Saturday, January 2, 2010

Lilly Collette's Legal Rant

Following is my completed WITNESS AFFIDAVIT FORM against Segars-Andrews of 11-24-2009:

In the Matter of: Francis P. Segars-Andrews )
Candidate for: Ninth Judicial Circuit Family Court )

I will appear to testify concerning the qualifications of the above-named candidate and will produce all documents in my possession, if any, which will further develop or corroborate my testimony.

I understand that this written statement must be completed and returned to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission at least five (5) days prior to the hearing at which I wish to testify in order for the commission to hear my testimony and that the deadline for completion is ___________.

I have been informed and do believe that a hearing has been scheduled for December 2, 2009. This was seen in the November 22, 2009 Post & Courier article Judges’ ruling under scrutiny

In regard to my intended testimony, I will offer information as to the following:
(1) Set forth your full name, age, address, and both home and work telephone numbers.

Mrs. Richard S. Collette /A/K/A/ Lilly Collette, sixty (60) years of age, residing at 1002 Pinto Court, Hanahan, SC 29410, telephone # (843) 740-5472.

(2) Set forth the names, addresses, and telephone numbers (if known) of other persons who have knowledge of the facts concerning your testimony.

My testimony is based on matters of public record and already readily available to the general public.

(3) State the nature of your testimony regarding the qualifications of the above-named judicial candidate, including:

The ‘nature’ of my testimony is the commission of federal and state felonies and misdemeanors against a disabled man and his disabled wife, that being Richard and Lilly Collette, in knowing, willful, wanton disregard of the laws of The United States and this state in which Segars-Andrews did knowingly conspire and participate.

(a) specific facts relating to the candidate’s character, competency, or ethics, including any and all allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the candidate:

Segars-Andrews had a duty and multiple opportunities to know and therefore did know:
1. That each and every Rule To Show Cause (RTSC) hearing filed for by one alleging herself to be Susan R. Collette (hereinafter Susan) was based on an alleged divorce agreement of September 22, 1987.
2. The decree of divorce (case file no.: 87-DR-10-0294) is, and shows itself to be, the one and only written rendition of what is purported to be the ‘Agreement’.
3. Susan has never produced any agreement to the court and has exclusively relied on the blatantly defective decree of divorce purported to be the ‘Agreement’.
4. The decree of divorce is blatantly defective on its face and in total disregard of all pertinent law, constitutional rights and rules of court. (Annotated copy of the /divorce decree/agreement/ is attached.)
5. None of the blatantly false allegations of Susan were raised to the court for a ruling.
a) Susan knowingly falsely alleged that she was married to Richard Stanley Collette (hereinafter Richard).
b) Susan knowingly falsely alleged that she and Richard acquired property during their marriage and her name was on the title to that property.
c) Susan knowingly falsely alleged that she produced one child to her marriage with Richard.
6. Susan then verbally alleged at the final hearing of September 10, 1987 that Richard had agreed to sign over his interest in the marital home to her and to directly pay her Two hundred ($200.00) dollars per month as child support and she then amended her grounds for divorce to a year’s separation.
7. The court abdicated all judicial responsibility and merely rubber-stamped Susan’s verbally alleged agreement and totally—denied—Richard any hearing on the merits.
8. Susan and the still illegitimate son born to her on October 25, 1984 have never pursued adjudication of paternity.
9. No child has ever been named or identified by any court order or acknowledgement of paternity as the child of Richard to whom any support was due.
10. Richard and Susan are both self-declared and know to be White and the now adult illegitimate son of Susan is fully Asian featured rendering paternity a complete physical impossibility.

The following case file numbers have been assigned in this case and it is clearly shown in the record that none of them are cross-indexed to the other as is the custom and required.
87-DR-10-0294; and
90-DR-10-002881; and
96-DR-10-005482; and

Now on to ‘some’ of the specifics directly relating to Francis P. Segars-Andrews:

