Judge Segars-Andrews: Post and Courier Comments

Posted in the Charleston Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#1 Dec 21, 2009
Comments on SC Family Court Judge Segars-Andrews copied from the Charleston Post and Courier:
----------

User Image
encouraged wrote:
In the article, Gregory Adams references Seagars-Andrews "ONE" mistake that has cost her dearly. Please be aware that this is the one mistake for which she has been caught. There have been many others such as the conflict of interest with Changing Families. The Charleston County Family Court system is fraught with conflicts of interests which is why it is the responsibility of the Judges to recognize them and avoid them. Ignorance is not a defense and “Charlie” should understand that fact. Hopefully there will be more of these complaints filed against other SC Judges in similar conflicts until they all start to get this picture that this is not their playground, but a venue for fair and honest problem solving that has incalculable impacts on families and children. Karma – Charlie!
12/12/2009 4:21 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommended (7)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
upsetoverthisjudge wrote:
This is the same judge who ruled against my daughter WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE in her child custody case. My daughter's husband was nephew to one of South Carolina's great attorneys who died a week or so after the July 2008 pre-trial case (name of Rice???). However, since my daughter proved that she could take care of her children, obtain a car, obtain a home and a great job, her soon-to-be ex decided he would lose custody eventually and talked her into letting him back into her life. I found South Carolina's divorce and child custody laws to be unfair, and especially this particular Judge (Segars-Andrews). She deserves what she is getting.

Angry mom in Georgia (where we have DECENT laws to prevent this type of injustice!!!)
12/10/2009 5:47 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommended (5)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#2 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
imalive wrote:
it is good to see that no one is above the law especially those who decide how it applies to us, i feel that justice is being served finally eventhough through her hands it was not always served fairly. i believe she abused her position and now she must be judged maybe unfotunately the unfair way she judged others.
12/3/2009 9:40 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (10)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
It certainly would be nice (hahaha) if the legislature repealed that dirty trick (40-5-80) and gave us all back the "RIGHTS" that they had no business taking away.

And 'tickle me elmo' wouldn't it be wonderful if they fessed up to who called for that amendment in the first place.
12/3/2009 5:49 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
I'm just waiting for the legislative 'dirty tricks' now. You know -- like the UNETHICAL (and illegal) amendment to S.C. Code. SECTION 40-5-80 on June 5, 2002. That's where the court slammed and locked the courtroom door on me when I was in the middle of unraveling a long histroy of their fraud.

12/3/2009 5:39 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (2)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
atticus wrote:
My prior comments disappeared. I did not remove them. I did mention Robert Rosen's connection to Segars-Andrews. Hmmmm.
12/2/2009 10:44 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (13)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
marie44 wrote:
Indeed. I am extremely proud this evening of the people of integrity who made this happen.
12/2/2009 10:28 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (11)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#3 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
atticus wrote:
Yes, today was a good day. There were some strong men and women today that followed their sense of justice despite the propaganda from Team Andrews/Rosen. I heard a collective sigh of relief from victims around Charleston tonight...
12/2/2009 10:03 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (15)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
jen36 wrote:
Today was a good day. It was the right thing and for those who question the decision of the JMSC, they won't for long. The truth will come out.
12/2/2009 9:05 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (14)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
tide2 wrote:
God made sure justice was done today. Segars-Andrews is unqualified.

Now, with respect to her church and this drug program; I think it is necessary to look to see what federal, state, or local, tax money the church has been paid for the same.

We're going to clean this system up whether Rosen likes it or not. And should he fall with the others, so be it. There are more crooks who practice before the family court who need to be exposed. HALT and Judicial Watch will help to do it.
12/2/2009 6:35 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (14)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Nov 24
Palin’s Pastor Meets the Press
Posted by Steve Published in Culture, Politics

Religion and the media – rarely a good mix. Sadly, with the well documented irreligiosity of the MSM, the “gotcha” mentality of too many 60 Minutes wanna-bes mixed together with a dose of Jon Stewart humor as news and Bill Maher cynicism and the pastor is generally out-gunned and ill-prepared to engage the reporter in a way that communicates anything close to their heart and intention.
Terry Mattingly in this GetReligion.org article addresses these very issues. A must read for clergy – and for those who love their clergy. Mattingly writes:
What would you do if you were the pastor of an ordinary evangelical church and a member of your flock suddenly became the most controversial person on this planet?
[…] here are a few tips for religious leaders, drawn from Kroon’s experience (and a bonus point that came out of our discussions):[…]
12/2/2009 9:03 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#4 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
http://treadinggrain.com/
Nov 29
Support Judge Charlie Segars-Andrews
Posted by Steve Published in Culture, Leadership, Politics
----------
Also see,
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_cnpt9m
Also Does Business As: St. Andrews Church
Annual Sales (Estimated): D&B:$350,000.00

