secret kept by payments to the biracial daughter and by elevation to U.S. Attorney or to U.S. Judge of those in Thurmond’s office or family who knew the secret.
The relationship between Dennis and Wooten extends to marriages and hiring decisions. Shedd’s daughter, Sara, a bitcoin dealer, is married to a former Wooten law clerk. And Shedd’s son, Michael, clerked for Wooten and married another Wooten clerk, Erica Wells Shedd, who now works for Governor McMaster, who appointed Dennis Shedd to chair SC Votes. Shedd, in turn, elevated Jenny.
See the tangled web of connections over merit?
And that voting machines contract FITS now declaims? Dennis Shedd admits to having taken it home but not having read it before signing off on it.
Why did Shedd not read that $32 million proposed contract before signing off on it? Because Shedd is accustomed to signing off on things he did not read but were written for his signature by his clerks when he was a district judge and by the office of staff counsel when he was in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.