Why?
(obligatory Annie Lennox song forthcoming)
So I've been following with some interest this ongoing saga that appears to *maybe* be headed towards some sort of conclusion. What I don't understand is how or why dalliances are somehow relevant towards this discussion. Further, I fail to see where such admissions, both in courtroom testimony and in sworn depositions contribute to either the plaintiff or defense.
How so?
Your local hate radio folks (hate radio as defined by the SPLC), would like for you to believe that "moral turpitude" is the proverbial smoking gun. It's the out for the county and a means by which funds can be recovered. There is a problem with that assertion - it's a very simple problem: Moral turpitude required a criminal conviction. To have a criminal conviction also requires a prosecutor that can bring forth charges based upon sufficient evidence. Further, the prosecutor must be willing to bring forth charges.
The Grand Jury found no criminal wrong-doing. I don't see any prosecutor stepping forward to charge either party involved in the dalliances with crimes that could rise to the level of moral turpitude.
Then there is that pesky SCOTUS ruling that really throws a monkey wrench into it all ...
No, I am not referring to Lawrence v. Texas, as that has been referenced on other sites. I'm referencing Eisenstadt v. Baird. What is Eisenstadt v. Baird?
While I hate quoting from Wikipedia, the entry is properly cited, notated, and spot-on. So ...
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), is an important United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse (though not the right of unmarried people to engage in any type of sexual intercourse).
The Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
SCOTUS gives the green-light to boink ... in 1972. In fact, this case is so significant to the right of privacy as it pertains to sexual intercourse between consenting adults that Eisenstadt v. Baird is referenced FIFTY-TWO times between 1972 and 2002 by the US Supreme Court in other rulings. In short, everyone from the Feds on down to all 50 states have used Eisenstadt v. Baird as authority in rulings.
So why? Moral turpitude is a non-starter and a non-issue. No one would or will prosecute and courts far and above this one have ruled on issues such as this DECADES AGO. Quite honestly, that clause in his contract should have never been there in the first place; a bit like an appendix.
Music ... yes yes ... an SSHM post is not complete without music ...
- SSHM
While I ......
......the right of unmarried people .......
........ the right of unmarried couples ........
.........(though not the right of unmarried people .........- SSHM
-sshm
The event involved MARRIED people.
Perhaps an attorney would comment.
This pertains to MARRIED people.Perhaps an attorney would comment.
-centrist-view
Actually it DOES apply to both married AND unmarried people.
Please carefully re-read Eisenstadt v. Baird. An attorney can address the nuisances, but not the reading comprehension.
- SSHM
Actually it DOES apply to both married AND unmarried people.
Please carefully re-read Eisenstadt v. Baird. An attorney can address the nuisances, but not the reading comprehension.
- SSHM
-sshm
Married COUPLES, as in married to each other.
Married COUPLES, as in married to each other.
-centrist-view
Are you completely daft??
" . . . that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse (though not the right of unmarried people to engage in any type of sexual intercourse)"
Did you read and comprehend the portion in BOLD?!?
The last portion in parenthesis pertains to the nature of the sexual intercourse (e.g., sodomy). That would be rectified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 by SCOTUS.
- SSHM
Are you completely daft??
" . . . that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse (though not the right of unmarried people to engage in any type of sexual intercourse)"
Did you read and comprehend the portion in BOLD?!?
The last portion in parenthesis pertains to the nature of the sexual intercourse (e.g., sodomy). That would be rectified by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 by SCOTUS.
- SSHM
-sshm
You are suggesting that Eisenstadt v. Baird overrules marriage laws and invalidates marriage contracts.
It ONLY states that UNMARRIED and MARRIED couples can both POSSESS.
It ONLY states that UNMARRIED couples can ENGAGE.
It does NOT state that a MARRIED person can ENGAGE OUTSIDE of their legally CONTRACTED marriage.
Let's look at South Carolina law.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t20c001.php
SECTION 20-1-10. Persons who may contract matrimony.
(Layman's description.)
MARRIAGE LAWS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
http://www.helplinelaw.com/article/usa-south%20carolina/351
The marriage law in the State of South Carolina is governed by the Title 20- Domestic Relations
South Carolina Code. As per the code the marriage is a contract. Where
one male and a female binds themselves to contract to be husband and
wife of each other* respectively.
*Note the phrase "each other." Marriage means a man and woman agree contractually to ENGAGE only with each other, and no other.
You lose the argument. If you think I am wrong, argue this with your significant other and see if she agrees you can ENGAGE outside of your relationship.