12/2/2009 6:34 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (2)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
newstoday wrote:
From the Petition to qualify Judge Frances P. Segars-Andrews.
Changing Families Program - Judge Andrews worked with individuals from St. Andrews Church to develop a program that family court judges can use in divorce cases to teach parents how to minimize the negative effects on children of divorce. The program is now used by many judges and is being replicated in other counties.

Exception…Segars-Andrews orders unwilling participants to attend these worthless day long meetings at a facility(with charge) provided by her husband, these attendees spend funds and time to avoid possible ramifications from the inflated ego of Segars-Andrews desires to be the Judge and the executer in her courtroom.

Another note of interest: Segars-Andrews orders litigants to attend mediation by a mediator of her chosen, with Segars-Andrews knowledge in this case the mediator shared employment with one of the litigants, hence the half fees for same services rendered to both attendees.
12/1/2009 11:31 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (10)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#5 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
ajf wrote:
I see where some of Lilly's comments were removed - there is a message saying so. But the strange thing is that other poster's comments were removed and there is no message saying so. Strange. I have some of them printed out. There was no foul language, but there were some references to Rosen.
12/1/2009 10:24 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (6)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
frustrated wrote:
From the online newsletter of Judge Segars-Andrews church:

“Judge F.P.“Charlie” Segars Andrews has been a family and juvenile court judge in South Carolina for over 16 years. She has a stellar reputation and judicial record as well as widespread respect in the legal community.
During what was supposed to be routine proceeding to recertify her as a judge, she was ambushed by a disgruntled litigant alleging that she had a conflict of interest in his divorce case that was heard three years ago. The litigant, William Simpson of Manning, subsequently appealed the case, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld Judge Andrews’ ruling and found no evidence of bias. He also filed a complaint with the South Carolina Judicial Conduct Commission. This complaint was also reviewed and it was determined that she followed all ethical rules.
In the recent recertification process, Mr. Simpson raised the same allegations that he raised to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the Judicial Conduct Commission. This was the only complaint filed against Judge Andrews in her recertification.”

This is a most disturbing piece of inaccurate propaganda. IF, IF, IF it were possible to have a returning judge disqualified by the JMSC relying solely on ONE complaint of ONE “disgruntled litigant”, it would be the exception not the rule that any sitting judge would be approved by the JMSC to be returned to the bench. We would have a state full of former judges, which certainly is not the case.
If anybody believes that the complaint of one “disgruntled litigant” can persuade the JMSC to find a judge “unqualified” to remain on the bench, I have some gorgeous waterfront property (on a drainage ditch) in Florida that I would love to sell you.
Somebody has made grave misrepresentations (legal term meaning lies)to the church about the scope of the charges against Segars-Andrews that were considered by the JMSC,and the church naively has passed those misrepresentations along to its parishioners.

12/1/2009 8:27 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (12)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#6 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
sardis1200 wrote:
Maybe judge Segars-Andrews is related to the Warings?
12/1/2009 6:30 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Thanks tide2.

I know I didn’t say anything abusive or vulgar. There was no reason for removing my comments other than harassing me.

Jeeze Louise—some of those ‘save Segars-Andrews’ bottom feeders must really be worried! Which is like all totally pointless—because Segars-Andrews has already wrecked her future through her own criminal acts. Duh?

People blaming me in any way for what she did to herself is—SOooo TYPICAL.
LOL
12/1/2009 3:35 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (5)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
tide2 wrote:
Griffith vs. Griffith ... yes, that is a good indicator that Segars-Andrews just totally disregards the law.
12/1/2009 2:29 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (10)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
tide2 wrote:
Atticus .... you said "Charlie and Mark consider themselves judge, jury and God when making decisions about people's lives. Beware those who believe themselves to be cloaked in righteousness..."

