Comments (41)

Full terms and conditions can be read here.

I(with My Attorney) have presently filed a tort to Dorchester County,DCSO and The SC Attorney General . I will be Filing Suit, Interviewing Any And All witnesses and Past Complaintants who have filed against Mr Nash for his illegal Practices. These Practices were Known by the County and Should have Been Stopped. Unfortunately I was affected by these civil rights violations...I will keep the public informed. What is Right is right and What is Wrong is wrong.

Posted by: ChrisPia

The Time article is From 1986 and is dated. It is of Your Mr Rose...Correct?.. My Concern is This in 1975 He was Denied to practice law in Colorado....That Normally happens for a variety of reasons.Do you want me to tell you Why? I won't go up that tree for now....You can keep protecting Mr Nash All you want...

Posted by: ChrisPia

Mr. Bagwell, I appreciate your explanation and analysis. I relocated from Florida earlierthis year. I've retained the idea of having to affiliate with a particular party. I'm sensitive to ballot and voting difficulties..I've not met either candidate, didn't vote in the primary and am interested in becoming informed to make good choices in November. The flexibitiy of a potential candidtae perplexed me. I'm sensing that even the average citizen doesn't have to lock in to a specific group which better enables us to select an individual who best represents our values when we know where they stand on key issues. Thanks again.

Posted by: Tom Servis

Hey folks, Don't bother to ask PIO any questions - he hasn't had an original thought in years - he can cut and paste wonderfully though he often never reads what he cuts as is evidenced by his posting of the Time article above. Search the PC archives for his obsession with Ray Nash - from whose organization he was fired for insubordination. Sour grapes are really evident here. Two months ago I think he said he probably wouldn't even vote in the Senate primary and now he's hawking Collins. Have you checked with LC? Is he giving you your job back? Or does he see you as the potentially dangerous obsessive compulsive person you must be.

Posted by: Same Old Song and Dance

Speaking of Christian Exodus...it is in the news because it is going to hold its national conference next week in Greenville, SC. ChristianExodus.org is coordinating the move of thousands of Christians to South Carolina for the express purpose of re-establishing Godly, constitutional government. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christians to withdraw our consent from the current federal government and re-introduce the Christian principles once so predominant in America to a sovereign State like South Carolina. ...Cory Burnell, the president of Christian Exodus, stated, "We're very excited to discuss our vision for government reform. We have received a tremendous amount of support, and believe everyone will have a wonderful time on the 15th." He went on to say, "Our mission is to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. So I hope other folks with that same desire will come out to the conference and see how we plan to do it." In addition to Mr. Burnell, the conference will also include the following speakers: Dr. Hugh Cort running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Michael Chapman from American Heritage Research in Minnesota, Larry Kilgore running for the Texas Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2006, Dr. John Cobin the talk show host of Christian Worldview in Greenville, and Arthur Bryngelson running for Dorchester County Council in 2006.

Posted by:

I think it is time to get rid of Arthur.His lack of leadership and devisiveness is destroying the Republican Party.

Posted by: Just an opinion

Noooooooooooo, but I'll accept the compliment!

Posted by:

Aren't you really Joe Kress?

Posted by: INTHEMIDDLE

If Collins takes Supporters & Votes away from the Republican party, he's dividing the Republican party. If Collins takes Supporters & Votes away from the Democratic party, he's dividing the Democratic party. Conclusion: Collins is being divisive!!!!

Posted by: T.S.

Mr. Servis- I’ve only spoken to Bill Collins briefly at the farmer’s market many weeks ago, exchanging pleasantries. But to my knowledge he calls himself an independent, and that’s not the same as a member of the Independent Party. I don’t think anyone can claim to be nonpartisan. Although I favor Mr. Collins, I too have been bewildered by his desire to join the Senate GOP caucus. Why should he join any group where the welcome mat is not out? That’s a question I’m still waiting for him to answer! Personally, I think he would have much more clout remaining an independent. The chairman of the local GOP doesn’t have a say in the State Senate. And so far, I haven’t seen anything concrete that there is a court case coming up, just a hearing before the election commission. But I bet it’ll be open arms and lots of schmoozing should Bill Collins win. Does voting for a candidate in one party’s primary make you a member of that party? No, because most people tend to vote for a candidate they prefer rather than for pure partisan reasons. Can one be still be a Republican and vote for Bill Collins? Of course! Neither do I consider myself a “prime supporter” of Bill Collins. Mr. Collins is smart, articulate, and knows the community. I’ll probably vote for him. But I also think Mike Rose is extremely gifted, thorough, and dedicated to public service. My concern is that a party has the audacity to try to thwart our rights to run or even sign a petition. Mr. Servis,that's a disservice and a dangerous thing.(And I respect you for signing your name too!)

