Pages Navigation Menu

Exposing the criminal element for 3 years

Solicitors Protection Act

We are sitting around after work, sipping some Land Shark and debating whether to change the name of the blog to “Political Thug Life”.

With everything else going on you may have overlooked our previous posts on something we called the “Criminal Protection Act“. We also did a follow-up to that post which you can find HERE. We were addressing a piece of legislation proposed by Paul Thurmond in which he wants to designate every private citizen who posts a mugshot to their Facebook or Twitter feeds as a “business”. When questioned about it all he had to say was, “Well, Georgia did it and I copied them.”

We were hoping at least one of the local talking heads would have picked up that ball and run with it. Note we said “hoping”. We hoped for a surprise, but they met our expectations instead. They actually avoided that ball like it was a pressure cooker left on sidewalk. We didn’t really expect them to go after it as Scarlett Wilson and Paul Thurmond seem to be their little Republican darlings.

We must admit we erred when we called the combination of S-700, SB 3184 and the changes to SC Code of Laws Section 17-1-40 the Criminal Protection Act. It seems we should have referred to it as the “Solicitors Protection Act“.

We may or may not have reached out recently to a contact in an organization which may or may not be called the  NSA. You know them. They are the ones who may or may not be recording all your phone calls, text messages, emails, etc. Our contact may or may not have told us about what may or may not have been a phone call that may or may not have taken place between parties who may or may not be named Scarlett Wilson and Paul Thurmond.

SW: Gee, Paul, that Charleston Thug Life blog has really been handing me my ass lately. They are making me look really bad due to all the plea agreements and dismissed charges.I mean, seriously! How am I supposed to be able to tell what someone will do in the future after I have dismissed two or three murder charges against them? What am I, a freakin’ psychic?? I wish there was some way we could hide all of that information from the idiot public. I mean, damn, suppose I have an opponent in the next election for Solicitor. I won’t stand a chance if all that information is available.

PT: Yeah, they have been hitting you pretty hard, but let me see what I can do for you. After all, I have to think about my own career in politics, too. I mean, I handled thousands of cases while I worked for you and won thirteen of fourteen trials. I know we don’t make the name of the solicitor who handles a particular case available to the public, but some enterprising Democrat reporter might start filing FOIA’s around re-election time just to find out how many of those thousands of cases I was involved in were dismissed.

SW: Thanks Paul. You’re a peach! My moronic constituents don’t realize that police officers write crappy reports, screw up all the evidence, don’t know how to testify, and violate people’s rights. It’s their fault I have to dismiss all those cases. Not to mention the fact that those retarded officers can NEVER send me a fine, upstanding member of society as a witness. I mean really, don’t people from Kiawah Island or even Coosaw Creek ever come out from behind those gates and sally forth into the hood to witness a crime?

PT: Yeah, I know. But, that’s why the dumbasses are cops in the first place. They weren’t smart enough to be lawyers or rich enough to go to law school. Okay, just spit-balling here. I have been sniffing the asses of a couple of politicians in Georgia and I have an idea. I will copy their mugshot statute which declares any person who posts a mugshot anywhere on the internet to be a business. Then we can have the Attorney General go after them and take huge sums of money from them. That should intimidate the bastards and prevent other asshole citizens anywhere in the state from starting a similar venture. It should also serve to sufficiently cow the local media in the event one of the organizations ever grows a set of balls and hires a decent investigative reporter.

SW: Yeah, it might, but I need something more. My problem isn’t the posting of mugshots, it is the posting of criminal histories and the results of those cases once they enter the criminal justice system. Hahaha! I said “criminal justice”. Oh, shit, I am freakin’ hilarious!!!

PT: You rock, Scarlett! Well, there is another route I can take.  A bunch of Democrats are proposing some changes which will require the automatic expungement of all records of an arrest for someone who is found not guilty. I will sign on as a sponsor and get some additional wording inserted that also requires expungement of any charges you dismiss. The upside is it will also protect all of our lawyer buddies when they decide to run for solicitor and use the office as a stepping stone to reach state or national office. You know as well as I do that lawyers are the only people qualified to run the government.

SW: Wow! That’s a brilliant idea! I mean, really, the public only has to know about convictions and we can control that information with our bullshit little press releases we put out in order to make them think we are actually serious about fighting crime. Those dismissals really aren’t important anyway. All of these shit for brains citizens complain about them as if they don’t give a damn that I have a docket to clear.

PT: I just had another brilliant thought. One advantage to the legislation I will propose is that I can word it in such a way that guilty pleas are even covered up. Think about it. If a defendant is charged with murder and you let him plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter, all mention of the murder charge disappears by default. The public is stupid and won’t catch on to the results of that vague wording. The morons won’t know what hit them.

SW: Genius!

PT: Yeah, I know. I have been up here long enough to learn a few tricks, don’t ya know! You already know how vaguely I worded my bill, S 700. Here, let me read this to you.

SECTION 17-1-40. Destruction of records where charges dismissed; fee; exception; promulgation of regulations. 

(A) A person who after being charged with a criminal offense and the charge is discharged, proceedings against the person are dismissed, or the person is found not guilty of the charge, the arrest and booking record, files, mug shots, and fingerprints of the person must be destroyed and no evidence of the record pertaining to the charge may be retained by any municipal, county, or state law enforcement agency. Provided, however, that local and state detention and correctional facilities may retain booking records, identifying documentation and materials, and other institutional reports and files under seal, on all persons who have been processed, detained, or incarcerated, for a period not to exceed three years from the date of the expungement order to manage their statistical and professional information needs and, where necessary, to defend such facilities during litigation proceedings except when an action, complaint, or inquiry has been initiated. Information retained by a local or state detention or correctional facility as permitted under this section after an expungement order has been issued is not a public document and is exempt from disclosure. Such information only may be disclosed by judicial order, pursuant to a subpoena filed in a civil action, or as needed during litigation proceedings. A person who otherwise intentionally retains the arrest and booking record, files, mug shots, fingerprints, or any evidence of the record pertaining to a charge discharged or dismissed pursuant to this section is guilty of contempt of court

SW: Holy cow!! When you combine them all of these changes will make it look like I have a 100% conviction rate! Thanks, Paul!

PT: No problem. I had to kiss a lot of ass to get those morons to vote for me so I could get up here and quietly screw them over. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

SW: Hahahahahahahahahaha! Don’t I know it. What suckers!!

PT: Good night, Scarlett.

SW: Toodles, Paul.

Note: This may or not be satire used to prove what may or not be a point. You may or may not have to figure that out for yourself. 


  1. test

  2. Standing ovation! That was brilliant.

  3. The bill is still active and pending. Never surrender a battle if it loses the was.


  1. Pay Attention | Charleston Thug Life - […] time readers will note this isn’t the first time we have called out Paul Thurmond on his […]
  2. State House Shenanigans | Charleston Thug Life - […] brought them to your attention before with the attempt to pass legislation we referred to as the Solicitors Protection …
  3. Solicitor's Protection Act | Charleston Thug Life - […] year we reported on the legislation we came to refer to as the Solicitors Protection Act. It is actually …

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>