... and you are actually making the case that state law trumps the highest court in the land? Really???
For the rest of us who did not snooze through Civics 101, I'll provide another bit of context for this court case and again, why "moral turpitude" is a non-starter and not in play, at least not since 1972.
The Fact Finders - Making Sense of the Contraception Controversy Part 2 - Sex & the Law
http://www.thefactfinders.org/1/post/2012/5/making-sense-of-the-contraception-controversy-part-2-sex-the-law.html
Specifically from that link:
Two recent Supreme Court cases–Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)(9) and Lawrence v. Texas (2004)(10)–have defined sexual behavior along a continuum, where marriage and crime are outer extremes and acts falling in the middle are not regulated by the law.
Both cases have caused discomfort among judges.(13) In Eisenstadt, the Court implied that sex was no longer criminal for unmarried persons without declaring that criminal fornication statutes were unconstitutional.
The Lawrence case was viewed through past decisions including the three part test given by Glucksberg.(10) The Lawrence decision departed from Glucksberg and overturned Bowers v. Hardwick(14)(a Georgia sodomy case). Lawrence created a space where a consensual sex act was permitted rather than part of marriage or criminal.(1, 13) Justice Kennedy said in his written opinion:
“Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”
That first section there in bold ... it's pointing out the fact that just because the law is on the books does not mean we enforce it. Good example: Interracial marriage in South Carolina was constitutionally banned until 1998. Do you think that 1.) That law was enforced prior to 1998? and 2.) Interracial couples didn't marry in South Carolina until 1998? Please ...
Now unless something has changed, and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution was removed, I'll take a SCOTUS ruling over and ahead of anything put forth by the General Assembly, not just because it's a good idea, but because it is THE LAW.
- SSHM
... and you are actually making the case that state law trumps the highest court in the land? Really???
-sshm
The case we're making is you don't know what the F#$% you're talking about. Here you are trying to make an argument that boinking someone is perfectly okay and allowed by law. The point you are missing and what is the more salient point is, Preston was boinking a POTENTIAL NEW HIRE/SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEE. It's not whether he was having sex with someone or not, IT IS WHO THAT SOMEONE WAS AND THE STATION THEY HELD JOBWISE UNDER JOEY PRESTON. An employee/ subordinate employee sexual relationship is strictly forbidden in every corner of the business world as I know it.
“An employee/ subordinate employee sexual relationship is
strictly forbidden in every corner of the business world as I know it.”
Root
The practice you refer to is discouraged in business, but it
happens to be a pretty common-place occurrence. If these common-place
occurrences were criminally prosecuted, the sentence would have to be house-arrest
because the jails could not handle the burden. I can remember the advice of a college
marketing professor I had many years ago – this professor stated “don’t pick
your nose with your college ring finger on an interview and keep your pecker
out of the payroll”. Since that time the morals in this country and in the
business world have been severely relaxed.
Zorro1
all meaningless since the judge reitterated that this case is only about the terms of the severance agreement and the process by which it was enacted...
nothing else is even relevant
“An employee/ subordinate employee sexual relationship isstrictly forbidden in every corner of the business world as I know it.”Root
The practice you refer to is discouraged in business, but ithappens to be a pretty common-place occurrence....
....keep your peckerout of the payroll”. Since that time the morals in this country and in thebusiness world have been severely relaxed.
Zorro1
-zorro1
But not in Anderson County, S.C.
I don't know which planet you hail from; but, you will not find a single Blue Chip, Fortune 500 Company that tolerates manager employee-subordinate sexual relations. It is strictly taboo and there is good reason for it. Stop trying to play damage control for you boy. He finally had his comeuppance and had to admit he was boinking a subordinate employee and it is clear from her testimony he controlled everything she said and did. So stop trying to sugar coat it now that the evidence you have been demanding for years is now slapped all over your mug like a two day old fish.
all meaningless since the judge reitterated that this case is only about the terms of the severance agreement and the process by which it was enacted...
nothing else is even relevant
-palmetto-native
Joey has made great effort to emphasize the "toxic political environment" of Anderson County on 2008. It was under this logic that Judge Couch (even stating as much) even allowed for consideration all the things Joey is having divulged about him and his influence peddling. The Caters Lake and subsequent revelation of a fake sting operation and an 8 year sexual affair with a subordinate employee came in on the coattails of Joey's case. The toxic environment declaration. The County was then able to show the flip side of that in why county council members were giving Preston a look to begin with. And why they were suspicious about him and to then create whatever environment existed.