Posted by: Don Bagwell

Model Rules of Professional Conduct Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

Posted by: CONFLICT Of Interest.

Are you Kidding Me........ I would also be careful on Testifying in Court. You Do realize you Must Tell the Truth.

Posted by:

An attempt to get on the general election ballot is not demanding a different outcome to the June 10th primary.Mike Rose will definitely be on the ballot, because he won that right. And signing a petition is not voting. In fact, it’s not a given that anyone signing the petition will even vote for that candidate. I’ve never known Bill Collins to “avow” that he’s a liberal- that’s a convenient label and a buzz word that Republicans like to use as a scare tactic; it really is shorthand for “anybody who is not a Republican like us.”. How do we know he’s a “liberal” if he hasn’t even outlined his positions? In fact, an argument can be made that quite a few folks on the Republican ticket wouldn’t really be labeled as conservative this year. Unless the GOP finds some legal loophole, Mike Rose and Bill Collins will be on the ballot. Those are the only ones running.

Posted by: Don Bagwell

Chris, No connection. Don't go up that tree....

Posted by:

Rose and his buddies remind me of Al Gore, and the Florida recount.

Posted by:

Who Is Roger Cisneros. Isn't He The Brother of Henry Cisneros..Weren't They Implicated in Corruption case involving Rose law firm Missing papers of The Watergate and Travel gate ?.....Was Mike Rose affiliated with this Firm In Arkansas with Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: ChrisPia

We're in South Carolina. We're in the 21st Century. Get your bearings ......

Posted by:

"Big People Can Be Wrong" Monday, Aug. 25, 1986 By RICHARD LACAYO Article ToolsPrintEmailReprintsSphereAddThisRSSYahoo! Buzz Like some 170,000 lawyers before him, Michael T. Rose was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court bar late last month. Normally such admission is a routine step. In Rose's case, however, it represented release from a four-year "living nightmare" that cost him, he says, "friends, clients and career and I don't know how many sleepless nights." What finally ended Rose's ordeal was the same thing that began it: an unusual opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Related Articles A Peek Under the Robes Jan Crawford Greenburg got unusual access for her new book, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of th... 24 Years Ago In TIME The historic appointment of SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR as the first female Supreme Court Justice was rooted... Who Will Be the Next Rehnquist? The death last week of Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist at 80 was a surprise but not a shock. H... The Tipping Point? Even in Washington, a city full of leaks, there are some secrets you can keep from the President. La... Rose was first admitted to the Supreme Court bar in 1982, when he was a Denver attorney. Although a majority of the court approved his application, Burger, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, fired off a widely publicized dissent. As Burger saw it, "Rose's professional conduct does not meet the standards the court should require." The Chief Justice based this view on the findings of a Colorado bar investigation. Though Rose was licensed to practice law in that state in 1981, his first application in 1975 had been rejected. In that initial round, a state bar investigating committee charged that among other things, Rose had misrepresented himself as being licensed to practice in Colorado. Rose, 38, who now heads a farm relief program in South Carolina, contends that the opposition of his Colorado accusers was politically motivated. A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Rose had created a stir in the early '70s with a law- review article charging the military academies with violating the rights of cadets charged with honor-code transgressions. He discussed his charges on a segment of 60 Minutes and later represented 100 West Point cadets accused of cheating. Seeking to clear his name after Burger's blast, Rose enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union and a former Associate Attorney General of the U.S., John Shenefield. But in 1985 the Colorado Supreme Court rejected Rose's petition to reopen his case, and earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court refused review. Undaunted, Rose flew to Washington and sought the help of former Solicitor General Erwin Griswold. Meanwhile, time was running out: Burger announced in June that he intended to retire from the court. On Griswold's advice, Rose resigned from the Supreme Court bar and then immediately reapplied, a move that forced the court to reconsider his qualifications. His new application was supported by a letter from Griswold arguing that procedures by which Rose was initially denied admission to the Colorado bar were "seriously defective." Also attached was an affidavit from former Colorado District Court Judge Roger Cisneros, who had been on the Colorado bar investigating committee. Cisneros suggested that the committee members who voted against Rose did so because of their impression that he was "an activist . . . not the kind of person they wanted." The plan worked. The court unanimously readmitted Rose. In a brief concurrence, Burger, again joined by O'Connor, said the record now demonstrated that "the applicant is 'of good moral and professional character.' " Burger maintained, however, that his earlier attack on Rose was justified on the basis of the information then in the court's possession. Rose is satisfied that the outcome proves his point. "Big people and big institutions can be wrong," he says. "You've got to allow for that." With reporting by Anne Constable/Washington and Craig Matsuda/Denver

