|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Prolific Pedophile Hunter Blasts South Carolina Attorney General
“In South Carolina, there’s obviously some good old boy ego shit going on…”
“In South Carolina, there’s obviously some good old boy ego shit going on…”
5 comments
Don’t blame Wilson at all for not wanting to get involved with Rosen. He creates self promoting controversies more than he actually contributes to any meaningful legal actions.
There’s no need to blame Alan Wilson for not wanting to get involved with Rosen when we can blame him for not protecting victims from pedophiles in the State of South Carolina. Period.
IN RE WILSON:
It is “deeply concerning” that Alan Wilson refuses to prosecute pedophiles based on an absurd statutory interpretation. It is “deeply concerning” that Alan Wilson has not raised the issue with the General Assembly that the statute is written in a way that provides an “out” for pedophiles. If the statute is broken, then fix it. Period.
It’s not a personal attack. JUST. FIX. IT.
I, 2023, I watched Alan Wilson’s sham performance calling for judicial reform during the Ad-Hoc Committee meetings on Judicial reform. I watched how that process play out resulting in “reforms” that will only make things worse, will only cost taxpayers more money.
On Judge Kristi Curtis, the judge who gave Tony Adkins time served (after Wilson dropped 19 felony counts)…
I attended the JMSC screening of Judge Curtis at the Gressette Building in Columbia, SC on November 18, 2024.
In the waiting room, I met Ms. Carol Honeycutt from Horry County prior to entering the hearing. Ms. Honeycutt’s story followed the same narrative of so many others who have attempted to be heard before the JMSC.
After being irrevocably harmed by Judge Kristi Curtis, Ms. Honeycutt submitted her Complaint to the JMSC well before the October 28, 2024 deadline.
Ms. Honeycutt did not know JMSC Lead Counsel, Erin Crawford’s main job was to block relevant testimony.
Ms. Honeycutt’s Complaint was returned to her with a request to provide additional information, which Ms. Honeycutt instantly did. When Ms. Honeycutt followed up with the JMSC to see when she would be allowed to speak, she was informed that her Complaint had not arrived before the deadline and she would not be allowed to testify.
The JMSC pulls this scam frequently.
Ms. Honeycutt did not know she needed to send the Complaint certified mail (or drop off paperwork in person and demand a time-stamped receipt). She did not know the JMSC would not acknowledge her first mailing, and would reference only the follow up. This is why the JMSC does not allow email Complaints, because there would be a digital trial to confirm timely delivery.
Prior to entering the November 18, 2024 screening of Judge Curtis, Ms. Honeycutt informed me she had driven all the way to Columbia in hopes of being heard. She’d brought copies of her Complaint and supporting material for that purpose.
When Judge Curtis entered, Senator Luke Rankin (Chairman of the JMSC) stated there were no Complaints filed against Judge Curtis. I told Ms. Honeycutt I would stand up for her and ask if she could be heard because she had met the JMSC’s filing requirements and the purpose of the screenings was to inform the General Assembly about the misconduct of judicial candidates.
When I attempted to speak, I was rushed by security guards while Senator Rankin attempted to shut me down. Senator Rankin then agreed to speak with me outside, which he did AFTER Judge Curtis’s screening was completed (unchallenged). Meanwhile, Ms. Honeycutt fled the Gressette Building at the first opportunity because she said she was frightened by the rush of the security guard.
The point is, as long as we continue to rely solely on the corrupt JMSC to screen judicial candidates, we will continue to suffer under the corrupt judges on South Carolina’s benches and the corrupt attorneys who put them there.
The General Assembly has the right to know the truth about the harm judges like Kristi Curtis are inflicting on innocent citizens. They have a right not to have the JMSC hide this important information.
This article emphasizes the fact that corrupt judges not only do harm through corrupt judgements, but also by influencing whether or not a prosecutor chooses to prosecute. When a state’s attorney general will not hold (repeat offender) pedophiles accountable because he claims a case will not stand up in court, then the SC court system has reached catastrophic failure. If we can’t keep our children safe, what is the point?
This article emphasizes the fact that the statute is poorly worded (giving criminal defense attorneys room to maneuver).
