Filed Amended S&C William Taylor Added

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF HORRY )
C/A:
John Gallman, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. ) SUMMONS
) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
Luke Rankin, Julie Emerson, Laginappe )
Communications Group, LLC, Christian )
Boschult, Waccamaw Publishers, Inc., the )
South Carolina Industry Project, the )
American Industry Project, Tyler Servant, )
Jamie Huval, David Satterfield, Ace Tomato )
Enterprises, Inc., Robert Cahaly a.k.a. )
Campaign, Services, LLC, Spring Strategies,)
LLC, Raegan Quinn Smith, Rebecca Quinn )
Mustian, and William Taylor, )
)
Defendants, )
____________________________________)
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action,
a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to the said
Complaint on the Plaintiff’s attorney, Tucker S. Player, at the Player Law Firm, LLC, 1415
Broad River Road, Columbia, South Carolina 29210, within thirty (30) days after the service
hereof, exclusive of the date of such service and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the
time aforesaid, the Plaintiffs in this action will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the
Complaint. Dated at Columbia, South Carolina on the 2nd day of June, 2021
THE PLAYER LAW FIRM, LLC

s/Tucker S. Player, Esq.
SC Bar No. 16217
1415 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
(803) 772-8008
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Columbia, South Carolina
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HORRY )
C/A:
John Gallman, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. ) AMENDED COMPLAINT
) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
Luke Rankin, Julie Emerson, Laginappe )
Communications Group, LLC, Christian )
Boschult, Waccamaw Publishers, Inc., the )
South Carolina Industry Project, the )
American Industry Project, Tyler Servant, )
Jamie Huval, David Satterfield, Ace Tomato )
Enterprises, Inc., Robert Cahaly a.k.a. )
Campaign, Services, LLC, Spring Strategies,)
LLC, Raegan Quinn Smith, Rebecca Quinn )
Mustian, and William Taylor, )
)
Defendants, )
____________________________________)
COMES NOW, Plaintiff John Gallman, by and through his undersigned attorney, and
submits the following Amended Complaint and alleges as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Horry County.
2. Defendant Luke Rankin is a citizen and resident of Horry County.
3. American Industry Project [hereinafter “AIP”] is a Political Action Committee with an
office in Alexandria, Virginia. According to the 2019 IRS 990 report for AIP, there are
three directors: Tyler Servant (President) based in Horry County South Carolina; Jamie
Huval of Louisiana, and David Satterfield (treasurer) of Alexandria, Virginia. (Exhibit

1). However, in November 2020, AIP filed a new 990 with the IRS declaring that
Servant was replaced by William Taylor of Aiken, South Carolina.
4. The South Carolina Industry Project is a subsidiary of the American Industry Project.
Upon information and belief, the same three directors control both the American Industry
Project and the South Carolina Industry Project.
5. Defendant Tyler Servant is a citizen and resident of Horry County and was the President
of American Industry Project and the South Carolina Industry Project. He personally
requested the television ad purchases as his name was listed on the PB-19 Form with
WBTW, attached as Exhibit 8.
6. Upon information and belief, David Satterfield is a resident of the State of Virginia and is
the treasurer of the American Industry Project and the South Carolina Industry Project.
7. Upon information and belief, Jamie Huval is a resident of the State of Louisiana and is a
director of the American Industry Project and the South Carolina Industry Project.
8. William Taylor is a South Carolina legislator from Aiken, South Carolina.
9. Defendant Julie Laginappe is a citizen and resident of the State of Louisiana. She is a
director of Laginappe Communications Group.
10. Laginappe Communications Group, LLC is a Louisiana limited liability company based
in Baton Rouge, LA. Defendant Julie Emerson is the founding member of the LLC.
11. Waccamaw Publishers, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation based in Horry County,
South Carolina. It publishes the Horry Independent Newspaper and operated the
MyHorryNews Website. It is responsible for the acts of Defendant Boschult under the
theory of respondeat superior and common law agency.