Posted by: Chris Pia

He voted early, he voted often and ha ha ha.

Posted by: Elaine K

Seriously doubt that Arthur Bryngelson will accept Collins into the Republican Caucus. He's taking him to court for "fraudulent" actions. Collins is dividing the party. His supporters are defectors/mavericks from the party. Collins has self-identified as an Independent. Someone said in the paper that Collins voted for a Democrat in the presidential primary. C'mon now!

Posted by: Tom Servis

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962098,00.html

Posted by: ChrisPia

The petition was not a Vote. It was to get on the Ballot. You will still have to vote at the General election except now you have a petion candidate. No Extra voting, Just a different Candidate(Who Qualified UNDER THE LAW)

Posted by: Follow The Law of The State.

I think Mr Collins has always been fair to both sides on any issue as far as the summerville journal goes unlike many other news agencies in this area..I respect that in him... Why wouldn't Arthur Bryngelson want to have Mr Collins join the republican party If He were to win? Wouldn't that be great for the party?..He is the Republican Party Leader and Thatwould Guarentee a Republican Candidate after the election No Matter what the outcome would be....Unless there are personal interests involved I would see this as a win win for the Republican Party..Now Of Course Mr Bryngelson should Back Mr Rose as The Republican candidate,BUT He Must do that in the Best Interest of The Party.THe Best Interest is to accept Mr Collins If He Wins Into the Party............Fighting This Petition is Hurtng the Party whether you believe it or not.

Posted by: ChrisPia

He's asking to vote over and over and over again until he gets a candidate of his choice, non-Rose.

Posted by: Elaine K

Would Chris Pia or Don Bagwell, two of his prime supporters, please explain why he has indicated that he wants to join the Republican Caucus when's declared himself an Independent and nonpartisan.

Posted by: Tom Servis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BurnLounge

Posted by:

And Mr Rose stated He didn't know anything execpt what is being printed in the papers? Correct? He also stated Something in reference to Mr Scott asking for special favors theday after the arrest before it made the papers? Correct? Who Now is asking for Special Favors?