You hit the nail on the head. They have over inflated egos and demonstrate the traits of charismatic psychopaths. Certainly these people are power freaks. They do not own anybody, but think they rule over people. Sad they think and feel that they do. They are very sick puppies that use Jedi mind tricks.
12/1/2009 2:25 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (13)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#7 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
tide2 wrote:
lillycollette .... The JMSC is suppost to do a search of all newspaper articles pertaining to a judge when up for re-election and/or qualification. I suspect that could be the reason in that they would check the internet today (if they follow the rules)

Segars-Andrews is like that Al Parish .... Parish was always thought to be such a super nice and trustworthy guy until it all caught up with him; just as it has all caught up with Segars-Andrews.

I have looked over some of Segars-Andrews' cases and I am shocked she has lasted this long.
12/1/2009 2:13 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (9)

Report Abuse
Permalink

User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Does anyone know why seven (7) of my comments have been improperly pulled on allegations of being abusive in this story on Segars-Andrews?
12/1/2009 1:33 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Interesting reading:
What makes a family court judge’s order “judicial”?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 4:04pm
[…] Rule 26 of South Carolina’s Family Court Rules specifically requires family court final orders and adjudications to “set forth the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s decision … By signing his name to an order in a domestic relations case, the judge certifies compliance with this rule.”[…] A judge’s decision only acquires legitimacy because it must be explained in writing and harmonized with existing statutes and case law. A family court judge’s final order that is based on inaccurate legal conclusions or factual findings without substantial evidentiary support is subject to reversal on appeal because it cannot be harmonized with existing law. Judicial orders affecting substantial rights (and, other than taking away a people’s freedom or their life, taking their children, money and residences are about the most important things one can take from them) require legitimacy in a democratic culture. While many family court judges scrupulously follow the mandates of Rule 26 in drafting final orders, such rigorous adherence is not as uniform as it should be. Further temporary orders contain none of the legitimizing constraints that are a hallmark of “judicial” decision making. A legal culture that puts its police powers behind judicial rulings that lack the hallmarks of judicial decision making puts its whole legitimacy into question. Many of the citizen complaints regarding family court are not the crackpot complaints of dissatisfied litigants but are merely a less analytical version of these concerns.
Gregory S. Forman, P.C.

12/1/2009 7:33 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (7)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#8 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
blackcoffee wrote:
The Judicial Merits Selection Commission (JMSC) made a thorough investigation the first time around. The Commission followed the letter of the rules of conduct for Judges. The Commission did not make the rules, Lawyers and Judges did. It's not their fault Segars-Andrews broken them, as she has repeatedly in the past. She did. And she quite clearly decided to take the chance breaking them again like all the other times. She knew before this matter ever came to all of this what she did and was doing.

There are no excuses. Support her all you want, but the law is clear and the JMSC followed it word for word like they are suppose to (something Segars-Andrews obviously doesn't do). The law says she is unqualified no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

Keeping Segars-Andrews on the bench merely instills distrust in the minds of the public as this case is known all over the entire state of SC including other part of the nation as well.

Segars-Andrews is finished whether she is kept seated or not. No litigant will want to take a chance with her; only her attorney friends will. This woman has cost citizens a lot of time and hard earned money from their own pockets for her outright disrespect for the rules and case law - and them!
12/1/2009 12:35 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (15)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
blackcoffee wrote:
How can anybody ever again have any trust in this judge that goes before her? I mean, my God .... have you seen some of the things that the Court of Appeals said about her in it's findings in several cases? There seems to be a pattern with Segars-Andrews.

Clearly worded case law is discussed with Segars-Andrews in her chambers or in phone conference or by email, and she still can't get it right? A good one is Griffith vs. Griffith.

Segars-Andrews is OUT OF ORDER and has been OUT OF ORDER since she's been on the bench. Dump her. There is no doubt that she is not qualified.

And as to the helping the community thing. That's great. But so have many of other people who ended up BEHIND BARS for other things they were doing. Besides, she had no business sending children before her to HER CHURCH for a drug program that allowed her church to likely receive TAX MONEY to help run the same. That in itself is highly questionable and likely violates the Judicial Canons and criminal statutes.

I can't stand these psychopaths in the legal system. So many of them will lie and twist the truth just to make a point and/or to win. The bottom line here is, Segars-Andrews is a tyrant. Never mind her attractive looks, nice smile, or her soft caring voice. Psychopath use these features all the time to fool people as to who they really are. And I don't care what any suck butt lawyer out there says in her defense. The evidence it rock solid that this judge is not worthy to sit on any bench anywhere. And if she so sits on a park bench somewhere, then she deserves to be kicked off of that too.
12/1/2009 12:18 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (16)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#9 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
fishwater_wsp wrote:
95% of you have no clue of the facts behind this case and are either ignorant or just commenting to comment and the other 5% of you are just bitter because your case went before her or some other family court judge and the outcome was not in your favor.

