South Carolina Judiciary review: False arrest and imprisonment

[Some of the legal and technical terms herein may be foreign to you; however, please read this in its entirety. Prepare for Shock & Awe!]

In the year 2005, Glen K. LaConey ("LaConey") attempted to enforce judicial judgments in the Fifth Circuit Court, in and for Richland County, State of South Carolina, against Home Assist Real Estate, LLC ("Home Assist"), a South Carolina Limited Liability Company, Case Number 03CP4004186, of which a Lori Pelzer ("Pelzer") was a managing member; and against Lori Pelzer personally, Judgment Roll Number 247572. In those matters, LaConey alleged, and presented evidence to the trial court, that Pelzer had engaged in fraudulent conveyances to place her personal assets and the assets of Home Assist beyond the reach of LaConey and other judgment creditors. Additionally, it is undisputed that Home Assist did liquidate its business, without statutorily winding up, to the detriment of LaConey and other judgment creditors. Subsequently, Pelzer filed a false police report alleging that LaConey had engaged in a campaign of harassment against her by creating a website, whereby, LaConey allegedly threatened physical harm to Pelzer and her family. Pelzer further alleged that LaConey had sent her harassing text messages. On or about August 22, 2011, LaConey was arrested by the Richland County Sheriff's Department for two counts of Harassment, Second Degree, against four Fifth Circuit judges, on four separate occasions, relative to his enforcement of the said judgments.

Because the entire Fifth Circuit Court was the alleged victim in those cases, both the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's and Public Defender's Offices were disqualified from and conflicted out of the case. South Carolina Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson ("Wilson") assumed prosecution and Attorney Mathias G. Chaplin ("Chaplin") was appointed by the Fifth Circuit Court to represent LaConey. Chaplin was relieved as LaConey's counsel, based on LaConey's proposition that, as an attorney who practiced regularly
before the Fifth Circuit Court, Chaplin was conflicted in his representation of LaConey. The trial court concurred and appointed Joshua Koger, Jr. as substitute counsel to represent LaConey. After failing to notify LaConey of his appointment for more than a year, Koger requested that the assigned Assistant Attorney General arrange for a meeting between Koger and LaConey, on the pretext of a court appearance. LaConey did appear and was introduced to Koger by Assistant Attorney General, Ashley A. McMahan. LaConey responded with a disciplinary complaint against Koger for failing to contact LaConey after his appointment. The Disciplinary Office dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction, notwithstanding that Koger violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2, South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequently, Koger refused to communicate further with LaConey, until June 30, 2014, when Koger emailed notice to LaConey that his trial would commence on July 7, 2014. (Again, the charges had been pending since August 2011.)

LaConey proceeded to post derogatory comments about Koger online, after which, Koger moved the court/alleged victim to be relieved as LaConey's counsel. Additionally, Koger lodged a false criminal complaint with both the Fifth Circuit Clerk of Court and the Richland County Sheriff's Department, alleging that LaConey had threatened to "blow up" the Richland County Judicial Center. LaConey was arrested on July 3, 2014, on the charge of Threatening the Use of Destructive Devices, Case No. 2014A4010400166, and an unrelated charge of Harassment, First Degree, Case No. 2014A4010202394, against Pelzer. LaConey was initially denied bond, based on Pelzer's allegations that she feared for her safety and the safety of her family. LaConey was a fulltime caregiver for his mother who, after his arrest and denial of bond, resided with his mentally disabled sister, who abused their mother, until LaConey was released on bond on October 3, 2014. [LaConey's mother passed on April 6, 2015, the day after Easter and the day before LaConey's birthday, under heart wrenching circumstances, the significance of which is set forth below.]

