Monet Pincus, the poster child for South Carolina Judicial Reform

Monet Pincus

What if you were told that you have family court judges such as Monet Pincus who orders others to take 10-panel hair follicle tests if they're accused of smoking weed but Monet Pincus was arrested for weed before? It's true. This is a PDF file provided by the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Committee which selects judges. If you were to scroll down to question 31 you'll find the following words: Now you might be saying this is only an arrest. Based on less than an arrest Monet Pincus has been known to have litigants accused of smoking weed and without a weed-related arrest or any arrest of any kind to pay over $100 even when that litigant is already paying child support. This woman is persecuting those who are merely accused of something when she was arrested for the exact same substance.

Monet Pincus is also from Berkeley in California. Now, that doesn't automatically mean she consumes cannabis but if someone were to say that about anyone from that area you wouldn't be stricken with shock.

The reason why we are using Monet Pincus as a case study is that this woman is rumored to be behind some pretty dubious things with a lot of evidence floating around revealing the problems with South Carolina's joke of a judiciary.

A mere search on the internet reveals her personal bias against fathers. For example, if one were to view her writings on Avvo.com you'd find wonderful personal beliefs such as:

It seems that from an emotional perspective, a separation that involves children tends to be more debilitating to a mom than a dad. That’s not saying that dad is not emotionally impacted. It simply seems that when a separation occurs, mom’s nurturing instincts kick in because she naturally wants to protect the children and she wants to gather them under her wings. Dads are generally used to being away from the home more than moms during a marriage, so when a separation occurs, dads tend to adjust easier than moms.

You might be saying that the above statement doesn't demonstrate systemic bias against fathers in court. Re-read that statement. She is declaring that she believes mothers are more adversely affected despite the fact that Monet Pincus hasn't come out as transgender and couldn't possibly confirm her beliefs as being nothing more than the ramblings of a woman with an ax to grind. If one were to review her rulings in regards to certain individuals it becomes clear she has a preference for mothers over fathers.

Nathan Ginter is a guardian ad litem for Richland county which is the exact same county Monet Pincus is a judge. Nathan had an encounter with Monet Pincus as a litigant against his child's mother who was out on bond for felony child endangerment during the time of the court hearing in Judge Pincus' courtroom. Judge Pincus removed full custody from Nathan and gave a favorable judgment to a woman who was out on bail for child endangerment with the very same child involved in the case.

Mr. Ginter provided a video that is searchable on YouTube through his name with him giving a full testimony that was under oath in front of South Carolina congressmen and senators and mentioned the above information. The reason why Mr. Ginter spoke of bias, even during Monet Pincus' judicial merit selection committee screening, is because as a guardian ad litem it is his duty to weed out judges he personally knows to be corrupt and undeserving of the position.

Remember how she said she thinks mothers suffer more during these situations? Wouldn't that at least partially explain the rather ridiculous notion that a man who can become a guardian ad litem shouldn't be given preference over a woman who was out on bail for allegedly endangering the very child involved in the case?

While you ponder the above queries ponder about Matt Younginer. Matt is a man who won against Monet Pincus by having a rather ridiculous ruling vacated. Matt also showed up Judge Pincus' confirmation hearing and yet somehow this woman was still confirmed to the bench.

Judge Pincus had Matt Younginer's kids removed from him and sent to Montana to what Mr. Younginer describes as a "psychological boot camp." At the cost of $14000 per parent, those kids would be sent to therapy to "reintroduce them to their mother" despite the fact that Matt Younginer and the kids didn't want to do any of this. Mr. Younginer's then 16-year-old daughter wrote journal entries that we have obtained. Read them carefully and decide if it was reasonable to separate this child from her father.

 

 
Still think that Avvo.com writing is so innocent? Monet Pincus did that to a 16-year-old girl who just wanted Monet Pincus to believe her when she was saying her mother was a liar, demonized their father and just wanted to destroy the family. One would think that since Monet Pincus spent so much time reminding everyone that she is a woman even when she isn't specifically asked about it that she would listen and believe a young woman just pleading with her to show mercy and understanding.

Monet Pincus, not only didn't listen but according to Matt Younginer, she had the 16-year-old's testimony stricken from the record. The reason why most people who know anything about this woman believes that account is because other media sources such as FitsNews has called out Monet Pincus for sealing records in controversial cases before.

Monet Pincus is a shining example of why judicial reform is desperately needed in the state of South Carolina. Some would say that, if the rumors are true, that we have a dope-smoking fry cook for a judge who rules based on her feelings and not based on the law.