The case we're making is you don't know what the F#$% you're talking about. Here you are trying to make an argument that boinking someone is perfectly okay and allowed by law. The point you are missing and what is the more salient point is, Preston was boinking a POTENTIAL NEW HIRE/SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEE. It's not whether he was having sex with someone or not, IT IS WHO THAT SOMEONE WAS AND THE STATION THEY HELD JOBWISE UNDER JOEY PRESTON. An employee/ subordinate employee sexual relationship is strictly forbidden in every corner of the business world as I know it.
-root
"THE STATION THEY HELD JOBWISE UNDER JOEY PRESTON" hooya! that horzontal pay raise system now we know why ol Babs got so much n that deal was sealed. Root you fergit SSHM was saying way back weren't nuthin to that rumor. Im thinkin SSHM is hurting pert near nuf fer bein stoopid
But not in Anderson County, S.C.
I don't know which planet you hail from; but, you will not find a single Blue Chip, Fortune 500 Company that tolerates manager employee-subordinate sexual relations. It is strictly taboo and there is good reason for it. Stop trying to play damage control for you boy. He finally had his comeuppance and had to admit he was boinking a subordinate employee and it is clear from her testimony he controlled everything she said and did. So stop trying to sugar coat it now that the evidence you have been demanding for years is now slapped all over your mug like a two day old fish.
-root
not sure if you noticed root but to Mr. Hankey the damn Yankee it seems that it was kinda common knowlage that JP was boinking a number of people. and who some of them peoples where. Hell we heard it all laid out on hate radio several times.
so if it was a real problem then why did they not come down on it before?
your answer is that no one really cared who JP was boinking.
well I know some insaney jealous crazy old whip rag who does. but who cares what she thinks, she is nutz.
Oh look ... two of the three stooges have crawled out from under their rocks to reply. So to clarify where we are:
1.) Moral turpitude is a non-starter and is not applicable in this case or any case going forward.
2.) SCOTUS rulings in both 1972 and 2003 as well as the subsequent FIFTY-TWO other SCOTUS references to the 1972 case have created, in effect, a gray vacuum in which fornication laws are invalid.
3.) It is NOT illegal to engage in dalliances with fellow co-workers. It might be poor judgement, it might even look bad, but it's NOT illegal.
4.) Anderson County Government is neither a Fortune 500 Company, nor will it ever be.
It always seems to come back to this most basic of premises: You don't LIKE the man, you abhor what he has done for Anderson County, and by God, you wish he had done SOMETHING illegal. Criminalizing politics you don't agree with isn't the answer and it certainly serves to highlight the overall intelligence level of "Get Joey" crowd.
Fact and figures ... too much to comprehend, no?
Ah facts ... never forget the words of our second president, John Adams:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Clearly your passions blind you to the truth, the facts, the evidence, and the law.
- SSHM
If Preston wins this law suit, will he be awarded more money since council violated the terms of the contract? Or will he need to file an action?
-bryan
Bryan,
There is that potential. Should Judge Couch find for the defense, it would, to me anyway, provide the path forward for JRP to extract additional monies from the county. Do I see that happening at this point? I truly doubt it. The settlement offer offered by Preston (and refused by the county) and comments from Will Preston in the Independent-Mail lead me to draw the conclusion that this would be over.
- SSHM
Very good post, sshm - it sums up the civil case -time to move on and elect some intelligence on county council.
Zorro1
... and you are actually making the case that state law trumps the highest court in the land?
-sshm
So, you are stating that Eisenstadt v. Baird overrules marriage laws and invalidates marriage contracts in all 50 states?
not sure if you noticed root but to Mr. Hankey the damn Yankee it seems that it was kinda common knowlage that JP was boinking a number of people. and who some of them peoples where. Hell we heard it all laid out on hate radio several times.
so if it was a real problem then why did they not come down on it before?
your answer is that no one really cared who JP was boinking.
well I know some insaney jealous crazy old whip rag who does. but who cares what she thinks, she is nutz.
-mr-hankey-the-d
I hate to break it to ya but more than a few think you're nutz. Joey Preston was not lily white like he tries to protray. He did not deserve a buyout at a premium just because he could pull it together for himself. He gave himself $365,000 in retirement credits that are no where in his contract. The reality is he quit because he knew he was going to be fired. So while he still had a council that would do whatever he said or who "owed" him he rammed an exit deal down our throats he was not entitled to.
