Tag: David Pascoe

SC House Ad Hoc Committee Begins Hearings on Judicial Reform

The new House Ad Hoc Committee to Examine the Judicial Selection and Retention Process in South Carolina began hearings earlier this month.
The committee was formed because of the increasing calls from citizens, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel from around the state that judicial reform should be a priority in the coming legislative year.
South Carolina is one of two states (Virginia is the other), where judges are elected by the legislature. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission was a key component of the inquiry by the ad hoc committee at its second hearing of the month.
SC Attorney General Wilson was asked by a member of the committee if he thought it was possible that undue influence was put on judges by lawyer/legislators who are members of the JMSC or the larger General Assembly as a whole. Wilson answered, “Yes.”
click on headline above to read more

Continue Reading →

American Conservative Voices Hears of Need for Judicial Reform

The American Conservative Voices group hosted 1st Judicial Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe, 16th Judicial Circuit Solicitor Kevin Brackett and York County Sheriff Kevin Tolson Tuesday night to hear recommendations on judicial reform in South Carolina.
South Carolina is one of only two states in the Union (Virginia being the other) where judicial appointments are controlled by the legislature. In the remaining 48 states, judges are popularly elected by the people.
Consequently, the judicial branch in South Carolina is in reality not a separate and equal branch of government, but one, at least indirectly, controlled by the General Assembly. Judges’ rulings can, and often are, second guessed by legislators, which can directly affect whether a judge will remain on the bench.
Pascoe gave examples of two different judges who were up for reappointment with no other candidates for their position, but, because each had made a ruling against a legislator-lawyer before them in a case, failed to get through the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) part of the judicial appointment process. These were sitting judges, up for reappointment, who failed to be reappointed just because they had made a legislator-lawyer mad at them. That is not an independent judiciary.
The JMSC is composed of 10 members, three members of the House and three members of the Senate along with four non-legislators. The three House members and two of the non-legislators are appointed by the Speaker of the House and the three Senate members and two of the non-legislators are appointed by the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman. This makeup of the commission makes it easy to see how making just one House member or Senator mad at you can tank a candidate’s appointment or reappointment to the bench.

click on headline above to read more

Continue Reading →

American Conservative Voices Presents

Solicitors David Pascoe and Kevin Brackett and Sheriff Kevin Tolson to speak about the justice system in South Carolina including comments about the politics involved.
Pascoe was the lead solicitor in one of the most high profile political corruption cases in South Carolina.
Brackett and Tolson are currently involved in an investigation into how public funds were used with the failed attempt to bring the Carolina Panthers training facility to upstate South Carolina.
A free BBQ buffet will be open to all attendees. The only price of admission is a free, unwrapped toy present to be distributed to the children in foster care at Connie Maxwell Children’s Home.
The buffet and speeches will begin at 6 p.m. Tuesday December 6, 2022 at Simple Southern Smokehouse.

Continue Reading →

SC Supreme Court Slaps Down Alan Wilson

By a 4-1 margin, the SC Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Attorney General Alan Wilson had no authority to remove solicitor David Pascoe from a continuing investigation into corruption in the SC General Assembly.

The investigation began in 2014 and is reported to center around misuse of campaign funds and abuse of power for personal gain by what is called in yesterday’s opinion the “redacted legislators.”

The Attorney General recused himself from the case for possible conflict of interest in July 2015 and his office turned the investigation over to Pascoe. Pascoe, from that point, was acting as the “state’s highest prosecutor.”

The key finding stated, “The initial correspondence from the Attorney General’s Office to both Pascoe and Chief Keel in July 2015, stated, without reservation, that the Attorney General’s Office was recused from the redacted legislators investigation, leaving only Pascoe as the state’s highest prosecutor in that matter.”

In addition, the Court found transferring the case to Pascoe included the right to order a State Grand Jury investigation into the case. “Pascoe has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence he was vested with the authority to act as the Attorney General in the (probe), and that this authority necessarily included the power to initiate a state grand jury investigation.”

In March 2016, Wilson attempted to remove Pascoe from the case, attempting to replace him with a different solicitor who refused to take Pascoe’s place. At this point, Wilson attempted to politicize the issue by smearing Pascoe in the media.

Central to the issue was an attempt by Pascoe to initiate a Grand Jury investigation, something Wilson claimed only he had the authority to do. The Court tore apart Wilson’s interpretation of the State Grand Jury law.

Continue Reading →