Posted by: ChrisPia

STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE Michael T. Rose, Complainant vs. Robert A. Heghmann, Respondent Grievance Complaint #00-0814 H. R. Stender, Elvira Wirth, Edward Spence. Complainants vs. Robert A. Heghmann, Respondent Grievance Complaint #01-0252A DECISION Pursuant to Practice Book §2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted hearings at the Superior Court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on January 9, 2003. The hearings addressed the records of the following complaints: Rose v. Heghmann, Grievance Complaint #00-0814 (hereinafter “Rose complaint”), which was filed on April 16, 2001, and Stender, Wirth and Spence v. Heghmann, Grievance Complaint #01-0252A (hereinafter “Stender complaint”), which was filed on September 20, 2001. The Rose complaint resulted in a finding of probable cause filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on September 28, 2001, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.6 and 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Stender complaint resulted in a finding of probable cause issued by a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee on April 19, 2002, finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.6 and 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, with regard to the Respondent’s representation of the Complainant Stender (additional Complainants Elvira Wirth and Edward Spence were not a part of the probable cause findings). The reviewing committee’s finding of probable cause in the Stender complaint was contrary to a finding of no probable cause filed by the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District Grievance Panel on February 20, 2002. A status conference was held in the Rose complaint on January 3, 2002, notice of which was mailed to the Complainant Rose and to the Respondent on December 3, 2001. Both the Complainant Rose and the Respondent appeared on January 3, 2002, and at the request of both the Complainant Rose and the Respondent, the matter was stayed due to the pendency of motions in a federal district court action and the pendency of other grievance complaints, including the Stender complaint. By letters dated September 18, 2002 and November 15, 2002, the Respondent notified the Statewide Grievance Committee of the resolution of the federal court motions, and requested that hearings be scheduled. Notice of the January 9, 2003 hearings was mailed to the Complainants and to the Respondent on December 3, 2002. At the January 9, 2003 hearings, the Complainant Stender appeared and testified. The other Complainants did not appear. The Respondent did not appear, pursuant to a letter dated January 7, 2003, in which he stated the reason for his decision not to appear, and reiterated and expanded upon his prior answers to the probable cause findings. This letter of January 7, 2003 was accepted and considered by the reviewing committee. Prior to the hearings on January 9, 2003, the Complainant Stender filed an application with the Connecticut Superior Court to seal the record in this matter. That application was denied by the court. At the hearings on January 9, 2003, reviewing committee member William Carroll was not available. Since the Complainant Stender waived Mr. Carroll’s participation, this decision was rendered by the undersigned. Additionally, although the grievance complaints were filed separately, since the probable cause findings concerned essentially identical matters, it was the determination of this reviewing committee that a single, consolidated decision be issued. This reviewing committee finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence: The Complainant Michael T. Rose is an attorney in South Carolina. The Complainant H. R. “Jock” Stender is a resident of South Carolina, with business interests relating to the port of Charleston, South Carolina. In April of 2000, the Complainant Rose retained the Respondent regarding representation in legal matters, including pursuing an action for civil rights violations, libel, slander and other claims against various defendants in South Carolina arising out of a campaign for the South Carolina State Senate in 1997. The Respondent drafted a complaint to pursue these claims entitled Vander Linden v. Wilbanks, which was filed on April 20, 2000 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Civil Action No. 2:00-1230-18). The Vander Linden lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by the court (Norton, J.) on December 6, 2000. The Complainant Rose is an attorney for the Complainant Stender and his company, Carolina Marine Handling, Inc., and introduced the Respondent to the Complainant Stender. The Complainant Stender retained the Respondent regarding claims he had arising out of bidding for, and access to, facilities in the port of Charleston, South Carolina subsequent to the closing of the Charleston Naval Base. The Complainant Stender was then, and is currently, involved in litigation at the state and administrative levels involving similar issues. By a retainer agreement dated April 29, 2000, the Respondent agreed to pursue a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Complainant Stender and others in the United States District Court. The retainer agreement stated that the Respondent would be assisted by the Complainant Rose, who would act as local counsel in South Carolina. On or about June 9, 2000, the Respondent filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Stender v. Cohen (No. CA-00-946-AA). The complaint listed the Complainants Stender, Wirth and Spence as plaintiffs, along with eight others, including Dennis L. Wirth. The first named defendant was William S. Cohen, the then Secretary of Defense. The lawsuit stated that the plaintiffs sought relief for losses arising out of the implementation of the closure of the Charleston Naval Base. This lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn in the hope of fostering settlement discussions with the defendants. There were subsequent discussions regarding the filing of a new lawsuit, but the relationship between the Respondent and the Complainants Rose and Stender began to deteriorate. The Respondent prepared and drafted a new complaint, which added new defendants and allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). This complaint was filed on September 8, 2000 in the Eastern District of Virginia as Carolina Marine Handling, Inc. v. Cohen (No. CA-00-1505-A), although