I have known her for 35 years, do any of you realize how much she has done for the youth of this community and the community as a whole. She made one mistake and that outweighs all of the good she has done? If you believe this you are very small minded and ignorant and probably add nothing to our fine community. She is human and admitted to her mistake, are you all perfect or ignore the mistakes you have made in the past in your particular line of work...if you are employed at all.

Get a life!!!
11/30/2009 9:15 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#10 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
tide2 wrote:
Didn't The Commission's Chairman, SC Senator Glenn McConnell, use to practice law before many of these circuit court judges?
11/30/2009 6:18 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette's comment is abusive and has been removed.
User Image
tide2 wrote:
How many people have had their names and other personal information used to sign the web-based Segars-Andrews petition.

Any petition that is accepted, all individuals will be verified regardless of the numbers.
11/30/2009 5:54 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (3)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
tide2 wrote:

Web Based petitions, such as the one in support already deemed "unqualified" Segars-Andrews, are very to manipulate and are subjected to fraud and abuse. In matters such as a public official, these types of petitions should never be considered and should also quickly be rejected should they be submitted for consideration. Petitions that contain an 'authentic hand written signature' of the person agreeing to the contents of the same are best. Of course, these petitions must contain a person's full name, current home address, current business/place of employment address, and 'working contact' phone number.

Such above requirements in this matter, as in any matter, lessen the possibility of those behind petitions and the handling of the same from engaging in deception and fraud.

The Commission should reject the web-based Segars-Andrews petition in this matter. It's is not creditable.
11/30/2009 5:50 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette's comment is abusive and has been removed.
User Image
tide2 wrote:
The petition has to be presented to the Commission. When it is done, it becomes a public document and is subjected to release to the public therefrom.

Not a single address, contact number, or place of employment is on that petition thus far. However, we know the lot of the names on that petition are attorneys who practice before Segars-Andrews, their staff, DSS employees, private mental health professionals, all of which have been before her in their professional capacity.

It's one thing to have public support. It's another when you do wrong and support the ones who do the wrong. Moral support is fine. Supporting someone who obviously has a history of unethical and illegal conduct is certainly another.

Nothing can, nor will, ever change the cold hard fact that Segars-Andrews is not deserving in the least to be on the bench anymore. I know many of your Charleston Lawyers. I remember the things you have said about the Family Court and certain judges. That's it is a mess. But I know you have to work the system. You can't just stand up all alone for change. Instead, it's better for you to just go with the flow. And that goes right back to what Attorney Dusty Rhodes stated to the Post and Courier Reporter. Attorny Rhodes knows the deal. And he is spot on. Kudos to you Dusty for saying what you said. It might not be enough, of course. But anyone can read between the lines.
11/30/2009 5:14 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (6)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#11 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
tide2 wrote:
In one case, this judge made an Order whereas the Order itself stated many facts that were totally bogus and were not even in the court reporters records. The Order touched on things that were said before the court, but again the court reporters records showed no such thing was ever said. The court reporters records were accurate. It was this judges Order(s) that were a total sham and a violation of the 14th Amendment and the Judical Canons. These documents and many more are in a secure location. This is not the first time this has happened with this court and this judge. The Commission is aware of much more than the media is being made aware of. Members of the General Assembly, likewise, are aware of this judges conduct and certain lawyers who practice before here.

SLED is not needed in this matter.Nor or local FBI agents. However, and outside the state of SC and special appointed counsel is - or even a special selected Grand Jury to get to the bottom of this horribly messed up SC judicial system.

People are fed up with the mess and demand change from the good old boy system that is still very much alive and well in SC. Don't think so? Look at how the Thomas Ravenel case was handled. Look at how SC Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeal Toal just outright left the scene of two auto accidents she was involved in. Those matters are just a drop in the bucket as to what has been going on with these people in our judicial system.

