What if you were told that you have family court judges such as Monet Pincus who orders others to take 10-panel hair follicle tests if they’re accused of smoking weed but Monet Pincus was arrested for weed before? It’s true.
This is a PDF file provided by the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Committee which selects judges. If you were to scroll down to question 31 you’ll find the following words:
Now you might be saying this is only an arrest. Based on less than an arrest Monet Pincus has been known to have litigants accused of smoking weed and without a weed-related arrest or any arrest of any kind to pay over $100 for drug tests even when that litigant is already paying child support. This woman is persecuting those who are merely accused of something when she was arrested for the exact same substance. Some of those litigants mentioned that these drug tests came even after the litigants asked for evidence that they are currently or has ever used the substance. According to these litigants the response is either, “your lawyer should have revealed that to you” or “I’m not going over that in a 15 minute hearing.”
A court of law should always produce the evidence presented against a person and especially if that person doesn’t have a single arrest to their name which is something Monet Pincus can say actually happened to her for that substance yet we haven’t seen her results for a 10-panel hair follicle test.
Monet Pincus is also from Berkeley in California. Now, that doesn’t automatically mean she consumes cannabis but if someone were to say that about anyone from that area you wouldn’t be stricken with shock.
The reason why we are using Monet Pincus as a case study is that this woman is rumored to be behind some pretty dubious things with a lot of evidence floating around revealing the problems with South Carolina’s joke of a judiciary.
A mere search on the internet reveals her personal bias against fathers. For example, if one were to view her writings on Avvo.com you’d find wonderful personal beliefs such as:
Update: It has come to our attention that someone tried to delete the Avvo.com entry by Monet Pincus. Unfortunately for that individual, we have an archived copy of the statement. Nice try.
You might be saying that the above statement doesn’t demonstrate systemic bias against fathers in court. Re-read that statement. She is declaring that she believes mothers are more adversely affected despite the fact that Monet Pincus hasn’t come out as transgender and couldn’t possibly confirm her beliefs as being nothing more than the ramblings of a woman with an ax to grind. If one were to review her rulings in regards to certain individuals it becomes clear she has a preference for mothers over fathers.
Nathan Ginter is a guardian ad litem for Richland county which is the exact same county Monet Pincus is a judge. Nathan had an encounter with Monet Pincus as a litigant against his child’s mother who was out on bond for felony child endangerment during the time of the court hearing in Judge Pincus’ courtroom. Judge Pincus removed full custody from Nathan and gave a favorable judgment to a woman who was out on bail for child endangerment with the very same child involved in the case.
Mr. Ginter provided a video that is searchable on YouTube through his name with him giving a full testimony that was under oath in front of South Carolina congressmen and senators and mentioned the above information. The reason why Mr. Ginter spoke of bias, even during Monet Pincus’ judicial merit selection committee screening, is because as a guardian ad litem it is his duty to weed out judges he personally knows to be corrupt and undeserving of the position.
The above sentiment is why Mr. Ginter gave a sworn testimony that is, once again, easy to find on YouTube if his name is searched. However, for the sake of transparency we will provide an embedded copy of that video here.
Remember how she said she thinks mothers suffer more during these situations? Wouldn’t that at least partially explain the rather ridiculous notion that a man who can become a guardian ad litem shouldn’t be given preference over a woman who was out on bail for allegedly endangering the very child involved in the case?
While you ponder the above queries ponder about Matt Younginer. Matt is a man who won against Monet Pincus by having a rather ridiculous ruling vacated. Matt also showed up Judge Pincus’ confirmation hearing and yet somehow this woman was still confirmed to the bench.
Judge Pincus had Matt Younginer’s kids removed from him and sent to Montana to what Mr. Younginer describes as a “psychological boot camp.” At the cost of $14000 per parent, those kids would be sent to therapy to “reintroduce them to their mother” despite the fact that Matt Younginer and the kids didn’t want to do any of this. Mr. Younginer’s then 16-year-old daughter wrote journal entries that we have obtained. Read them carefully and decide if it was reasonable to separate this child from her father.
Still think that Avvo.com writing is so innocent? Monet Pincus did that to a 16-year-old girl who just wanted Monet Pincus to believe her when she was saying her mother was a liar, demonized their father and just wanted to destroy the family. One would think that since Monet Pincus spent so much time reminding everyone that she is a woman even when she isn’t specifically asked about it that she would listen and believe a young woman just pleading with her to show mercy and understanding.
Monet Pincus, not only didn’t listen but according to Matt Younginer, she had the 16-year-old’s testimony stricken from the record. The reason why most people who know anything about this woman believes that account is because other media sources such as FitsNews has called out Monet Pincus for sealing records in controversial cases before.
Monet Pincus is a shining example of why judicial reform is desperately needed in the state of South Carolina. Some would say that, if the rumors are true, that we have a dope-smoking fry cook for a judge who rules based on her feelings and not based on the law.
One would think it couldn’t possibly get any worse with Judge Pincus. That person, bless their heart, would be sadly mistaken. If one were to look into lawyers who work for law firms such as the McDougall law firm in South Carolina they would find even more troubling allegations.
Peter Currence is a partner at the law firm and, it is alleged, that during a case pitting him against another lawyer, Sandra Parise, that it was announced that the only reason why Mr. Currence continuously wins cases in Judge Pincus’ court room was due to an “inappropriate relationship.”
It isn’t quite clear what manner of any relationship there was between Mr. Currence and Judge Pincus. We cannot independently confirm this but it is worth mentioning given the gravity of the allegations and the fact that a judge is involved.
We must stress that this is only a claim. Our source gave us this information and we are only reporting what we have been told. Otherwise from that we have no direct evidence of any inappropriate relationship.
One thing that is clear is that a cursory view into Judge Pincus’ judicial record once someone visits the South Carolina Judicial Branch website where cases can be searched and if one were to type in “Pincus” in the search bar to the top right they’d find something interesting results. Based on the results nearly every mention of both Mr. Currence and Mr. McDougall resulted in a 100% batting average of wins in Judge Pincus’ court room. You don’t have to take our word for it. Simply visit the website yourself and type in “Pincus” and notice all the other legal squabbles this judge has found herself in over the years.
We cannot confirm or deny any inappropriate relationship but we can ask some questions.
Mr. Currence couldn’t be reached for comment. When we called the McDougall law firm where Mr. Currence is a partner we got word that he “has no desire to speak to us.”
Remember the Matt Younginer case? The psychologist involved was Dr. Allison Foster who testified that she felt Mr. Younginer’s kids were being alienated from the mother. Judge Pincus valued Dr. Foster’s opinion. In fact, one could say Judge Pincus valued Dr. Foster’s opinion at about $14,000 per parent. Yet, in the case pitting Mr. Currence against another lawyer suddenly that opinion didn’t carry much weight.
A very troubling pattern of Judge Pincus’ personal conduct has come to light. It is well noted from Mr. Younginer, Mr. Ginter and several other litigants, lawyers, guardian ad litems (and certainly so in the case of Nathan Ginter) and lots of others that Judge Pincus has a rather nasty attitude. In fact, when one of our journalists, Dion McNeil, left a comment on a Pro Publica report about South Carolina judicial madness yet another person responded speaking of his experience with Judge Pincus.
In fact, complaints like this have seen aging as far as a decade. Take a look at this complaint and compare it to Brice Harris’ admission above.
That complaint was from March 23, 2009. That was over 10 years ago when people were saying the exact kind of things being said in the present day. From that same page that details her reviews as a lawyer one could find a rather comical piece. Someone actually won their case because of Monet Pincus and yet went out of their way to remind people that she appears to have a rather unpleasant attitude.