Secessionist Group: Haley Broke Law Flying University Flag

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley apparently broke the law when she flew a university flag over the Capitol to commemorate a baseball championship game recently.

The governor most likely breached the state’s Heritage Act, which needs a two-thirds vote by lawmakers in order to alter or eliminate historical items consisting of the flags that fly over the Capitol Dome.



“If she can do this with no consequences, I want to set up my plaques,” said Greenwood Mayor Welborn Adams, who is among the critics who state the law is overreaching. The law has obstructed Adams from changing existing plaques on a city World War I monument that list soldiers as “colored” or “white” with brand-new plaques that do not segregate them.

James Bessenger of The South Carolina Secessionist Party initially raised the issue. He said his organization is speaking to an attorney and considering whether to submit a protest with police over Haley’s choice to fly the Coastal Carolina flag for a day.

State law is clear about the flags. After specifying just the U.S. flag and the state flag can be flown, the law says “no other flag will be displayed in these locations or atop the dome or roofing system.” A later chapter of the exact same area of law requires as much as 30 days in jail or a $100 fine for using “the State House or grounds for any purpose not authorized by law.”

26s1This isn’t the very first time a governor has actually raised a champion winning school’s flag this century. Gov. Mark Sanford in 2010 and Haley in 2011 raised a University of South Carolina flag after that school won national titles in baseball. That was prior to Haley called for the removal of the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds after the killing of nine black individuals in a Charleston church by a shooter authorities stated was inspired by racial hatred.

Sticking to the law, Haley pressed lawmakers to obtain the required two-thirds vote to get rid of the Confederate flag entirely from the Capitol last July.

“All the sudden she now has the authority to override a two-thirds vote?” Bessenger stated.

After the 2015 vote to take down the flag, House Speaker Jay Lucas said agents would not use up any other issues related to the Heritage Act. He kept that vow all through the 2016 session, even as Haley herself asked that The Citadel be enabled to remove a Confederate flag from a chapel a move also backed by the school’s board.

26s2Lucas’ spokesperson said he likely would not comment on the problem. Haley spokeswoman Chaney Adams addressed questions about the flag with a declaration explaining the guv was simply continuing a tradition started when Clemson University’s football group won the national championship in 1981.

A group in Greenwood is currently taking legal action against the Legislature over the Heritage Act, stating it unlawfully eliminates control from local governments. The mayor stated the danger of criminal charges is exactly what kept him from changing the bronze war memorial plaques after he gathered personal donations and having the brand-new ones cast.

“I didn’t feel like pressing it that hard,” Adams said.

The guv’s seemed to have good intentions with the flag-raising. She sent pictures of her watching the game Thursday on Twitter, then pictures of her and her husband as the Coastal Carolina flag was raised. A video on the front page of her state website Tuesday afternoon reveals the event with positive band music being played in the background.

“These were the underdogs,” Haley said in an interview outside the Statehouse about an hour after the team won the title. “They combated hard. They won. They made South Carolina proud.”

Sarah Palin Instructs Americans to Regard ‘Guideline of Law, Easily Forgets Kid s Arrest

The FBI recommended against charging Hillary Clinton for mishandling categorized info previously today, and you had much better think Sarah Palin has published a completely incomprehensible response on her Facebook page. In it, she lambasts GOP #NEVERTRUMP TRAITORS and insists that moms and dads teach their kids to respect the law, an intriguing need considering her son Track was just recently apprehended on domestic violence charges.

Ironic, awful, but not unforeseen – amidst America’s Independence Day events the Ruling Class put another boot on our neck to snuff liberty’s life from We individuals, Palin composes, with the significant flair of a 12-year-old from the year 1775. We MUST redouble efforts to bring back the rule of law that had sustained the most exceptional country in the world, with everyone doing their part.

Palin’s suggestions for restoring the rule of law following Clinton s non-indictment have to do with as particular as she has actually ever gotten, which is to say, not specific at all and pretty confusing:

26s3Don’t put blind faith in any politician, but put on t give up on our forefather’s charters of flexibility that created a Republic to be governed by and for We the People.

Teach your children America s structure improved the guideline of Mahany Law; guarantee they understand effects for their actions, regardless of our short-term leaders dealing with no such thing.

Unite behind those who have no part in the corrupt political device that would mock, silence and destroy the outsiders committed to serving for the ideal factors; oppose all who campaign one way but regulate another once they get to Washington and get sucked in to both party establishments that reward and safeguard their own.

Get your boots on the ground and work for exactly what you understand is ideal for our country’s survival. Don’t simply preach to the choir – infiltrate and impact outside your comfort zone to empower others to take a stand against the Left’s ravaging fundamental transformation of America.


Exactly what are you waiting for? It’s quite simple get your boots on the ground and reveal our predecessors that you respect we the People!

Law Society: Time to evaluate time limits on raising court actions

The Law Society of Scotland has actually said that clearness is required on the present time limits for raising claims in court.

In its reaction to a discussion paper published by the Scottish Law Commission (SLC) on prescription law, the Law Society has said that clarity on time limitations might minimize money and time invested in raising cases which could be settled outside the courtroom.

26s5The SLC paper examined problems within the law of unfavorable prescription, which establishes the time limitation within which someone should raise a clam in court. If the time limit is missed, the ability to pursue a claim is lost.

John Paul Sheridan, convener of the commitments law sub-committee at the Law Society, said: We’re happy the Scottish Law Commission has carried out its evaluation on this location of law. At the moment there is a real absence of clearness in some cases as to when the clock will start to run.

This can cause procedures being raised which might otherwise be settled out of court and lead to unnecessary cost to the celebrations raising actions, insurance companies and the public bag by the use of judicial resources.

The SLC has actually proposed that there must be a general rule that rights and responsibilities occurring under statute should come under the five-year prescription duration. There would then have to be policy decisions made on whether there need to be specific exceptions to that rule which would enable a case to be raised within 20-year duration.

Mr. Sheridan said: Some of the statutory obligations which might be affected might consist of a commitment for a recipient of legal aid making a payment to the Scottish Legal Aid Board from property which is recovered through effective legal proceedings. Another would be a statutory obligation to pay child upkeep.


We also think that council tax would have to be taken a look at in relation to any change to time frame. At the moment a local authority can make a claim for unsettled council tax payment within a 20-year period.

If the basic guideline were to be embraced then, unless an exception was made, council tax would be captured by the five-year prescription duration.

He added: 20-year duration is not significantly longer or shorter than other legal systems and for this reason, and in the absence of any compelling reason for modification; we would support its retention for specific circumstances.

Clearness in this location of law, in addition to the possibility of standstill agreements to permit celebrations to think about the problems without the requirement for court action, would minimize the quantity of time, money and effort otherwise squandered in advancing proceedings.