But back to Segars-Andrews; there is much more on this judge that she has done and said which is being held in reserve. All of it paints a clear and vibrant picture, that she is not qualified to be addressed as "Your Honor" anymore.
11/30/2009 4:58 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (8)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
holidayseason wrote:
Just a little tidbit for those of you who think Lilly has such a substantial argument:

https://www.dadsdivorce.com/father_divorce_fo...
Lilly Collette Post subject: Post subject: Re.:$1000.00 Fine and Then Some Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:33 pm

New

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:28 am
Posts: 6
Location: Fraud Upon the Court and Paternity Fraud in Chas., S.C.Congradulations. Having a judge who was willing to listen to your tape was indeed a rare occurrance. The ruling was even more rare -- at least in South Carolina it would have been.
I was Counsel of Record in my husband's case. The court was so corrupt that I took a tape recorder into court and taped the judge.
The end result being -- the judges -- if I must call them that -- will not allow tape recorders in their court room now.
__________

Interestingly enough she continues to talk about her poor husband's unfair treatment and SHE claims to have been his counsel of record. Or not, seeing as how her story changes every turn. Just google her, it's quite entertaining. Talk about fraud on the Court.... how about the unlawful practice of law?
11/30/2009 3:22 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (1)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#12 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
I hear you atticus: She is but one part of the "powerhouse." The other parts are attorneys like Robert Rosen and her husband, Mark,[...] his "recommendations" are more threats and that he favors those whose attorneys are part of his cadre or those who go to his church... Kudos to [..] the brave men from Manning for shining a light on this. There are many of us who are too scared or too broke to do so.

My husband and I are both disabled and poor as church mice after that criminal Francis P. Segars-Andrews and her pals got through robbing us blind -- they took everything ...

EXCEPT FOR MY COURAGE.

11/30/2009 12:42 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
ajf wrote:
Heaven help you if you find yourself in family court in Charleston and opposing counsel is part of her posse.
Even if you have the financial means and contacts to get a powerful attorney from "off," you will be waging a costly, time consuming battle on an uneven playing field.
11/30/2009 12:31 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (12)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette's comment is abusive and has been removed.
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Why aren’t Segars-Andrews and Garfinkle investing more of their Herculean energy into the job they are paid over One hundred thousand a year to perform and leaving the problems of addictions to already established Twelve Step Programs.
11/30/2009 4:21 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (7)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette's comment is abusive and has been removed.
User Image
lillycollette's comment is abusive and has been removed.
User Image
voiceintheaudience wrote:
To Harpo- This is what the report above says "Charleston lawyer D. Dusty Rhoades said it's not surprising his colleagues would rally around an embattled judge. "It's a no-lose deal for any attorney because you can curry favor with a judge in question so that if they win, you can hope that's going to carry over to better treatment. And if they lose, there's no retribution," Rhoades said. "I call it 'Not a Moment in Courage.' "

And Simpson said he plans to be there Wednesday and doesn't think removing her would be too great a step.
"I feel like she got her hand caught in the cookie jar," he said. "I feel she needs to be removed from the bench right now.... I feel like it's injustice for her to sit and hear another case since they've found her unqualified."
--So as you can see Rhodes is not the one that said she should not be seated it was Simpson. Rhodes is obviously sending his colleagues the message that they have nothing to lose by rallying behind her. Read the report again. I'm not even a South Carolinian or have ever been involved with your justice system, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how corrupted this family court system is by reading the bloggers and their cases. In my opinion she has been found unqualified and that should stand, period and paragraph. Give her a taste of her own medicine.
11/29/2009 9:51 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (8)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#13 Dec 21, 2009
lillycollette's comment is abusive and has been removed.
User Image
mkris wrote:
Be careful what you wish for, the consequence could be worse.
11/29/2009 2:14 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
frustrated wrote:
From the article, " The state chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has passed a resolution in support ... "
The presdident of this organization is ROBERT ROSEN. I challenge Mr. Rosen provide a full list of the lawyers who voted in favor of this resolution of support - or was it an individual decision of Mr. Rosen? Inquiring minds want to know.
11/29/2009 11:45 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (9)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
harpo wrote:
Dusty Rhoades: "I feel she needs to be removed from the
bench right now.... I feel like it's injustice for her
to sit and hear another case since they've found her
unqualified."

Sounds dissenting to me; what part of that didn't you
understand?

