Some legislators believe that the screening process and procedures of the JMSC were violated in the evaluation of Nominee Judge Kristi F Curtis to the South Carolina Appellate Court Seat #2. The violation of these procedures resulted in the failure to uncover illegal actions perpetrated by Judge Kristi F Curtis while serving on the Fifteenth Judicial District Circuit Court in Horry County. Furthermore, Judge Kristi F Curtis’ actions during her tenure have raised significant concerns.
There are two categories of violations in this selection process: Violations by Judge Kristi F Curtis and Violations by the JMSC.
(1) VIOLATIONS BY JUDGE KRISTI F. CURTIS
It is essential to understand the implications of alleged misconduct by Judge Kristi F Curtis on the judicial system.
Understanding the Controversy Surrounding Kristi F Curtis
Statements made by Judge Kristi F Curtis in her submissions to JMSC appear to be “text book” statements that do not reflect her actual practices on the bench. Her testimony to the JMSC actually reveals that she made no promises to follow the spirit nor the letter of the law. The evidence, her actions on the bench as circuit court judge, reveal numerous illegal actions attributed to Judge Kristi F Curtis. These are not debatable or open to various interpretations of law. They are blatantly illegal actions. Furthermore, her signed responses to the JMSC were perjurous in that her words covered up her illegal behavior as a judge.
These concerns surrounding Judge Kristi F Curtis merit serious consideration before any nominations are finalized.
It is crucial to scrutinize the record of Judge Kristi F Curtis to ensure accountability within the judiciary.
Judge Kristi F Curtis’ history must be evaluated to protect the integrity of the judicial system.
Allegations against Judge Kristi F Curtis reflect broader issues within the judicial appointment process.
Judge Curtis made the following false statements in her Sworn Statement to the JMSC. These were included in her Transcript of the Public Hearing.
The implications of Judge Kristi F Curtis’ decisions can have lasting effects on those involved in real estate and landlord-tenant disputes.
(1) Exhibit 3: Personal Data Questionnaire 2024 contained missing information and statements covering up Judge Curtis’ actual actions on the bench.
It is vital to ensure that all allegations against Judge Kristi F Curtis are thoroughly investigated to uphold judicial integrity.
Public trust in the judicial system hinges on the accountability of judges like Kristi F Curtis.
(i) Question 10, page 3. Judge Curtis omitted her work as a WEBEX judge in the Fifteenth Judicial District, Horry County, beginning in May 2022.
(g) should have been included: Judge Kristi F Curtis served in Webex Hearings in the Fifteenth Judicial District, Horry County, starting in 2022. This omission serves to cover up a disaster she caused which relates to the Affidavit of Complaint from the case in Horry County.
(ii) Question 21, J. Curtis states: ‘I have spoken on the topics “Real Estate & Landlord/ Tenant Law.” This statement aligns with what we know of Judge Kristi F Curtis’ background and experience in the legal field.
The Affidavit of Complaint that was rejected dealt with Landlord/Tenant Law and Contract for Sale. Her order against the defendant completely by passed these laws that applied. Her order violated the Real Estate Landlord/Tenant Laws, the SC Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The defendant lost a million dollars of her possessions and historical family artifacts that cannot be replaced.
(iii) Questions 45, 46, and 49. Judge Kristi F Curtis’ actions in the Horry County case are part of a criminal Rico Case for the Obstruction of Justice. This case will be of great embarrassment to the SC Court when it is brought forward, should Judge Kristi F Curtis be sitting on the Appellate Court bench.
This case has not yet been brought forward. A special prosecutor is required. The Rico action “kingpin” is attorney Henrietta Golding of Myrtle Beach. To date, this Rico case involves two
1/4
The reputation of Judge Kristi F Curtis is essential in maintaining the credibility of the judiciary.

attorneys, three judges, clerks at the Court of Appeals and a court reporter. In her testimony, page 27, line 22, through page 29, line 8, Judge Curtis presents the collegiality of the Appellate Court employees. The clerks at the Court of Appeals to whom Judge Curtis has former work connections (see her response to Question 58, page 18) have blocked the transcripts of the appellant. Then, the clerks have dismissed the appeal (3 to date) because the appellant did not have the transcripts.
