Even though we have an open door policy when it comes to opposing points of view or the rebuttal or clarification of information we provide, absolutely zero politicians have bothered to take us up on it. We will put that offer out there again since the 1st Circuit Solicitor is relatively new to CTL. We would be happy to post rebuttals, clarifications, etc.
What we commonly hear from these people in power goes something like, "I won't deign to address allegations made in a posting on an anonymous blog." This, of course, usually means, "I'm going to duck and cover and hope it all goes away soon." Even though we have always had an open door policy here for folks like Scarlett Wilson or Paul Thurmond to send us a note to correct something they believe might be an error, they never bother. We are anonymous, therefore, we are not important or worthy of addressing. We are, of course, anonymous for a very important reason. We go after gang members, hardened criminals and those in government. Sometimes the latter are as dangerous as the former.
Ask our new friends at SCDC how that duck and cover policy worked out for them. With a new administrator came a new policy and we now have a great working relationship with those folks. Ask Scarlett Wilson how it's working out for her. She ended up appearing on a couple of radio shows due to the heat generated by this anonymous blog with almost three millions hits which is read in twelve to fifteen countries on any given day. On those radio shows she blamed cops, criminals and witnesses, the caseload, the setting of the docket and any number of other factors for the public perception of poor performance. Heck, now we are hearing her folks are even visiting various police departments to teach them how to do things to her satisfaction. That's actually a good thing. Next time she blames the cops she will actually be blaming herself.
You know, folks, all it takes is a short note to say something like, "Hey, just FYI, an important witness on that case backed out so we had no choice but to accept that plea." If it is sent, the information will be posted. Unfortunately, too many of your politicians don't believe they should be accountable to you. They use the anonymity of the blog as an excuse to avoid such accountability.
We think there might be one out there who has a different take on things.
One of our readers emailed the 1st Circuit Solicitor, David Pascoe, after our posts about the plea deals given to three shooters. Pascoe was apparently confident enough to respond and the reader was kind enough to post the following comment:
"I did get privy to some additional information. The "victim" in this case was yet another thug. Despite overwhelming evidence he denied that the above mentioned offenders even shot at him. He did not cooperate with the Solicitor and there is even a bench warrant out for him. This is exculpatory and would have eventually have led to the charges being dropped altogether. The push to get them probation was to at least get them some probation. I can say that the 1st Solicitor was pretty frustrated.
Other issues that were brought up were funding. Dorchester County has 4 General Sessions Asst Solicitors versus 8 in Berkeley. Anyone who has lived in the area more than 20 years can remember when Dorchester County was significantly less populated and this is no longer the case. The State needs to catch-up.
I am not in Law Enforcement nor do I work for the Courts. I simply emailed the link to the First Solicitor and received a professional response. I challenge everyone to begin doing the same when possible. I really think that is the next step to keeping the heaton the system. Politicians seek reelection and believe me they will respond if they get flooded with emails."
Apparently, the thugs we discussed HERE and HERE were trying to kill a rival thug back in July of 2013 when they shot up Planters Retreat Apartments. The target thug decided he wanted to lie to police, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and say he wasn't shot at. As a result, the 1st Circuit Solicitor's Office had no choice but to arrange a plea deal with the three co-defendants.
We can understand that sort of thing and we appreciate Pascoe taking the time to explain it to the citizen who contacted him. Unlike other local solicitors he didn't go into a litany of reasons why he couldn't prosecute cases and he didn't blame the police for giving him a poor case.
Apparently funding is an issue in the Dorchester County side of the 1st Circuit. Dorchester County Council doesn't like to fund important things which truly affect the quality of life in the county. Things like the Sheriff's Department and the Solicitor's Office. This 2013 article from the Journal Scene explains some of the problems Pascoe is having. The article indicates Pascoe hasn't requested a budget increase from Dorchester County Council in the past seven years. Really? No wonder the office is in such dire straits. Of course, Dorchester County is so FUBAR he probably just thought it wasn't worth the effort.