the Respondent did not sign this complaint. The plaintiffs were the same as in the previous Virginia action, with the exception of Dennis L. Wirth. On or about October 3, 2000, the Respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dennis L. Wirth in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. This lawsuit was entitled Interworld Maritime Corporation, Inc. and Dennis L. Wirth v. BMW of North America (Civil Action No. 3:00 CV1903 (CFD)). Like the original Virginia action, then Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen was listed among the defendants, and the lawsuit similarly stated that the plaintiffs were seeking relief for losses resulting from the implementation of the closure of the Charleston Naval Base. Like the Virginia RICO action, the Connecticut action also included a claim that the defendants had violated RICO. Shortly after the Connecticut lawsuit was filed, the Respondent sent an email to Sean Trundy, an attorney who had previously represented one of the defendants. The email, dated October 5, 2000, included the following statements by the Respondent: **** I should advise you that I represent solely Mr. Wirth and Interworld Maritime Corporation. Briefly this year I assisted Attorney Michael Rose and his client, H.R. “Jock” Stender, in filing a suit in Virginia. Some of the tactics of Mr. Rose, including litigating cases in the press, did not suit me and I have separated myself from them in relation to the Naval Base. Although I believe that my clients have a valid claim against Mr. Tapp and his associates, I have no reason to believe that he should be embarrassed or attacked personally…. I was very much disturbed by the personal nature of the litigation and the character attacks associated with it in connection with the Naval Base. While 25 years of practice has given me a pretty thick skin, I prefer not to engage in those types of activity. **** On October 26, 2000, the Respondent sent an email to Joseph Click, an attorney for the defendants in the Connecticut action, which included the following: **** One of the reasons that I chose to file on behalf of Mr. Wirth only and to file in Connecticut was to avoid the “circus” type atmosphere that has surrounded some of the prior litigation that has taken place in South Carolina. I am committed to continue to work toward that end, however, someone in Charleston informed Mike Rose of this litigation and now the media is getting involved. Mike has a nasty tendency of litigating his cases in the media.… **** Normally in a case such as this, both sides explore despositive [sic] motions before beginning to explore settlement. You and your clients may want to consider a different approach in this matter. First, Judge Droney moves with a great deal of care in connection with cases on his calendar. In other words, his cases tend to move slowly. Second, the longer this case continues, especially if it attracts media attention, the more likely parties will join the litigation whose past “vendetta” type tactics will make reasonable settlement impossible. I am sure your clients will be able to identify those of whom I speak. **** On October 30, 2000, the Respondent sent another email to Attorney Click, which stated the following: **** With regard to Mr. Stender, it has been Mike Rose’s policy in the past to assemble a posse to support Mr. Stender in his litigation. Although they are all ostensibly plaintiffs, the real role of the additional plaintiffs is to support Jock. I have learned from colleagues that Mike Rose is calling around trying to find someone who will provide him with a copy of the Wirth complaint. Sooner or later, he will obtain a copy, edit it and probably proceed with some type of suit. As I am sure your clients will advise you, the problem with Mike and Jock is that their litigation quickly degenerates into personal attacks. This is what drove my client Dan Wirth away from them. He was an original plaintiff in an earlier taxpayer case but decided to distance himself and his claims from them after learning more about their methods. Mike Rose is not a very good attorney but he can copy and edit. My concern is that he will find some way to attach himself to this litigation. Once he does, this case also will quickly degenerate. At some point, it will no longer be able to be settle [sic] because of Jock’s and Mike’s presence. I know at this point that you might think that I am unbalanced, but ask your clients and people like Jim Bryan and Sprott and what I mean concerning Mike and Jock. The more pleadings and legal arguments you and I make available to Mike Rose, the worse he will make it for your clients. While you and I are battling over the facts and the law, Mike and Jock will be holding press conferences explaining what no good S.O.B.’s [sic] your clients are so that everyone in Charleston can read about it in the morning papers. If you do not believe me, ask your clients. As far as legal work, all Mike will do is copy and edit my pleadings and arguments just as he plans to copy my complaint. In instituting this action, I have tried to separate myself tactically from Mike and Jock. There have been no press releases and I did not inform Mike and Jock of the action. I did not want a circus or a media event. Apparently, someone else did inform Mike and Jock and now there will be a story in the Wall Street Journal probably this week. When I spoke to the Journal, I emphasized my disappointment with the Navy. Other than the facts in the complaint, I did not dwell on your clients personally. Once that story hits, however, Terry Joyce of the Post and Courier will follow up with other stories including quotes and allegations by Mike and Jock against your clients personally. **** My guy still wants to deal. If you decide not to discuss settlement now, that is fine with me, however, from here on out everything goes downhill. Your clients and their contacts have the ability to settle this case virtually immediately. Their friends in Charleston control the Base. If they want to settle, my client and I will work with them to make whatever is agreed to politically expedient. This is business, not personal. But you cannot possibly imagine the mayhem Rose and Stender will create once they worm their way into this suit. Every day this case continues, the greater the risk that they will become involved. **** The Complainants Rose and Stender did not learn of these emails by the Respondent until they became aware of a motion dated January 