12. Christian Boschult is a Horry County Citizen and employee of Waccamaw Publishers,
Inc.
13. Campaign Services, LLC is a dissolved Georgia limited liability company based in
Atlanta, Georgia operated by Defendant Robert Cahaly.
14. Robert Cahaly is a citizen and resident of Atlanta, Georgia.
15. Spring Strategies, LLC is a South Carolina limited liability company based in Columbia,
South Carolina.
16. Reagan Quinn Smith and Rebecca Quinn Mustian are both citizens and residents of
Lexington County, South Carolina.
17. Robert Halpin is a citizen and resident of Horry County.
18. Carter Smith is a citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina.
19. John McGuiness is a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
20. All Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by being citizens and residents
of South Carolina or through intentional tortious actions directed at and committed in
Horry County in 2020. Pursuant to the South Carolina Long Arm Statute, the intentional
commitment of a tort in South Carolina subjects all Defendants to personal jurisdiction in
South Carolina.
21. For purposes of this Complaint, the defendants shall be referenced collectively
throughout this pleading with the following designations: the “Rankin Group” shall
include Defendant Rankin, Defendant Spring Strategies, LLC, Defendant Smith,
Defendant Mustian, and Defendant Halpin; the “Emerson Group” shall include
Defendant Emerson, Laginappe Communications Group, LLC, Ace Tomato Enterprises,
Inc. a/k/a Campaign Services, LLC, and Defendant Cahaly; the “AIP Group” shall
include the American Industry Project, the South Carolina Industry Project, Defendant
Servant, Defendant Huval, Defendant Taylor and Defendant Satterfield; the “Boschult
Group” shall include Defendants Boschult and Waccamaw Publishers, Inc.; the “Payne
Group” shall include Defendants Payne and Coastal Law, LLC; the “McGuinness Group”
shall include John McGuinness and Carter Smith.
22. Jurisdiction and venue are proper before this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
23. Plaintiff ran for public office against Defendant Rankin and Defendant Smith in the
republican primary in 2020.
24. After the initial primary, Plaintiff was placed in a runoff against Rankin only to be the
republican candidate for Senate District 33 in Horry County South Carolina.
The Dossier
25. On or about June 2, 2020, a dossier purportedly containing documents selected from
Plaintiff’s divorce file [hereinafter the “Dossier”] were distributed to numerous media
organizations across the state. Exhibit 2, “Luke Rankin’s Sealed Divorce File: What’s
Good for the Goose …”, FitsNews, June 16, 2020.
26. Upon information and belief, this packet of information was paid for by Defendant
Rankin and distributed to numerous media outlets around the State of South Carolina.
27. Within these documents, the confidential mental health records of Plaintiff’s 10 year old
daughter were included.
28. More specifically, the Dossier purported to contain forensic interview notes from the
Children’s Recovery Center in Horry County. Those interview notes were from an
investigation concerning possible abuse by a third-party against the 10 year old daughter
of Plaintiff. These records are statutorily protected and confidential pursuant to S.C. Code
§ 19-11-95, S.C. Code § 44-22-100, and S.C. Code § 62-11-310.
29. The Children’s Recovery Center (CRC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization offering
child advocacy center programs in Horry and Georgetown Counties in South Carolina,
pursuant to S.C. Code § 44-11-100, et seq., § 44-22-11, and §63-11-310. It provides
forensic interviews, medical examinations, and caring advocacy for children suspected of
having suffered abuse.
30. All documents from CRC were confidential and protected from disclosure under S.C.
Code § 19-11-95, S.C. Code § 44-22-100, and S.C. Children’s Code.
31. After receipt of the Dossier, the Boschult Group published an article on June 16, 2020,
seven days before the runoff election.
32. The Boschult Group refused to review the evidence possessed and offered by Plaintiff
that demonstrated that the incomplete and misleading information in the family court
documents was false.
33. The Boschult Group refused to publish or reference the evidence offered by Plaintiff that
demonstrated the allegations of abuse were false.
34. The Boschult Group refused Plaintiff’s invitation to review the entire Family Court file to
obtain the truth of the allegations.
35. The Boschult Group refused a plea from Plaintiff to not drag his 10 year old daughter into
a political mudslinging contest.
36. The news article published by the Boschult group actually states: “Notes from a
Children’s Recovery Center interview show that Gallman’s minor daughter alleged he
had hit mom on more than one occasion, and that he would frequently yell at her.”
Exhibit 3.
37. The Rankin Group directly referenced the Boschult group’s defamatory and illegal article
in its campaign advertisements. Exhibit 4.
38. The Boschult group’s defamatory and illegal article was quoted by the Emerson Group in
the ad purchases made on behalf of the AIP Group in television and printed media. The
mailer accused Plaintiff of being a child kidnapper by prominently displaying the words
“Amber Alert Threat” next to Plaintiff’s name. Exhibit 5.
39. Plaintiff previously sent Defendant Rankin videos of the alleged abuse incidents that
clearly showed he was not the aggressor. Exhibit 6.
40. Despite knowing that the allegations were untrue, Defendants flooded the airwaves, mail
services, and social media sites with direct quotes from Boschult article disclosing the
confidential mental health records of a 10 year old girl.
41. The Director of the Children’s Recovery Center [hereinafter “CRC”], Louise Carson,
learned of the disclosure of a minor’s mental health records and contacted Defendant
Rankin’s office. Ms. Carson informed his office that the new article was disseminating
the confidential mental health records of a minor.
42. Defendant Rankin’s office responded “what would you have us do?”
43. Ms. Carson requested that the advertisements be taken down immediately.
44. Despite the direct request from CRC to stop, Defendants continued to publish television
and social media ads that contained direct references to the illegally disclosed mental
health records of Plaintiff’s 10 year old daughter.