As a result of the lack of funding Pascoe indicated his office would stop prosecuting magistrate level offenses. We found that kind of shocking. Not the fact that he would cut that service, but the fact that the service is provided at all. We checked with folks from a variety of other local agencies and were told arresting officers prosecute their own cases in municipal and magistrate courts.
Why would a solicitor's office be involved in prosecuting cases like simple possession of marijuana, simple assault, 1st offense shoplifting, or disorderly conduct in the first place? That seems like a serious waste of resources to us, but it has apparently been going on for quite some time. You might need a prosecuting attorney if a defendant is dumb enough to spend thousands to hire a lawyer and request a jury trial on charges with a maximum fine of a few hundred dollars, but those cases can't be all that common. The solicitor's office should be concentrating on prosecution of more serious cases. Saddling them with the distraction of having to handle lower level cases just doesn't make sense, especially when you have only four (4) prosecutors for the entire county.
In the article Pascoe says his four prosecutors were handling over 400 cases per year. We tend to think that number is higher. Our question is, how much can that caseload be reduced if officers prosecute their own magistrate level cases like they do in Charleston County?
While it isn't brought up in the article we are pretty sure Pascoe will also take issue with what his prosecutors are paid by the county. Unfortunately, that is a common problem in that county. They don't even pay their deputies a living wage, which is exactly why so many end up leaving for other agencies.
We would like to offer a bit of advice to David Pascoe. Below is a screen capture from your 1st Circuit Solicitor website. Can you tell us what seems to missing? Yep, updates. The average citizen visiting your site will see this and assume either (a) your office hasn't done anything worthwhile or newsworthy since January of 2012 or (b) you folks don't care much. Solicitors are elected. As such you would think a politician would understand the importance of public relations and keeping constituents advised of what is happening. If you want the taxpayer to go to bat for you with county council when you request a budget increase, it might help to let the public know you aren't just sitting around doing nothing. Any citizen who pulls up your "News" page will think just that and won't be inclined to contact council on your behalf. Just an observation, Counselor.
![]()
What we commonly hear from these people in power goes something like, "I won't deign to address allegations made in a posting on an anonymous blog." This, of course, usually means, "I'm going to duck and cover and hope it all goes away soon." Even though we have always had an open door policy here for folks like Scarlett Wilson or Paul Thurmond to send us a note to correct something they believe might be an error, they never bother. We are anonymous, therefore, we are not important or worthy of addressing. We are, of course, anonymous for a very important reason. We go after gang members, hardened criminals and those in government. Sometimes the latter are as dangerous as the former.
Ask our new friends at SCDC how that duck and cover policy worked out for them. With a new administrator came a new policy and we now have a great working relationship with those folks. Ask Scarlett Wilson how it's working out for her. She ended up appearing on a couple of radio shows due to the heat generated by this anonymous blog with almost three millions hits which is read in twelve to fifteen countries on any given day. On those radio shows she blamed cops, criminals and witnesses, the caseload, the setting of the docket and any number of other factors for the public perception of poor performance. Heck, now we are hearing her folks are even visiting various police departments to teach them how to do things to her satisfaction. That's actually a good thing. Next time she blames the cops she will actually be blaming herself.
You know, folks, all it takes is a short note to say something like, "Hey, just FYI, an important witness on that case backed out so we had no choice but to accept that plea." If it is sent, the information will be posted. Unfortunately, too many of your politicians don't believe they should be accountable to you. They use the anonymity of the blog as an excuse to avoid such accountability.
We think there might be one out there who has a different take on things.
One of our readers emailed the 1st Circuit Solicitor, David Pascoe, after our posts about the plea deals given to three shooters. Pascoe was apparently confident enough to respond and the reader was kind enough to post the following comment:
"I did get privy to some additional information. The "victim" in this case was yet another thug. Despite overwhelming evidence he denied that the above mentioned offenders even shot at him. He did not cooperate with the Solicitor and there is even a bench warrant out for him. This is exculpatory and would have eventually have led to the charges being dropped altogether. The push to get them probation was to at least get them some probation. I can say that the 1st Solicitor was pretty frustrated.