23, 2001, filed by certain defendants in the Connecticut action seeking sanctions from the Respondent and his clients alleging that the Connecticut lawsuit was frivolous and vexatious. The motion for sanctions cited the emails noted above as supporting its claim that the Connecticut lawsuit was filed in bad faith. In a memorandum in opposition to the motion for sanctions, dated February 14, 2001, the Respondent stated on page 7 that “H.R. ‘Jock’ Stender and his attorney, Michael Rose, have embarked on a series of ill considered legal and political actions.” Accordingly, “because of the past history,” the decision was made to separate the Wirth RICO action from Stender and Rose. The Respondent goes on to state that when Stender and Rose were advised of this decision, “they attempted to dictate terms” to Wirth and his company. The Respondent attached an email from the Complainant Rose, further discussing the split between Wirth and the Complainants Rose and Stender. The Respondent stated on page 8 of the memorandum that he had refused to become involved in the Virginia RICO action, although stating that “Rose used one of my drafts to file a RICO action in Virginia,” but that “[w]hen Rose could not compel me to lead that case on behalf of Stender, he apparently decided to abandon it.” The Respondent then goes on to discuss at pages 8-9 of the memorandum the Vander Linden lawsuit, stating that “service was to be accomplished by the client,” and why Rose and his local counsel “permitted the 120 days to pass remains a mystery.” The Respondent further states that, after reviewing documents from the defendants in that matter, “I realized that I had been mislead by my client, Michael Rose, as to certain critical facts relating to the pleadings.” Finally, in an attempt to demonstrate the Respondent’s efforts to resolve the Wirth claim even prior to the lawsuit being filed, the Respondent attached a copy of a September 13, 2000 letter from him to Susan Wall, an attorney for one of the proposed defendants, in which the Respondent stated that if the suit is filed, a “problem” arises because then “Stender knows of Dan [Wirth]’s initiative and plans to file a ‘me too’ suit as soon as he and Mike Rose can get their hands on the complaint.” Finally, in the defendants’ reply memorandum regarding the motion for sanctions, they noted another settlement document, dated March 10, 2000, but apparently sent on January 26, 2001, from the Respondent to Attorney Click, in which the Respondent purported to include the Complainant Stender in his settlement proposal, noting that “as long as [Stender] is out there making trouble he is a potential danger …. I cannot guarantee he will take the offer even though it is his only realistic opportunity to get back on the base. His attorney, Mike Ross [sic], is an incompetent buffoon but we will try to reach an agreement with him to end the litigation….” The reviewing committee also considered the following: While the Respondent acknowledged that his descriptions and opinions concerning the Complainants Stender and Rose “were less than complimentary,” he maintained that they were part of an attempt to enter into settlement negotiations on the Wirth claim and were therefore protected by Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which states as follows: Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. Fed. R. Evid. 408. The Respondent maintains that since the statements were made as part of settlement negotiations in the Connecticut federal lawsuit, they are protected communications and cannot form the basis for grievances, as this would place an unjustifiable restraint upon efforts to negotiate settlements. This reviewing committee concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent revealed information relating to the representation of clients, without the consent of those clients, in violation of Rule 1.6(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The statements by the Respondent concerning the Complainants Stender and Rose, detailed above, constitute blatant breaches of a lawyer’s obligation of confidentiality to clients or former clients. The Respondent’s statements not only personally insulted the Complainants Stender and Rose, but disparaged their motives and methods in the lawsuits in which the Respondent had represented them, and also purported to reveal both their prior litigation strategies and their potential future conduct and prospects in ongoing legal disputes. This was clearly the revelation of information relating to representation of clients, done without consultation or consent, in violation of Rule 1.6(a). Additionally, the Respondent made these disclosures in an attempt to promote settlement on behalf of a current client, to the disadvantage of the Complainants Stender and Rose, on whose behalf he had previously litigated against some of the same defendants, in violation of Rule 1.9(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This reviewing committee finds the Respondent’s argument based on federal Rule of Evidence 408 to be wholly without merit. Initially, the reviewing committee notes that Rule 408 governs only the admission of evidence at trial in a lawsuit, and since the Complainants Stender and Rose were not parties to the Connecticut litigation, there is absolutely no nexus between the application of the federal Rules of Evidence in that lawsuit and the Complainants’ ability to file grievances regarding the Respondent’s representation of them. Even if it had some application here, Rule 408, on its face, only prohibits admission “to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.” Indeed, the portion of Rule 408 not cited by the Respondent expressly states that exclusion is not required when the evidence is offered for other purposes, such as proving bias. This reviewing committee views the Respondent’s conduct in this matter as a very significant breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent’s numerous and serious disclosures of confidential information strike at the heart of an attorney’s duty of loyalty to clients or former clients. Accordingly, it is the decision of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court, for violating Rules 1.6(a) and 1.9(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, for the imposition of whatever discipline the court deems appropriate. ____________________________________ Attorney Vincent M. DeAngelo __________________________________ Attorney Tracie Molinaro