I hope Supreme Court Justice Jean Toal is the next one to
be removed from the bench; too much smoke rising from
that one too. Where do they GET these idiots?
11/29/2009 8:48 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (9)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#14 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
newstoday wrote:

Charleston lawyer D. Dusty Rhoades said it's not surprising his colleagues would rally around an embattled judge.
"It's a no-lose deal for any attorney because you can curry favor with a judge in question so that if they win, you can hope that's going to carry over to better treatment. And if they lose, there's no retribution," Rhoades said. "I call it 'Not a Moment in Courage.' "
In replying to Mr. Rhoades comments….Is he part of the supporters or part of the dissenters? He is not too clear with his statement. Could it be that since he is no longer practicing at the family court he can afford to make it sound like he’s neutral? But, anybody that has sat opposite of him in Judge Andrews’s courtroom knows that he has been one of the greatest benefactors of Segars-Andrews egregious rulings‼!
11/28/2009 11:10 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (19)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
newstoday wrote:
Dr. Gregory Adams, a University of South Carolina law professor who focuses on judicial ethics, said Segars-Andrews erred in that ruling, an error that she later admitted. But failing to reappoint her because of the error would be a tragic overreaction.
Perhaps DR. Gregory Adams should do some investigating or just read the blogs submitted in regard to the conclusion issued by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. It is widely represented where Judge Segars-Andrews actively engages in judicial misconduct and disregards the laws of the state and applies her own laws to rulings that adversely affect or victimize those seeking fairness and justice from the court.
These so called errors are simple cover-ups for the fragrant abuse of powers demonstrated and numerous times over-ruled by the appellate court.
Segars-Andrews rulings are a travesty of justice and to allow her to remain seated when she was found unfit to serve is unwise. By not punishing her actions would constitute a gross disservice to the community!
11/28/2009 10:50 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (17)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
babeegurl wrote:
She wouldn't even look at my husbands documents that would help his case and neither would Garfinkle when he went in front of him. They just rule on people's lives without caring how it affects them or anyone else. I am so disgusted to see we are not the only ones who have seen this first hand. We should not be treated like this from them. Something really needs to be done about these horrible judges. I hope this comment section is read and sees something isn't right! So much for JUSTICE for the JUSTICE system yeah right!!!!!
11/28/2009 5:29 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (13)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
wildbillz50 wrote:
After reading these comments there are PLENTY more people who have not 'voiced' their opinion .OK P&C,Get some guts and run an article ASKING people who had had to deal with this arrogant woman(GARFINKLE TOO,he isn't any better!)and I BET you'll find MANY who were wronged by this court.It is my opinion that IF one holds a law degree,He/she CANNOT be a judge.LAWYERS ARE ONE OF A KIND AND THEY STICK TOGETHER!MONEY-HUNGRY SCUM-BAGS ARE WHAT MOST OF YOU ARE !!!
11/28/2009 4:40 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (15)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#15 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
jen36 wrote:

Frustrated wrote: "Explain why it is virtually impossible to get an accurate transcript of a Segars-Andrews hearing? Explain why so many of her orders have findings of fact that are untrue and not reflected in the evidence/transcript?"

Are there others who've had issues with their transcripts being accurate, missing, etc in the charleston family court system?? Very curious to know...
11/28/2009 3:55 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (18)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#16 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
antisegars-andrews wrote:
keep Segars-Andrews off the bench!!
11/28/2009 2:55 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (17)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Google: David A. Bardess
and see more of what happens in Chas. Co. family court.
11/28/2009 2:20 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (4)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
Google: David A. Bardess
and see more of what happens in Chas. Co. family court.
11/28/2009 2:19 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (5)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
frustrated wrote:
Robert Behre, how dare you publish such a biased one sided article on this judge? How dare you impugn the integrity of the JMSC without doing a full scale investigation of both sides of the story?
First point – who is chair of the Charleston County Bar? Answer: Mark O. Andrews, so no wonder the local attorneys are “rallying” around this judge.
You state that JMSC historically returns sitting judges to the bench, which is despite people coming forward with legitimate complaints about the conduct of those judges. Do you really think that JMSC would find this judge unqualified on one complaint alone?
If you had read the comments to your prior story, you would see that this judge is ill-tempered, ill-prepared, shows favoritism to certain attorneys, and has acted absent of integrity and jurisdiction for years. The appellate court found her to be without any discretion (i.e. integrity) in Callen v. Callen.
Explain why Tomi Rea Hynie (widow of James Brown) had to come all the way to Charleston from Aiken to have her prior marriage annulled by Segars-Andrews. Her attorney, Robert Rosen, was perfectly capable of representing her in Aiken County, and there are competent Family Court Judges in Aiken County. So why was the case on the backlogged Charleston County docket? And why was it heard by Segars-Andrews? The resulting order is included in this article.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/122906/m...
Explain why a man whose wife was having an affair with Mark Andrews could not get a Charleston County attorney to represent him and had to hire one from 100 miles away?
Explain why Christy v. Christy languished in the appellate courts for years when Segars-Andrews was clearly in error and violation of Rule 63 (Robert Rosen case)?
Explain why it is virtually impossible to get an accurate transcript of a Segars-Andrews hearing?
Explain why so many of her orders have findings of fact that are untrue and not reflected in the evidence/transcript? This may be why she is appealed so much.
Explain how a judge can allow DSS to sever the bond between parent and child by withholding visitation, return two children to the parent (one of whom is autistic) and terminate the parental rights to the third child and adopt the child out, which, by the way means significant federal funds come to Charleston County DSS.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
How dare you question the integrity of the JMSC when they are finally doing their appointed task, and removing an ill-tempered, lazy, biased judge from the bench?
11/28/2009 1:03 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (21)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#17 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
blackcoffee wrote:
Dr. Gregory Adams, a University of South Carolina law professor who focuses on judicial ethics makes it clear. He makes it clear that not even the SC Court of Appeals follows the law. He makes it clear that it's his opinion that the fine people on the Judicial Merits Selection Committee are all a bunch of bozos!!!!! Good Grief!!! And has he's been in contact with Robert Rosen and some of the rest of his supporters of Segars-Andrews? I bet his cell phone records might uncover that - maybe even his emails?