Other issues that were brought up were funding. Dorchester County has 4 General Sessions Asst Solicitors versus 8 in Berkeley. Anyone who has lived in the area more than 20 years can remember when Dorchester County was significantly less populated and this is no longer the case. The State needs to catch-up.
I am not in Law Enforcement nor do I work for the Courts. I simply emailed the link to the First Solicitor and received a professional response. I challenge everyone to begin doing the same when possible. I really think that is the next step to keeping the heaton the system. Politicians seek reelection and believe me they will respond if they get flooded with emails."
Apparently, the thugs we discussed HERE and HERE were trying to kill a rival thug back in July of 2013 when they shot up Planters Retreat Apartments. The target thug decided he wanted to lie to police, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and say he wasn't shot at. As a result, the 1st Circuit Solicitor's Office had no choice but to arrange a plea deal with the three co-defendants.
We can understand that sort of thing and we appreciate Pascoe taking the time to explain it to the citizen who contacted him. Unlike other local solicitors he didn't go into a litany of reasons why he couldn't prosecute cases and he didn't blame the police for giving him a poor case.
Apparently funding is an issue in the Dorchester County side of the 1st Circuit. Dorchester County Council doesn't like to fund important things which truly affect the quality of life in the county. Things like the Sheriff's Department and the Solicitor's Office. This 2013 article from the Journal Scene explains some of the problems Pascoe is having. The article indicates Pascoe hasn't requested a budget increase from Dorchester County Council in the past seven years. Really? No wonder the office is in such dire straits. Of course, Dorchester County is so FUBAR he probably just thought it wasn't worth the effort.
As a result of the lack of funding Pascoe indicated his office would stop prosecuting magistrate level offenses. We found that kind of shocking. Not the fact that he would cut that service, but the fact that the service is provided at all. We checked with folks from a variety of other local agencies and were told arresting officers prosecute their own cases in municipal and magistrate courts.
Why would a solicitor's office be involved in prosecuting cases like simple possession of marijuana, simple assault, 1st offense shoplifting, or disorderly conduct in the first place? That seems like a serious waste of resources to us, but it has apparently been going on for quite some time. You might need a prosecuting attorney if a defendant is dumb enough to spend thousands to hire a lawyer and request a jury trial on charges with a maximum fine of a few hundred dollars, but those cases can't be all that common. The solicitor's office should be concentrating on prosecution of more serious cases. Saddling them with the distraction of having to handle lower level cases just doesn't make sense, especially when you have only four (4) prosecutors for the entire county.
In the article Pascoe says his four prosecutors were handling over 400 cases per year. We tend to think that number is higher. Our question is, how much can that caseload be reduced if officers prosecute their own magistrate level cases like they do in Charleston County?
While it isn't brought up in the article we are pretty sure Pascoe will also take issue with what his prosecutors are paid by the county. Unfortunately, that is a common problem in that county. They don't even pay their deputies a living wage, which is exactly why so many end up leaving for other agencies.
We would like to offer a bit of advice to David Pascoe. Below is a screen capture from your 1st Circuit Solicitor website. Can you tell us what seems to missing? Yep, updates. The average citizen visiting your site will see this and assume either (a) your office hasn't done anything worthwhile or newsworthy since January of 2012 or (b) you folks don't care much. Solicitors are elected. As such you would think a politician would understand the importance of public relations and keeping constituents advised of what is happening. If you want the taxpayer to go to bat for you with county council when you request a budget increase, it might help to let the public know you aren't just sitting around doing nothing. Any citizen who pulls up your "News" page will think just that and won't be inclined to contact council on your behalf. Just an observation, Counselor.