(iv) Question 58: Judge Curtis wrote: “I will work hard everyday to serve the citizens of this State.” Her past performance in this Horry County case showed that she worked hard to serve special interests. Then, she has had to work hard to cover up her own illegal orders and those of the Rico group for the Obstruction of Justice which grew out of her initial illegal order.
(2) Exhibit 4: Statements for Supreme Court/Court of Appeals.
(i) Question 4: What is your philosophy regarding ex parte communications? Judge Curtis gave a “text book” answer. This covers up her participation in the above described RICO case which was all done ex parte. As the Pro Se Defendant, I could see actions happening and results that only could have occurred outside of my inclusion of the process.
(ii) Question 5: Recusal. “. . . what deference would you give a party that requested your recusal? Would you grant such a motion?
Judge Curtis answered: “Yes, I would grant the motion. . . . If there is even the appearance of bias or impropriety, the motion should be granted.”
This is exactly what Judge Curtis did not do in the case related to the Affidavit of Complaint against her. She was asked to recuse herself twice. In the first instance, she denied it because the defendant did not state any laws requiring her to do so. In the second recusal, all the laws and all the violations were documented in the motion. The entire motion and exhibits filled nearly 100 pages. She waited six months to deny the recusal after a second judge, part of the Rico group, approved her illegal order. When she denied the second recusal, she had to rule against herself or rule against the law. As it turned out, her second denial ruled both against herself (first denial) and the law.
(iii) Question 7: How would you handle a situation in which you became aware of misconduct . . . of a lawyer or a fellow judge?”
Judge Kristi F Curtis must address allegations of misconduct to restore confidence in her judicial capabilities.
(iv) Question 11: What is your philosophy on “judicial activism” . . . ?
Judge Curtis made the following response. “I believe in the separation of powers. The legislature is the branch of government that enacts the laws. The role of the judiciary is to interpret those laws . . . . I do not believe a judge should use his or her judicial position to promote a personal or political agenda.”
Her actions documented in the Affidavit of Complaint clearly contradicts this statement.
Judge Curtis’ answer is contradicted, again, in testimony to the JMSC. The Transcript of the Hearing, page 23, lines 18 through 24, Judge Curtis states:
The scrutiny surrounding Judge Kristi F Curtis’ statements warrants careful consideration by the JMSC.
2/4
As the investigation unfolds, the focus remains on Judge Kristi F Curtis and her judicial conduct.
Judge Kristi F Curtis’ actions and their implications will shape the future of judicial appointments in South Carolina.
(i) Reversals of her decisions: In her testimony, page 29, Judge Kristi F Curtis states, ” So I have one published reversal . . . . I have one reversal, and that one just happened to be published.”
She did not have a reversal in the case related to the Affidavit of Complaint because the Clerks of the Appellate Court blocked it and dismissed it before the appeal could be heard. It was a certain reversal because the order she signed (written by Henrietta Golding) was completely illegal.
(ii) Judge Curtis attempts to cover up her past violations of the law by her statement to the JMSC that she TRIES to follow the law. Her statement also indicates that she may try and not succeed to follow the law in the future.
Again, in testimony to the JMSC, the Transcript of the Hearing, page 23, lines 18 through 24, Judge Kristi F Curtis states: “I do think that I try to go by what the law says. Many times I wish that, you know, I could just make Kristi Curtis law and I could make a ruling that is what I think is best. But I do think that a judge is obligated, the rule of law, we have got to follow what the law says. I try to follow the law in all my rulings.” This highlights the need for Judge Kristi F Curtis to align her actions with her statements.
Again, in testimony to the JMSC, the Transcript of the Hearing, page 23, lines 18 through 24, Judge Curtis states:
“I do think that I try to go by what the law says. Many times I wish that, you know, I could just make Kristi Curtis law and I could make a ruling that is what I think is best. But I do think that a judge is obligated, the rule of law, we have got to follow what the law says. I try to follow the law in all my rulings.”