I guess in retrospect we can form an opinion that many judges do what they think is right and wait for the law to catch up with them. Come to think of it, Former US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall had that mentality ... he said it as a judge on the highest court of this nation. I guess it had an effect on SC judges because it appears many of them just do what they think is right and see if the law will catch up with them if a citizen, citizens, can afford to be sure that it does.

We are in a new age where people all across the nation are, and continue to, come together with a common cause to expose tyrants in on the bench, in our legal system, and in our government. These old school mentalities are stuck in their old ways are seeing the law catch up with them more and more. In SC, much still has to be done to fix it's system of old school tactics and conduct.

SC does so need an independent special grand jury to get to the bottom of everything in our state justice system. For a law professor to accused the Judicial Merit Selection Committee of "Grand Standing" before "TV Cameras" is an attempt by that law professor to discredit them and their decision that found Segars-Andrews as one who did not obey the letter of the law. He appears to be part of the clique. He is a tool used by Segars-Andrews supporters. Just look at what he said. It says enough.
11/28/2009 12:27 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (19)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#18 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
blackcoffee wrote:
Ohhhhhhhh you can bet every single SC Circuit Court Judge is aware of this matter with Segars-Andrews. The little small social circle where many of them went to school together, have met and chit chatted at functions together for, have participated in continuing legal education courses together, have sat in front of these law professors at USC and so on. In other words, they all do really know one another. Some have and even still do play golf together - even the lawyers who practice before them socialize with them. So who would you advocate for first? A friend or your friend's opposition? An opposition that could have clear and convincing evidence that something is out of order and does need to be looked at instead of being alleged and brushed off as nonsense before actually reviewing what they do have? You be the judge and you be fair.

SC is one of 3 states left where the public/voters has NO RIGHT in the LEAST to select it's own judges.

Probation for judges is for as long as they are seated. The people of SC are entitled to the sole right to select and vote on who their judge's shall be. It's not "We The General Assembly" ... it's "We The People Of South Carolina" ......

As to this poster below that asserts to have "WORKED" with Segars-Andrews for 8 years; I take it you are an attorney or perhaps a clerk of court worker or perhaps a former administrative staff or what ever. Be that as it may, you have been, and continue to be, a tool of highly questionable conduct on the bench.

With respect to the P&C and their reporting; one must keep in mind that lawyers are bottom feeding fish. Anything they think they can bite on that looks worthy enough to satisfy their hunger for money, they will.

In the history of The Post and Courier, the P&C has seen this before in regards to lawyer Robert Rosen where he threatened to sue WCIV-TV4 if they went forth and aired a story that they had prepared to run on the Charleston County Family Court, that said report included guess who? You got it; Segars-Andrews.

