Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Important News Article not on The

Is it "convenient" that The State newspaper has not published its August 25th article about Richland Two's lawsuit on and only (so far) in the print edition?

It's the article about opposition to Richland Two's lawsuit in the S.C. Supreme Court over masking. The article by John Monk was only considered important enough for Page 34 in Section 1. 

The article is about a response to the lawsuit by State Senator Harvey Peeler (R-Cherokee) and State Representative (and House Speaker) Jay Lucas (R-Darlington).

Did you know the lawsuit was filed by Richland Two and a parent? Funny how Richland Two's announcements have not mentioned the parent. 

Remember Richland Two's lawsuit next time you get stopped for speeding. Just tell the trooper that your tax dollars pay for the highways and that speed limits are unconstitutional, so he can't give you a ticket. Let us know how that works out for you.

I also learned something good from Monk's article. He wrote, "Ordinarily, it can take years for the (South Carolina)  Supreme Court to hear appeals and issue opinions. But in matters of high public opinion, especially involving the interpretation of a state law, the court can take up a case directly.

This is reflected in the State law about usurping of public office. Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie might want to sit up and pay attention to this. The Justices of the S.C. Supreme Court might need to hear answers from them to only three questions to decide that they have been usurping public office since November 13, 2018.

SECTION 15-63-60. Action against usurpers, for forfeiture of office or against persons acting as corporation.

An action may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the State upon his own information or upon the complaint of any private party or by a private party interested on leave granted by a circuit judge against the parties offending in the following cases:

(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this State or any office in a corporation, created by the authority of this State;

Regarding this State law 

SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.

(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office.

What are those questions?

Q 1. On what date did you take the oath of office? A. November 13, 2018

Q 2. On what date did you file your Statement of Economic Interests? A. December 4, 2018

Q 3. Had you filed your Statement of Economic Interests before you took the oath of office? A. No

Decision: You are guilty of usurping public office. You are hereby removed from office. You are fined $2,000. You shall pay back all monies received for school board member services and for expenses paid for your benefit.