It also emphasizes the fact that we have no effective judicial screening system to protect the public from judges like Kristi Curtis who release a dangerous pedophile like Tony Adkins with time served… and move through screening without any input from the public.
If no one else will say so:
Shame on you, Attorney General Alan Wilson, Esquire
Shame on you, Senator-JMSC Chairman-Senate Judiciary Committee Head Luke Rankin, Esquire
Shame on you, Judge Kristi Curtis, Esquire
On behalf of Tony Adkins’ next child victim and the next and the next – SHAME. ON. YOU. ALL.
~ Ginger Dunn
It’s not just judge Curtis, the SC judiciary is replete with judges who consistently fail to punish sex offenders. Start pulling the records of other judges. One who recently aged out but was allowed to come back in retired status, is well known for giving probation to sex offfenders over the objection of prosecutors sometimes when an active jail sentence was agreed upon by the defense.
Thank you for the information. I believe I know the active retired judge you referenced, but I will research to confirm.
SECTION 16-15-342.Criminal solicitation of a minor; defenses; penalties.
(A) A person eighteen years of age or older commits the offense of criminal solicitation of a minor if he knowingly contacts or communicates with, or attempts to contact or communicate with, a person who is under the age of eighteen, or a person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, for the purpose of or with the intent of persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing the person to engage or participate in a sexual activity as defined in Section 16-15-375(5) or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60, or with the intent to perform a sexual activity in the presence of the person under the age of eighteen, or person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen.
(B) Consent is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is at least sixteen years old.
(C) Consent is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is under the age of sixteen.
(D) It is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section, on the basis of consent or otherwise, that the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen is a law enforcement agent or officer acting in an official capacity.
(E) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
HISTORY: 2004 Act No. 208, Section 4, eff April 26, 2004.
Law student: If we use case law from other states, they do allow citizens to participate in stings. South Carolina is the only one that’s having a trouble based on Alan Wilson’s interpretation of the statute.
GOOGLE’s Genini: You’re right, while Section D of the statute doesn’t explicitly prohibit citizen involvement in sting operations, it also doesn’t automatically make it permissible.
Legal precedent in other states might vary: Some states may have different legal frameworks or case law that allows for greater citizen involvement in certain law enforcement activities, including sting operations.
South Carolina’s approach may be more cautious: Attorney General Wilson’s stance likely reflects a more cautious approach in South Carolina regarding citizen involvement in these types of operations.
However, it’s important to note:
Legal precedent from other states is not always directly applicable in South Carolina. Each state has its own laws and legal interpretations.
The legality and appropriateness of citizen involvement in sting operations can be complex and depend on various factors. These may include:
The specific nature of the operation.
The level of supervision and guidance provided by law enforcement.
The potential risks to civilians and the rights of suspects.
Disclaimer: This is an interpretation of the statute and does not constitute legal advice.
It’s crucial to consult with legal professionals for any specific legal questions or concerns.
I hope this explanation provides a more nuanced understanding of the issue.
Law student: All they have to do is ask the legislators who wrote the law what they meant. The Attorney General’s opinion is subservient to the legislative intent.
GOOGLE’s Gemini: You’re absolutely correct.
Legislative Intent: The principle of legislative intent holds that courts and other government officials should interpret and apply laws in accordance with the original intent of the lawmakers who enacted them.
Attorney General Opinions: While Attorney General opinions are valuable and carry significant weight, they are not binding on the courts.
Legislative Authority: The legislature has the primary authority to enact and amend laws. If there’s ambiguity or disagreement regarding the interpretation of a law, the legislature can clarify its intent through amendments or further legislation.
In this case:
If there’s disagreement about whether the existing law allows for citizen participation in sting operations, the legislature could:
Amend the law: Explicitly clarify whether citizens are permitted to assist law enforcement in such operations.
Pass new legislation: Specifically address the issue of citizen involvement in sting operations.
By clarifying the legislative intent, the legislature can provide a clearer legal framework and address any concerns raised by the Attorney General or other stakeholders.
Disclaimer: This is a general explanation of legal principles and does not constitute legal advice.