____________
The case information provided above derived from the Affidavit of Complaint that was wrongly rejected by the JMSC. This case originated from the Fifteenth Judicial District, Horry County number 2020-CP-26-05267, 25th Avenue LLC. v. Carol Ann Honeycutt, and from subsequent Appellate Court Case Numbers 2022-001130, 2023-001023, and 2024-001687.
____________
(2) VIOLATIONS BY CHAIRMAN OF THE JMSC, LUKE RANKIN
The JMSC conducted a fraudulent process in their evaluation of Judge Curtis.
a. An Affidavit of Complaint was received on time as proven by the USPS Tracking Document. It appears that when the USPS Express (Overnight) Package mailed on October 25, 2024, arrived at 1101 Pendleton Street, The Gressette Building on October 26, 2024, a Saturday, the building was closed. A note for pick up was left. An agent from the Gressette Building picked up the package on October 28, 2024, at 9:38 a.m. It was due “in Erin Crawford’s HANDS” by 12 noon on Octboer 28, 2024.” Apparently, the package was put back in the mail and delivered a second time on October 29, 2024, at 7:12 a.m. JMSC General Counsel Erin Crawford then declared this Affidavit of Complaint as “late.”
3/4
b. A letter with the USPS Tracking Document proving the above timely receipt of the Affidavit of Complaint was written and delivered along with the actual Affidavit of Complaint to the following three persons: JMSC Chairman Luke Rankin (delivered to him on November 15, 2024), JMSC Vice Chairman Micah Caskey (delivered on November 18, 2024) and House Counsel to the JMSC Kate Crator (delivered on November 18, 2024).
In conclusion, the ongoing issues surrounding Judge Kristi F Curtis must be addressed transparently to ensure justice is served.
c. Chairman Rankin lied to the JMSC at the beginning of the screening of Judge Curtis by stating: “We have received no timely affidavits or complaints filed in opposition to your election.”
d. Counsel Erin Crawford in the introduction of Judge Curtis to the JMSC stated that no complaints against Judge Curtis were received. This was a lie. (Her comments were not in the transcript, so an exact quote is not available.)
e. At the end of the hearing, Chairman Rankin stated to Judge Curtis:
“And again, you’re familiar with this. And I want to remind you of our evaluative criteria and pursuant to that, that we expect you as a candidate to follow the spirit as well as the letter of ethics law. Any violation or appearance of inappropriate on your part would be deemed very serious and potentially warranting us calling you back for further questions.· You know that though, correct?” Judge Curtis answered: ” Yes, sir.”
Chairman Rankin’s statement indicated that any additional information that came in up to the time of the election could be used in evaluating Judge Curtis’ qualifications.
f. The person submitting the Affidavit of Complaint which was incorrectly labeled “late” and returned to the Affiant, was sitting in the hearing with the information that the committee needed to hear. Ms. Erin Crawford blocked this person from presenting it to the JMSC.
g. The “Process” set up to receive Affidavits of Complaint is intrinsically fraudulent. The instructions were that “the AC must be in Erin B. Crawford’s “HANDS” by noon on October 28, 2024.” By Ms. Crawford not accepting the AC, she can say without lying, “it was not in my hands.” This process appears to be a game set up to manipulate the screening process to allow the clerks to screen out affidavits they do not want to receive because they are promoting certain candidates for the positions. The Affidavit of Complaint was available to Ms. Crawford when the USPS delivery note was left at the Gressette Building on October 26, 2024, at 12:30 p.m. Ms. Erin Crawford chose not to put it in
her “hands.”
____________
This Motion was prepared by Carol Ann Honeycutt. Defendant Pro Se and Appellant Pro Se,
referred to in the above cases. I have personal knowledge of every statement made in this document,
except the identity of the person(s) who instigated the Clerks of the Appellate Court to block my appeals.
February 4, 2025