Are these people who are opposed to Segars-Andrews bitter losers? Some, maybe. Others I would say not. Some of these cases are likely old and have long been closed. I think anyone who feels they were treated wrong should be afforded the Constitutional right to address any government body (or perhaps the SC General Assembly if the Commission should just so happen to shockingly reverse it's decision). The 1st Amendment does make that right a rock solid one. Anyone trying to block that right to address these government bodies, or threatening retaliation for attempting to address or having addressed, the law seems to be clear as to the punishments which includes punishment for lawyers, judges, and police officers. The law is not the private property of those who work for us all in government. It is not the private property of judges. And neither is it the private property of any lawyer or group of lawyers who pra
11/28/2009 12:07 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (21)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
babeegurl wrote:
Her rulings are terrible I have witnessed it first hand and my husband was a victim of one of her off the wall rulings. She needs to be taken out of there along with Garfinkle. They get away with too much and it makes me sick they way the speak to people. They charged my husband extra court fees and the judge's excuse was "You see these officers, this is how we pay for them!" They are dirty and I hope God gives them what's coming to them!!!!! They live very sad lives and it rolls over to their jobs.
11/28/2009 12:01 PM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (15)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#19 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
mkris wrote:
Election of Judges is the worse idea imaginable.
If it costs $60,000 to run a campaign, from whom do you think that money comes? If it costs $60,000 to run a campaign every few years, how many decisions will be looking to the next campaign contribution?
Let the legislature appoint, after 1-2 years on probation let the public confirm the appointment by allowing the Judge to stay and then after confirmation, a LIFFETIME tenure with removal by impeachment. Its the best of all worlds -- an independent judiciary.
11/28/2009 11:16 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
chasmagnolia wrote:
Yet another example of why we need to ELECT judges rather than letting the good ol' boys in Columbia appoint those who are so incompetent they cannot make a living practicing law. Let the judges have some accountability to the citizens of South Carolina.
11/28/2009 10:59 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (14)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
bluchopper1 wrote:
This reminds me of a case( not in SC) that our members brought against a company concerning their abuse of power and labor law violations. The evidence was overwhelming. The judge allowed for the company lawyers to throw everything in the case but the kitchen sink. She ruled against them, but she stated that they did not have to pay a penny to the members. The company executives celebrated the "loss". A year later I read in the newspaper about a full partnership to a lawyer in a law firm. The lawyer was a three year member of the firm that represented the company..and when they mentioned who his wife was(she never had taken to use his last name in the 25 years plus marriage)..yep..the judge that ruled on the case..I say throw this judge as far away from the bench as you could. She knew excatly what she was doing. She just did not think that the people were smart enough to give a damm.
11/28/2009 10:38 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (20)

Report Abuse
Permalink
Unethical_Lawyer s

United States

#20 Dec 21, 2009
User Image
lillycollette wrote:
The JMSC has already conducted a thorough investigation and found Segars-Andrews to be “unqualified”.

The only—additional information—that Segars-Andrews could now present is unsupported, concocted and contrived ‘feel good’ statements from irresponsible people on the ‘save Segars-Andrews’ petition sponsored by the Rosen Express.(Who stood up for Segars-Andrews victims?)

The “FUTURE” of Segars-Andrew is ABSOLUTELY NOT in any jeopardy because the JMSC found her unqualified to retain her seat on the bench. Saying that it is, is just one more lie in this farce.

She is still the CEO of her family distributorship company upstate and she still has her license to practice law (for now).

The future of innocent people that have to appear before this tyrant is what is at risk.

If there are any doubts on what I am saying try looking back at http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/nov/2...
11/28/2009 10:29 AM EST on Post and Courier
Recommend (13)

Report Abuse
Permalink

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charleston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Marie Hicks Inabinett (Sep '12) Thu Tell Me 30
Chesterbrook Academy Dec 23 radtech9 1
heroin (Mar '12) Dec 21 Jmazzy 7
Same-sex marriage is just the beginning Dec 21 Doctor Doo-little 43
SmallTown Country Living Dec 16 Ramona 3
Charleston County Authorities Search for Home I... Dec 15 whatever 1
Charleston Housing Cost 25% Higher Than Nationa... Dec 14 HaHaHaHa 4
Charleston Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Charleston People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Charleston News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Charleston

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:00 pm PST

Bleacher Report 9:00PM
Carolina Panthers vs. Atlanta Falcons: Complete Week 17 Preview for Carolina
Bleacher Report12:22 AM
Atlanta Falcons: Steven Jackson out Opens Up the Offense More
NFL 5:53 AM
Steven Jackson reportedly likely out for Falcons
NBC Sports10:26 AM
Panthers RB Williams probable vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
ESPN10:41 AM
Panthers RB Stewart gets nod vs. Falcons