Posted by: Chris Pia

This is a Request for special treatment bY Arthur Bryngelson and Mike Rose.....After every 500 they check every 10 signatures for validation. This Is the process.IT WAS DECLARED VALID. Mr Rose ran a Negative Campaign against Mr Scott saying He Requested Special Favors from the Magistrates..... The Election Commission has made a decision......Can You Tell me in the History of SC Politics that a request for a special Hearing On the Petition Process... I am only cutting and pasting What information is out there. If There is a negative thing in the content it's because of the Candidates PAST actions. Not Mine..

Posted by: ChrisPia

Mr. Collins has every right to run as a petition candidate provided that those petitions are VALID. That he laughed about signing the petitions twice himself, as did many of his supporters, as well as some in the grave, demands that every name be entered into the computer, check their registration or lack thereof, district, vital signs, and yes...whether they already voted in the primary for another candidate. The only sour grapes are those of the loser's supporters who tried multiple times to field a candidate and came up with Bill Collins, who ran before against Annette Young without submitting to the debates and rigors and costs of the primary. He's an avowed liberal who offered to try to join the Republican Caucus?! We have the same old special interests doing all and everything, including petition fraud to demand a different outcome than the June 10th primary. It's time we look CAREFULLY at this candidate, Mr. Pia's cut and pastes, and the nasty rhetoric which has been nonstop since March. Examine these petitions and verify each and every signature. It's the least we should expect...one man one vote. If valid, welcome to the election Mr. Collins/Scott?Bagwell?Pratt?Pia? and Ms. Murray!

Posted by: totheright

There is a problem and the problem is Bill Collins who signed his own petition twice and when this was pointed out to him, said I vote early and often, then laughed, ha ha ha. He decided to run two days after his first choice of Randy Scott lost. A real sour grapes mentality.

Posted by: Elaine K

There's a secondary ploy transpiring- it's a political ploy to make the petition process seem tainted to discount the opposition. Even after their challenge is tossed out, we can expect the GOP to use this as their war chant all the way to election day. But it's time to move forward with a real discussion of the issues- health care, a sagging eonomy,sensible growth,crowded schools. Let's get on with it, crybabies!There's a lot at stake.

Posted by: Don Bagwell

The Election Commission Followed the Letter of the Law and The Petition was Valid....Going Through and Checking Every signature is Not Part of The Letter of this law below unless The Election Commission found a Problem. They Didn't Find a Problem using the percentage method and Certified It as a Valid Petition....******“I don’t know of a situation where the board, once a petition has been certified, to have them go back and have the staff do something else.****8 This Statement say it all.

