Inside Nikki Haley's ?Occupy Columbia? Legal Drama ...

Taxpayer costs associated with a variety of Occupy Columbia lawsuits will be mounting soon ? but the real story behind this unfolding government-funded drama is the extent to which S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley appears to have circumvented state law in an effort to score political points.

Beyond the First Amendment concerns associated with this case, Haley appears to have acted outside the scope of her gubernatorial authority in attempting to kick the Occupy Columbia protesters off of the State House grounds. Not only that, her administration has likely set a dangerous precedent by strong-arming an independent agency into accommodating the governor?s desire to appoint her own lawyers to the case.

These attorneys ? who are representing the governor in other matters ? will now make big bucks from taxpayers to defend her in a case that?s entirely of Haley?s making.

?It?s a scam,? one local attorney familiar with the details of the case told FITS. ?It?s a highly unethical arrangement brought about exclusively by the governor?s actions.?

As expected, Haley is appealing a court ruling that went against her last week ? hoping that her efforts to crack down on a small group of mostly liberal protesters will generate some positive national press for her at the tail end of what has been a decidedly awful first year in office.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the Occupy Columbia protesters have a right to remain on the grounds of the S.C. State House at any hour of the day or night ? with their tents and sleeping bags.? Currie?s ruling is the latest legal defeat for Haley? who last month had 19 of the protesters arrested after they refused to abide by her order to ?peaceably disassemble.?

In a nod to the primacy of the First Amendment ? charges against the protesters have since been dropped.

Now, the case revolves around whether the state acted improperly in arresting and removing these protesters ? and whether Haley acted outside of state law in unilaterally making the decision to boot them.

As we?ve noted previously, that cost to defend the taxpayers in this drama has no doubt already exceeded the estimated $17,000 in additional security measures that Haley claims the Occupy Columbia protests were (are) costing taxpayers each month.

Seriously ? just look at all the lawyers who were associated with last week?s hearing ?

(Click to enlarge)

And for what?

The Occupy Columbia ?movement? was a dud from the beginning ? although in fairness it did outdraw one of Haley?s recent ?Join the Movement? town hall meetings. All Haley?s ?eviction? did was expose the state to serious legal risks (and costs) ? while giving the protesters a huge platform from which to publicize their views.

Here?s how the case breaks down ?

Shortly after Haley ordered the eviction of the protesters, the S.C. Budget and Control Board (SCBCB) ? the quasi-legislative, quasi-executive agency in charge of the State House grounds ? was sued as a result of Haley?s actions. At that point, officials with the state?s insurance reserve fund concluded that the claims being made against the state were covered under the SCBCB?s policy ? meaning that Haley?s representation would be provided by the state out of money that has already been collected for the fund.

Haley didn?t want the state?s attorneys to represent her ? and so she petitioned the S.C. Attorney General?s office for permission to access what?s called the ?pre-paid legal program,? an additional insurance policy the state operates (usually to settle workplace disputes).

This petition enabled Haley to retain her own political attorneys (on your dime), which is interesting behavior coming from a so-called taxpayer watchdog who railed against attorneys throughout her 2010 campaign.

Anyway, we?re told that the insurance reserve fund initially rejected Haley?s request ? arguing that permitting her to retain outside counsel meant that they were effectively acknowledging that the claim being made against the state was not covered by the fund.

?We can?t say it?s covered and then approve a request like the one the governor made,? a staffer at the fund tells FITS. ?Those positions are incompatible.?

At that point, Marcia Adams ? the executive director of the SCBCB ? intervened, telling staffers at the insurance reserve fund to ?make it happen.?

Irrespective of who represents Haley, the state is going to lose this case.

And while we disagree with the fact that our state?s executive branch is splintered (and have pushed reforms that Haley herself refuses to fight for), the fact remains that decisions regarding the State House grounds fall under the exclusive purview of the General Services division of the SCBCB ? meaning that Haley lacked the authority to order the Occupy Columbia eviction unilaterally.

In other words, Haley not only violated these protesters First Amendment rights ? she broke state law while doing it. And when she got sued as a result or her illegal actions, she exercised undue influence in getting her political lawyers appointed to the case.

On both the individual liberty and limited government fronts, Haley is failing the citizens and taxpayers of the state with her handling of the Occupy Columbia case.

Yet rather than sensibly settle the case, Haley is vowing to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court ? in fact that?s what she?s hoping for.

Pic: Laurie Giarratano

Source: http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/12/21/inside-nikki-haleys-occupy-columbia-legal-drama/

francesca woodman footlocker jordans