11. Segars-Andrews is believed and shown in the record to have at least had case file no.: 1996-DR-10-005482 and 90-DR-10-002881 on November 4, 1996, May 1, 1997, May 19, 1997, February 22, 2002, October 7, 2002 and October 9, 2002.
12. All of the above listed dates revolved around Susan’s false allegations of failure to provide child support the payment record of which is found in case file no.: 90-DR-10-002881.
13. Richard was disabled with a cardiac condition on November 1, 1996.
14. Susan alleged herself to be disabled with a newly discovered cardiac condition on or about November 19, 1996 after discovering Richard had been hospitalized for cardiac surgery.
15. The May 1997 order issued by Segars-Andrews states that Richard cannot be allowed to offset child support obligations because of auxiliary benefits that Susan may receive for the support of her child if / when her application for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) was finally granted.
16. Segars-Andrews coerced Richard into returning to the job market to provide child support under duress of imprisonment on contempt charges if he failed to do so.
17. Richard was again overtaken by disability in October 2000 and reapplied for his SSDI.
18. Social Security records show that Susan was recklessly allowed to place her illegitimate child on auxiliary benefits under Richard’s award of SSDI—after clear warning of failure to adjudicate paternity and with none of the proofs required of all persons in similar circumstances.
19. Social Security records show that Susan had started receiving Five hundred seventy four ($574.00) dollars per month in auxiliary benefits for her child under—Richard’s—award of SSDI in April 2001.
20. The February 2002 order of Segars-Andrews memorializes Susan’s false allegation that she (Susan) was still providing Three hundred ninety eight ($398.00) dollars per month in SSDI auxiliary benefits and Richard’s SSDI was only providing One hundred seventy six ($176.00) dollars of the Five hundred seventy four ($574.00) dollars per month actually received.
21. Susan was laying a false foundation for her fraudulent pleadings for garnishment of Sixty five (65%) percent of Richard’s SSDI.
a) Susan falsely alleged that Richard had agreed (1987 decree of divorce) to pay her $200.00 per month as child support.
b) Susan has never produced any agreement and consistently relied on her sham decree of divorce which unlawfully purports to be “The Agreement”.
c) Susan wanted the alleged $398.00 per month auxiliary benefits provided for the support of her son under her award of SSDI subtracted from the $574.00 that she was actually receiving under Richard’s award of SSDI making it appear that Richard was only providing $176.00 per month, leaving Richard $24.00 per month in arrearage on the falsely alleged (1987) agreement of $200.00 per month.

$574.00 - $398.00 = $176
$200.00 - $176 = $24.00

22. The records verify that Segars-Andrews illegally subtracted Three hundred ninety eight ($398.00) dollars from the Five hundred seventy four ($574.00) that Susan was fraudulently receiving for the support of her illegitimate child under Richard’s SSDI to make it appear that Richard was Twenty four ($24.00) dollars per month in arrears—on child support which had never been and could never be lawfully ordered under the facts of this case.
23. Segars-Andrews knowingly fraudulently garnished Fifty (50%) percent of Richard’s SSDI award and made herself a party to Social Security Fraud.
24. Richard and I had no duty or financial means to continue paying this extortion.
25. July 17, 2002 Segars-Andrews held a secret RTSC concealed from Richard and me and illegally issued bench warrant causing the false arrest and jailing of Richard.
26. Segars-Andrews issued two orders on a hearing of Oct 7, 2002; in one she stated that, “Mr. Collette appeared and stated his position and after a full Hearing on the merits” […], and in the second order from the same hearing she stated that, “the Plaintiff (Richard) failed to appear at the hearing” […].
27. Lilly had appeared in Richard’s stead at the October 7, 2002 hearing.
28. Segars-Andrews issued an order on October 9, 2002 increasing the Fifty (50%) per cent garnishment to Sixty five (65%) percent based on contrived and concocted arrearages on child support that was never and could never be ordered under the facts of this case.

(b) specific dates, places, and times at which or during which such allegations took place:

Times and dates are stated above and part of the court record.

(c) names of any persons present during such alleged actions or possessing evidence of such alleged actions; and

(d) how this information relates to the qualifications of the judicial candidate.

I have provided sufficient probable cause under oath and supported by court documents bearing the signature of Segars-Andrews to issue a warrant for her arrest and a criminal investigation. This information relates to the qualifications of Segars-Andrews as no person in similar circumstances is / or should be allowed to serve on the bench.

(4) Set forth a list of and provide a copy of any and all documents to be produced at the hearing which relate to your testimony regarding the qualifications of the judicial candidate.

A copy of the 1987 sham divorce granted to Susan.
An annotated copy of Susan’s 1987 sham divorce.
The orders of Segars-Andrews from 1997 and 2002 as referenced above.
Pertinent law.

(5) State any other facts you feel are pertinent to the screening of this judicial candidate.

Following is an excerpt from Segars-Andrews 1993 appointment hearing:
Francis P. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews
Segars-Andrews said, “NOR HIS PARTNER”. Mark Andrews is in partnership with Lon Shull. The attorney who did collude, conspire and scheme with officers of the court and Susan Lee Rice in crimes against Richard S. Collette.

I understand that the information I have provided herein is confidential and is not to be disclosed to anyone except the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, the candidate and counsel.


I further understand that my testimony before the Judicial Merit Selection Commission may require the disclosure of information that would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, in order that my complaint may be fully investigated by the commission,
I hereby waive any right that I may have to raise the attorney-client privilege as that privilege may relate to the subject of my complaint. I further understand that by waiving the attorney-client privilege for this matter, I am authorizing the commission to question other parties, including my attorney, concerning facts and issues of my case.


Sworn to me this ___day of __________, 2009
__________________________________ L.S.
Notary Public of South Carolina
My commission expires: __________________