My Daddy, My Daddy… (UPDATED)
Now this is just pitiful.
We are just going to leave this alone and let you decided for yourself just how pitiful it is for Tumpy Campbell to throw out the Daddy-card when something doesn’t go his way. From The State:
“If I had to ask Mark Sanford a question, it would be, ‘Is there not an ounce of loyalty in your body?’” Campbell said. “I’d venture to say my father helped deliver Mark Sanford the governor’s office. I’m pretty offended by this.”
[UPDATE] We changed our mind. We aren’t going to leave it alone. Our opinion - Tumpy Campbell is nothing but a spoiled brat who has had everything handed to him in life.
January 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Does this man really think Sanford cares about anybody anytime???????
Where did he grow up again, utopia?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Judge throws out Bindon Plantation lawsuit
A lawsuit challenging Yemassee’s annexation of the 1,317-acre Bindon Plantation was thrown out of court this month because the judge found the S.C. Attorney General’s Office waited too long to challenge the town’s action, and the other plaintiffs had no right to challenge it.
The lawsuit was brought against Yemassee in July 2006 by environmental watchdog the Coastal Conservation League and three Yemassee or Beaufort County residents who claimed Bindon is not contiguous to Yemassee, as required for annexation under state law. Before grabbing Bindon, Yemassee annexed a 20-foot-wide, 2-mile-long strip of land that connects the town to the plantation.
S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster sought to join the lawsuit in July 2007, but state statute requires that anyone contesting an annexation must file a notice with the town and the county within 60 days of the annexation’s effective date and file suit within 90 days. The annexation became effective in April 2006.
The Attorney General’s Office claimed it did not learn of the annexation until July 2, 2007, but Circuit Court Judge James Lockemy noted in his decision that the attorney general did not file the required paperwork within 60 or 90 days after that date either.
The other plaintiffs filed paperwork within the required time frame, but Lockemy said none of them had standing to challenge the annexation, and deemed their arguments to establish standing “creative.”
The plaintiffs had hoped to establish that Shemuel Nahum Ben Yisrael could challenge the annexation because he is a resident of Yemassee. Any resident of a town that completes an annexation can challenge the action if at least one landowner’s property was annexed without the owner’s permission.
The lawsuit claimed that land owned by the state of South Carolina was annexed without its permission because state-owned tidelands and a portion of U.S. 17 were annexed into Yemassee. Lockemy, however, rejected that argument.
“I am hard pressed to conclude the legislature intended for the state to be consulted every time an annexation included a road or portion of a creek or lake owned or maintained by it,” the judge wrote in his decision. “State business would be brought to a standstill.”
Patrick Moore, south coast office director for Coastal Conservation League, said his organization is planning to appeal Lockemy’s decision. He stressed that Lockemy did not find Bindon was contiguous to Yemassee — Lockemy did not consider that question because the plaintiffs lacked standing.
“Nowhere in the decision does it say the annexation of Bindon Plantation meets the requirements of the law,” Moore said. “While it is not a clear-cut victory for us, there’s nothing in (the judgment) that contradicts our central legal point.”
Lockemy noted in his decision that he is “not unsympathetic to the challenge raised concerning the methodology used to accomplish the annexation.”
Bindon attorney Frances Cantwell said she was very pleased with Lockemy’s ruling, as well as his handling of an unusual phone call the judge received from Gov. Mark Sanford regarding the Bindon case. State Sen. John Knotts of West Columbia accused Sanford earlier this week of calling Lockemy in an attempt to influence the judge’s decision. A spokesman for the governor responded that Sanford has no interest in the Bindon case and his phone call was placed after the case had been resolved.
“The judge called the counsel involved in the case immediately after the governor called him to let us know what had happened and to ask if we thought (Lockemy) could still handle the case,” Cantwell said. “I thought the judge handled it very professionally, with promptness, courtesy and thoroughness in the situation, which was awkward at best.”
Her characterization of Sanford’s behavior was less complimentary.
“My initial reaction was one of being totally dumbfounded,” Cantwell said. “I was stunned. And then after it set in a little bit as to what happened … I’m still very surprised that he would do such a thing.
“I don’t think it’s proper to speak to a judge when he’s got a case under advisement,” she continued. “No lawyer or party (should) do anything like that.”
Cantwell declined to describe the conversation between Lockemy and Sanford because she did not hear the phone call.
Neither Lockemy nor Coastal Conservation League attorney Trenholm Walker could be reached for comment Thursday or Friday.
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local/story/136077.html
January 14th, 2008 at 4:32 am
State Sen. John Knotts of West Columbia accused Sanford earlier this week of calling Lockemy in an attempt to influence the judge’s decision.
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local/story/136077.html
BINDEN PLANTATION LLC - TOWN OF YEMASSEE - BINDON PLANTATION LLC
http://www2.beaufortgazette.com/blogs/post/17027
January 14th, 2008 at 4:37 am
State Sen. John Knotts of West Columbia accused Sanford earlier this week of calling Lockemy in an attempt to influence the judge’s decision.
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local/story/136077.html
BINDEN PLANTATION LLC - TOWN OF YEMASSEE - BINDON PLANTATION LLC
http://www2.beaufortgazette.com/blogs/post/17027
January 15th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Three grounds for invalidating the annexation of Bindon Plantation:
(1) the property sought to be annexed was not contiguous to the City;
(2) the City Council’s actions were “arbitrary, irrational and capricious
(3) no one owning an interest in the waters, marshes, and roads of the Beaufort County had consented to the annexation of that property.
The annexation should be dismissed based on the action on the ground that, because Yemassee did not own real property in the area and had no proprietary interest or statutory rights in the annexed area, it lacked standing to pursue annexation. The court should reverse annexation by observing that Yemassee attempted to establish contiguity, not by merely crossing a roadway to annex an adjacent property, but by annexing the length of a road to establish a common boundary” and further noting that “that kind of annexation is not authorized by the laws of this state.”
Based on the supreme court’s recognition that private individuals have standing to attack and void annexation. The court should conclude that the newly annexed area to Yemassee, without either proprietary interests or statutory rights in the annexed area, does not have standing and the annexation is invalid.
In other words, if a municipality annexes property that is beyond its reach, the annexation must fail as a matter of law, even when there was compliance with the statutory requirements to effect the annexation. It follows, then, that if an annexation is void as a matter of law, a plaintiff need not “assert an infringement of its own proprietary interests or statutory rights in order to establish standing” to challenge it.
The annexation is necessarily defective.
As to the lack of contiguity, “The law authorizes the City to annex only contiguous territory, and since the property purportedly annexed is not contiguous as a matter of law, the annexation is void.” This is to mean that the requirement of contiguity was not met because of the presence of the roads, waters, and marshes between Yemassee and Bindon Plantation.
The Yemassee annexation is defective based on the issue of compliance with the statutory requirements for annexation. The annexation is unauthorized by the laws of this State.
Yemassee has infringed on statutory rights and proprietary interests of the residents of Beaufort County. The annexation will increase Beaufort County’s burden of taxation, and divert taxpayer funds other purposes intended by law and will affect them differently from other citizens and put an unfair burden on the taxpayers of the rest of Beaufort County.
Beaufort County residents have standing because the “the actions of Yemassee in annexing the subject property are void and were done without lawful authority” and would therefore result in the expenditure of municipal funds to provide services to the annexed territory.