45. The only disclosures made by CRC were via a confidential report provided to MUSC, the
South Carolina Department of Social Services, the Horry County Sheriff, and the Indigo
Law Firm in September 2019.
46. No interview notes were ever produced to anyone outside of the Children’s Recovery
Center.
47. Plaintiff did not know the contents of CRC’s Report until he was interviewed by
Defendant Boschult in June 2020. At that time, he denied the notes existed and accused
Boschult of lying. Only in September 2020, almost 3 months after the runoff election,
did he learn of the existence of the CRC report and the contents thereof.
“LRLindsayFinal”
48. At 12:25pm on the same day that Boschult Group published its defamatory article based
on the Dossier, the Emerson Group submitted a professionally produced, 30 sec
advertisement entitled “LRLindsayFinal” to be televised on local station WMBF.
Exhibit 7.
49. Upon information and belief, the “LRLindsayFinal” is a specific reference to Defendant
Rankin and, upon information and belief, his wife Lindsay Rankin’s approval of the
advertisement.
50. Upon information and belief, LRLinsdayFinal references the Dossier and quotes the
Boschult Group article that had yet to be published.
51. Pursuant to South Carolina and federal law, political action committees cannot coordinate
with political candidates or publish ads that either support a targeted candidate or attack
the opponent of a targeted candidate.

52. The actions of Defendants qualify as “coordinated communications” under the Federal
Election Commission’s regulations and should have been disclosed to the South Carolina
Ethics Commission.
53. More specifically, Defendant Servant violated South Carolina law by donating money to
another republican candidate in violation of S.C. Code § 8-13-1340, which constitutes a
misdemeanor under South Carolina law.
54. Upon information and belief, the Emerson Group, the AIP Group, and the Rankin Group
were either privy to the Dossier and/or the news article published by the Boschult Group
before June 16, 2020.
“SCIndustry911call”
55. One or more of the defendants created a television ad that purported to be a 911 call
made by the ex-wife of Plaintiff. However, this 911 call was fake, as Plaintiff made the
911 call, not his ex-wife.
56. The fake 911 call was ordered and paid for by Julie Emerson and Laginappe
Communications Group on behalf of the SC Industry Project and Defendant Servant on
June 17, 2020. The name of the advertisement is “SC Industry 911 Call.” Exhibit 8.
57. In the “SC Industry 911 Call,” a quote from Plaintiff’s ex-wife is read aloud in an
ominous tone while the sound of terrified breathing goes on in the background.
58. SCIndustry911Call also prominently displays the illegally obtained mental health records
of Plaintiff’s minor child across the entire screen. Exhibit 9 – Screen Shot of
SCInductry911Call.
59. Throughout the ad, the breathing intensifies until a voice says “9-1-1, what is your
emergency?” as the words “John Gallman, Unfit to Represent Our Values” is displayed
with “Paid for by South Carolina Industry Project, 1601 Assembly Street, P.O Box 7766,
Columbia, SC 29202 SCIndustryproject.org.”
60. The P.O Box 7766, Columbia, SC is currently registered to Philip Cahaly, the father of
Robert Cahaly. It was previously registered to Defendant Emerson and Robert Cahaly.
61. According to purchase invoices, the Emerson Group purchased advertisement times to
run this video and the LRLindsayFinal video in every available time slot across three
local television stations for the week leading up to the runoff election. The cost was
$77,225.00.
Other Defamatory Acts by Defendants
62. Defendants also published fliers that indicated Plaintiff abused his wife, was an unfit
father, and was mentally unstable. All of these allegations are false and intended to harm
Plaintiffs reputation.
63. On June 21, 2020, the Rankin Group posted an advertisement on Facebook provided a
direct link to the Boschult article.
64. On June 21, 2020, the Rankin Group published a video advertisement that exclaimed
“Suspect Name: John Gallman” and “Say NO! to domestic VIOLENCE” emblazoned
across three pictures of Plaintiffs’ face.
65. On June 20, 2020, the Rankin Group published a video advertisement that exclaimed
“John Gallman: ACCUSED OF: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – POLICE REPORT”
emblazoned across a picture of Plaintiffs’ face.
66. On June 19, 2020, the Emerson Group, on behalf of the AIP group, published a flyer that
stated “punching, threats, surveillance, broken bones, terrified children. JOHN

GALLMAN is every mother’s nightmare” referencing the Boschult article of June 16,
2020.
67. On June 19, 2020, the Rankin group posted the following in a Facebook message: “John
Gallman’s record can only be found in police reports and court documents all pointing to
a history of John Gallman’s domestic abuse.”
68. On June 13, 2020, the Rankin Group posted the following in a Facebook message: “My
opponent, the unstable John Gallman.”
69. On June 10, 2020, the Rankin Group posted the following in a Facebook message: “Dark
outside money came in at the last minute distorting my record and supporting my
unstable opponent John Gallman.”
70. According to the Final Order issued by the Horry County Family Court concerning
the custody of Plaintiff’s children “(there was) no actual data to confirm any
type of abuse against either parent” and “there was no verifiable data of
domestic abuse by one party against the other, or child abuse” Emphasis
Added.
CAMPIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS
71. All allegations of fact made previously are repeated as if set forth here verbatim.
72. Despite the obvious coordination with a political action committee in violation of the law,
Defendant Rankin never listed any of the $77,225.00 paid to local television stations by
the Emerson Group and the AIP Group on his campaign disclosure forms filed with the
State Ethics Commission.

73. In the television ads that contained the mental health records of Plaintiff’s 10 year old
daughter, the address for the S.C. Industry Project is listed as “P.O. Box 7766, Columbia,
South Carolina.”
74. Despite the obvious coordination with a political action committee in violation of the law,
Defendant Rankin never listed any of the monies paid for the distribution of political
fliers attacking John Gallman paid for by the Emerson Group and the AIP Group on his
campaign disclosure forms filed with the State Ethics Commission.
75. Tyler Servant violated S.C Code § 8-13-1340 by donating funds to the Rankin Campaign
in his individual capacity and through his control of the American Industry Project and
the SC Industry Project.
76. Upon information and belief, Tyler Servant filed numerous false reports with the ethics
commission to obfuscate the connection with the AIP Group and the Emerson Group.
77. Servant made a report on April 15, 2020 that claimed payments to “Campaign Services,
P.O. Box 56271, Atlanta, Georgia 30343” in the amount of $7304.85 as a “constituent
contact.” