***************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************************************
HERE IS A RESIDENT'S VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT, ALONG WITH THE FILING TO THE COURT:
"Court bias against pro ses
This is why he had an attitude and refused to let resident who brought complaint speak"
This is why he had an attitude and refused to let resident who brought complaint speak"
The Court of Common Pleas August 15, 2017
Georgetown SC. 29442
(Resident name removed) vs. JOHNSON, 2017-CP-22-00563
I received defendant's motion to dismiss dated August 11, but I found no “Defendant's Memorandum” enclosed. Defendant's failure to submit a defense against the offenses is an admission of guilt. Therefore, I request the Court to enter a judgment against the defendant as stated in Court's notice to reply, dated 7/14/17.
No further explanation should be necessary, however I feel some remarks are appropriate.
Defendant's attorney Bisset, incorrectly asserts that defendant Johnson committed the acts “in his official capacity as an Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”) Chairperson.” In fact, defendant Johnson's series of emails to me concerning the “encroachment” of my dock house, were sent on his personal email and had absolutely nothing to do with the ARC, ARC business, or his duties as ARC Chairperson. These emails, I believe, were an attempt to harass and intimidate me because I objected to the erection of the fence. Further, Bissel's attempt to answer for defendant Johnson, failed to answer why I was denied my protection under the covenants. She asserts that issuing the permit was within his official duties, therefore I must name the ARC as defendant. This again is incorrect. Board members cannot act alone, only as members of a body. Keith should have notified the contractor to submit an application, as specified in the covenants, to the ARC for approval. There are no previsions in the covenants that allow ARC members to use their authority individually to approve projects before a written request is submitted to the committee. It becomes even more egregious when the ARC approving party has a vested financial interest in the property for which he is approving the project.
I, frankly, am appalled at this motion to dismiss and failure to submit defendant's rebuttal which is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Again, I ask the Court to enter a judgment for the relief I sought.
To