On July 7, 2014, the day of LaConey's trial for the two Harassment, 2nd Degree charges, Fifth Circuit Judge, Clifton B. Newman ("Newman"), granted Koger's motion to be relieved as LaConey's counsel, then declined to appoint substitute counsel for LaConey, notwithstanding that Newman concurred with the prosecutor's proposition that a mental health evaluation was appropriate for LaConey. Additionally, after LaConey asserted his right to court appointed legal counsel, Newman reiterated his denial to appoint substitute counsel, and directed LaConey to "work it out" with the prosecution, under threat of trial within hours. Newman further denied LaConey's motion for a continuance to prepare for trial. Faced with the threat of trial within hours and without an opportunity for preparation, and while under duress, LaConey pled no contest to both Harassment, Second Degree charges. Newman recommended mental health counseling as part of the sentences. (Newman compelled LaConey to negotiate with the prosecution when there was a reasonable doubt of LaConey's mental capacity). LaConey proceeded to file an action for Post-Conviction Relief, Case Number: 2015CP4003441, on June 11, 2015, to vacate his pleas. A hearing was convened before Fifth Circuit Judge J. Durham Cole on February 5, 2016. Judge Cole filed his written Order of Dismissal on April 8, 2019, without notice and without additional hearings on the matter. LaConey appealed the matter to the South Carolina Supreme Court, Case Number [protected], on April 22, 2019. On May 4, 2020, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, where it remains pending.

Again, with respect to the threatening and harassment charges, because the entire Fifth Circuit Court in Richland County was the alleged victim in the threatening case, both the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's and Public Defender's Offices were conflicted out of and disqualified from the case. Likewise, Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson assumed prosecution and Attorney William A. Hodge ("Hodge") was appointed by a Fifth Circuit Judge to represent LaConey.

On July 21, 2016, after declining numerous plea bargains from Wilson, LaConey's bond was revoked, on the pretext of holding a pre-trial competency to stand trial examination. The Order for the examination, filed by Fifth Circuit Judge, R. Knox McMahon ("McMahon"), provided for LaConey's release from detention, after he complied with the examination on August 1, 2016, and that LaConey's bond would "remain in effect". Hodge was a signatory to the Order for examination. LaConey submits that the Fifth Circuit Court improperly accepted his consent to the examination, on the basis that there was, inter alia, a reasonable doubt of LaConey's competence to render such consent, as advised by Hodge.

Shortly after LaConey complied with the competency examination, LaConey filed a pro se motion for speedy trial, after Hodge declined to do so. While the motion was untimely, it did put Wilson on notice of LaConey's intent to pursue speedy resolution of the case, upon favorable results of the competency examination. [The interval since LaConey's arrest crossed the threshold dividing ordinary and presumptively prejudicial delay. Wilson failed to set the matter for trial since LaConey's arrest.] After failing to take any action to affect LaConey's release from detention, as ordered, failing to seek trial, and upon LaConey's pro se motion, Hodge was relieved as LaConey's counsel in April 2017. The Lexington County, Eleventh Circuit Public Defender's Office was appointed by Richland County, Fifth Circuit Judge, R. Knox McMahon, to represent LaConey. Eleventh Circuit Public Defender, Robert M. Madsen ("Madsen"), assigned Assistant Public Defender, Jason Scott Chehoski ("Chehoski"), to represent LaConey in the Richland County, Fifth Circuit Court.

Notwithstanding that the Fifth Circuit Court was disqualified from the case, based on the conflict of interest, under South Carolina Code § 14-5-350, circuit judges lack jurisdiction to appoint circuit public defenders in foreign circuits. Additionally, under South Carolina Code § 17-3-520(B)(1)(14), 530(A)(B)(1)(2), circuit public defenders lack jurisdiction to represent criminal defendants in foreign circuits. Therefore, the appointment was null and void, and deprived LaConey of counsel. LaConey submits that both Hodge and Chehoski knowingly acted improperly pursuant to void orders of appointment. Chehoski, who ignored the proposition that the entire Fifth Circuit Court was disqualified, lacked jurisdiction to appoint his office to represent LaConey, and that his office lacked jurisdiction to represent LaConey in a foreign circuit, stated he does "whatever a judge orders [him] to do". Further, both Hodge and Chehoski refused to provide LaConey with a copy of the competency evaluation report for reasons unknown; thereby, denying LaConey an opportunity to assist in his own defense.

In or about August 2017, LaConey filed a pro se motion for reinstatement of his bond, notwithstanding that "reinstatement" of his bond was unnecessary, on the basis that the Order for Stand Trial Examination provided for LaConey's release from detention, upon compliance with the order, and that LaConey's bond would "remain in effect". During a hearing on LaConey's motion, before Fifth Circuit Judge Jocelyn T. Newman ("Jocelyn Newman"), the daughter of Defendant Clifton B. Newman, Jocelyn Newman contacted McMahon via telephone, in open court, to inquire whether LaConey's bond was in fact revoked for the purpose of the pre-trial examination. LaConey and other members of the court were not privy to the conversation. According to Jocelyn Newman, McMahon was unable to recall the attendant circumstances. Further, Jocelyn Newman examined Lori Pelzer, unsworn, while she was seated in the gallery. Pelzer stated that LaConey had been stalking her outside her bedroom window for years, whenever she was intimate with her husband, Melvin K. Pelzer. Pelzer never called the police, nor secured any photographic evidence, in support of her allegations, during the years of the alleged incidents. Chehoski failed to challenge Pelzer's unsworn statements and utterly refused to argue for LaConey's release. Jocelyn Newman declined to release LaConey on bond, notwithstanding the signed and filed Order by McMahon. Disturbingly, after LaConey completed the pretrial competency examination on August 1, 2016, Jocelyn Newman was unduly dilatory in finding LaConey fit to stand trial, until her Order, filed on or about February 2, 2018.

After Wilson utterly failed to set the matter for trial, and to produce discovery, both charges of Threatening the Use of Destructive Devices and Harassment First Degree were finally dismissed on August 30, 2018, and October 19, 2018, respectively. LaConey was finally released from detention on October 22, 2018. LaConey served a total of 30 months in jail, 27 of which were consecutive, for naught, when he should have been released years earlier, by Order of the Fifth Circuit Court, notwithstanding that the court was disqualified. LaConey lost his job and all his material possessions, including all his mother's precious, and sentimental effects. [LaConey was diagnosed with treatable cataracts, prior to revocation of his bond for the purpose of the competency examination, which would have been covered by LaConey's vision care plan provided by LaConey's previous employer. LaConey's cataracts worsened, during his extensive pre-trial detention. LaConey is now left without vision care coverage and may be forced to seek care from state subsidized coverage, and may be subject to reduced quality of care, as a result.]

Upon LaConey's release from detention, LaConey requested the return of his cellphone, which was seized by the Richland County Sheriff's Department, pursuant to LaConey's arrest on July 3, 2014. LaConey was informed via email that neither the Sheriff's Department nor the Attorney General's Office was in possession of the phone, which contained irreplaceable and invaluable data, including the only remaining photographs and videos of LaConey's mother, before her unfortunate demise. Wilson's loss of LaConey's phone, and presumed evidence in chief, reasonably infers that Wilson had no intention of prosecuting either the threatening case or the harassment, first degree case, as further evidenced by Wilson's failure to produce discovery. Therefore, LaConey's protracted, pretrial detention was purposeless.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS
(Judicial Disqualification)
(Conflict of Interest)
(Change of Venue)

The entire Fifth Circuit Court, and all judicial divisions and officers thereof, as an alleged victim of LaConey's alleged criminal acts, was disqualified, conflicted out of, and lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the charges of Harassment, Second Degree, Harassment, First Degree and Threatening the Use of Destructive Devices, in which the Court, as an alleged victim, benefited from its own decisions. [When a Chief Administrative Judge is disqualified in South Carolina, in those circuits with two chief administrative judges, the matter or proceeding shall be referred to the other chief administrative judge. If the other chief administrative judge is also disqualified, the matter or proceeding shall be referred to the chief administrative judge of an adjoining circuit. South Carolina Supreme Court Order: [protected], as amended.] [See also, Canon 3, South Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.] In the instant case, the adjoining Eleventh Circuit likewise was disqualified, based on the extrajudicial acts of Eleventh Circuit court officers.

Additionally, it was prejudicial to LaConey, and violative of LaConey's Due Process right to trial before a fair and impartial tribunal, for the Fifth Circuit Court to adjudicate the same proceedings in which it, as an alleged victim, could benefit from its own decisions. The Fifth Circuit Court's direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings, was fatally defective to the same proceedings. In Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 520 (1927), the United States Supreme Court held it was violative of due process for a judge to receive compensation from the fines imposed upon convicted defendants. In other cases, the Supreme Court has found that contemptuous behavior in court may affect the impartiality of the presiding judge, so as, to disqualify such judge from citing and sentencing the contemnors. [See, Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 464 (1971)].

In the underlying cases, there were glaring conflicts of interest of the trial court, necessitating change of venue to an impartial tribunal. LaConey submits that it is inconsequential that the presiding judges of the Fifth Circuit Court were visiting from foreign circuits. Once a judge "sits" in a foreign circuit, such judge shall be invested with all powers equal to the resident judges of the assigned circuit. South Carolina Code § 14-5-350, et. seq. LaConey submits that the investment of judicial powers imputed the conflict of interest. LaConey further submits that the potential for animus, by the Fifth Circuit judiciary, is reasonably conceivable.

(Harassment Second Degree)
(Probable Cause)
(Unlawful Arrest)
(Competency)

LaConey was arrested for Harassment, Second Degree, two counts, against four Fifth Circuit judges in their official capacities. Harassment, Second Degree is clearly defined by South Carolina Code § 16-03-1700(B) as "a pattern of intentional, substantial, and unreasonable intrusion into the private life of a targeted person that serves no legitimate purpose and causes the person and would cause a reasonable person in his position to suffer mental or emotional distress. Harassment in the second degree may include, but is not limited to, verbal, written, or electronic contact that is initiated, maintained, or repeated." Undoubtedly, the actions of LaConey utterly failed to rise to the level of the charge, where LaConey's communications to the judges were directed to their official capacities, served a legitimate purpose, and were not "maintained, or repeated". LaConey submits that it is impossible to "harass" judges in their official capacities and that judges who feel "harassed" by litigants are limited to power of contempt. Therefore, Lott lacked probable cause to affect the arrest of LaConey for the charges of Harassment, Second Degree.

Finally, LaConey submits that Newman erred in compelling LaConey to represent himself when there was a reasonable doubt of LaConey's competence to do so. See, Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008). [A defendant can be competent to stand trial without having mental competence to represent himself.]

(Threatening the Use of Destructive Devices)
(Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege)
(False Criminal Complaint)
(Probable Cause)
(Unlawful Arrest)
(Sham Prosecutions)

As counsel for LaConey, Koger violated his duty to ensure that LaConey had an intent to commit a crime or fraud before disclosing privileged and injurious client communications to third parties. Therefore, Lott lacked probable cause to affect the arrest of LaConey for the charge of Threatening the Use of Destructive Devices, based on the spurious criminal complaint of Koger. Further, Wilson violated his duty to ensure that his prosecution of LaConey was based on valid grounds. Lack of the foregoing bona fides reasonably infers that Wilson's prosecutions of LaConey were sham proceedings and constituted malicious and vindictive prosecutions.

(Harassment First Degree)
(False Criminal Complaint)
(Probable Cause)
(Unlawful Arrest)
(Sham Prosecutions)

There is a reasonable inference that Lott and the Wilson had conspired with Pelzer to have LaConey arrested for the Harassment First Degree charge, to increase the likelihood that LaConey's bond would be denied, which it was, initially. The transcript of the bond hearing would show that the denial of LaConey's bond was based primarily upon Pelzer's admonitions, and not based on the threatening charge. Wilson failed to ever produce discovery and failed to set the matter for trial, during LaConey's extensive pretrial detention, pending the results of a protracted competency process. Pelzer absconded from the State of South Carolina after LaConey's arrest, and Wilson knew or reasonably should have known that the Fifth Circuit Court had lost jurisdiction over the matter. Additionally, Lott lacked probable cause to affect the arrest LaConey for the charge of Harassment, First Degree, based on the spurious criminal complaint of Pelzer.

(First Amendment Retaliation)
(Vindictive, Malicious and Sham Prosecution)

A core purpose of the First Amendment is "to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression." McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995). The First Amendment thus restrains the government from taking adverse actions against individuals as retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, a safeguard that has been extended to nearly all aspects of government action, including the use of prosecutorial authority, see, e.g., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006), the terms of public employment, see, e.g., Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972), and the provision of benefits, see generally Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty., Kan. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674 (1996). In short, the prohibition on retaliatory actions ensures that "[t]he power of the state . . . not be used to ‘drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.'" Wollschlaeger v. Governor, Fla., 848 F.3d 1293, 1327 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991)). Because LaConey's arrest for Harassment, First Degree was implicated by LaConey's exercise of free speech about Lori Pelzer and her business activities, the arrest therefor constituted First Amendment Retaliation. Therefore, LaConey's arrest was unlawful.

(Deprivation of Counsel)

Due to the disqualification and loss of jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court, and its officers, it was violative of due process, for the Fifth Circuit Court to appoint LaConey's counsel. Additionally, under South Carolina Code § 14-5-350, circuit judges lack jurisdiction over foreign circuit courts, including the appointment of foreign circuit public defenders. Further, under South Carolina Code § 17-3-520(B)(1)(14), 530(A)(B)(1)(2), circuit public defenders lack jurisdiction to represent criminal defendants in foreign circuits. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit Court's appointments of Chaplin, Koger and Hodge; and, McMahon's appointment of the Eleventh Circuit Public Defender, to represent LaConey in the Fifth Circuit, were void and deprived LaConey of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

(Competency Examination)
(Denial of Bond)
(Unlawful Pre-Trial Detention)
(Speedy Trial)
(Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

It was a denial of LaConey's due process rights for the Fifth Circuit Court, as an alleged victim, to adjudicate matters pertaining to LaConey's competence and bond. Additionally, McMahon refused to entertain his own order for LaConey's release from detention, when his Order for competency examination contained a provision for LaConey's release, upon compliance with the examination, and that LaConey's bond would "remain in effect". LaConey's counsel, Hodge, was a signatory to the said Order. LaConey complied with the order on August 1, 2016. Wilson failed to set the matter for trial, after LaConey was found competent to stand trial, by Order of that court, filed February 2, 2018, notwithstanding LaConey's repeated motions for speedy trial. LaConey was finally released from detention on October 22, 2018.

LaConey submits that his excessive detention, without trial, after completing the pretrial competency examination, was unreasonable and unwarranted. The failure of Wilson to set the matter for trial, while LaConey was detained without bond, pending an unduly protracted competency process, was manifestly unjust and denied LaConey an opportunity to subject Wilson's case to adequate adversarial testing. Therefore, LaConey's detention was rendered purposeless and punitive. The failure to proceed to trial, during LaConey's excessive and unnecessary detention, was violative of the Fourth Amendment and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. See, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 521 (1979) ["In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention that implicate only the protection against deprivation of liberty, without due process of law, the proper inquiry is whether those conditions or restrictions amount to punishment of the detainee. Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish, if a particular condition or restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to "punishment, " but, conversely, if a condition or restriction is arbitrary or purposeless, a court may permissibly infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees."]

On August 25, 2021, LaConey filed a civil rights action, pro se, against the above-referenced parties, in the United States District Court for South Carolina, Case No. 3:21-cv-2740-CMC-PJG. LaConey no longer trusts South Carolina lawyers, notwithstanding the risk he is taking by representing himself.

We shall learn just how high judicial corruption goes in South Carolina.