Posted by: Chris Pia

Prior to the review of this petition, a citizen (not a Republican) sent a letter to the State Election Commission expressing concerns.

Posted by: Summerville resident

When Mike Rose loses the election, any doubt he will challenge the votes as well.

Posted by: Maxwell Smart

My earlier prediction that the GOP would use a technicality to try to deprive a citizen from exercise his right to run for office is coming true. And I have no doubt that my second prediction will also come to pass- that there will be a voter backlash against the GOP when folks realize their right to address the government by petition is also being questioned. These are the times that try men's souls...

Posted by: Don Bagwell

It's quite obvious Arthur Bryngelson is trying to help Bill Collins. There is no other way to explain his irrational actions. Oh wait, irrational -- funny, that sounds a lot like Mike Rose.

Posted by: Rose is toast

It doesnt sound like special treatment. It sounds like Bryngelson may have a valid argument. Otherwise what he is saying is they normally would not go back and change anything without validity. 1800 is alot of invalid signatures. Also, I think it is only fair for Mike Rose to be able to verify the validity of the petition signatures. He has 100,000 dollars invested in the Senate Race to Bill Collin's none. That is being accurate and efficient.

Posted by:

SECTION 7-11-85. Verification of petition; bases for rejection of petitioners. Every signature on a petition requiring five hundred or less signatures must be checked for validity by the respective county board of voter registration against the signatures of the voters on the original applications for registration on file in the registration board office. When a petition requires more than five hundred signatures, every one of the first five hundred signatures must be checked for validity and at least one out of every ten signatures thereafter beginning with the five hundred and first signature must be checked for validity. If the projected number of valid signatures, using this percentage method for the signatures over five hundred plus the number of valid signatures in the first five hundred, total at least the number of signatures required by law on the petition, it must be certified as a valid petition. No petition, however, may be rejected if the number of signatures over five hundred checked using the percentage method plus the number of valid signatures in the first five hundred does not total at least the number required by law. If insufficient signatures are found using the percentage method in order to certify as a valid petition, the board of voter registration must check every signature over five hundred separately, or such number over five hundred until the required number of valid signatures is found. If it is a petition seeking to certify a new political party or if the office for which the petition has been submitted comprises more than one county, and using the percentage method of checking does not result in the required number of valid signatures, the executive director of the Commission shall designate which counties must check additional signatures. No signatures on a petition may be rejected if the address of a voter, registration certificate number of a voter, or the precinct of a voter, as required by Section 7-11-80, is missing or incorrect if the signature is otherwise valid. The signature of a voter may only be rejected if it is illegible and cannot be found in the records of the board of voter registration, is missing from the petition, or is not that of the voter, or if the registration of the voter has been deleted for any of the reasons named in items (2) or (3) of Subsection (C) of Section 7-3-20. The board of voter registration shall complete a summary form containing the results of checking any petition and must give the completed form to the requesting authority. The form used for this purpose must be prescribed and provided by the executive director.

Posted by: ChrisPia

Mr. Bryngelson's actions are very consistent with who he is trying to protect (Mike Rose). When Mike doesn't get his way, he files a lawsuit. I am of the opinion that even if every signature was individually notarized, he would still have challenge them.

Posted by: Vote Early-Vote Often

So Is Mike Rose and Arthur Bryngelson Asking for SPECIAL TREATMENT Under The Law? Chris Whitmire, public information officer with the State Elections Commission, said it’s not unusual for someone to have concerns about petition signatures, but it’s not commonplace for the board to hear and act on the concerns. “The person with the concern doesn’t always request (that) the board actually hear them,” Whitmire said. “We have a general policy (that) if someone has concerns about the process or election we want to hear their concerns.” He added, “I don’t know of a situation where the board, once a petition has been certified, to have them go back and have the staff do something else.” Sounds Like a Request for Special Treatment to Me. I Believe a Campaign was run on Negativity of Someone asking for Special Treatment...... The Election Commission followed the Letter of the law.....Dismissed

Posted by: Chris Pia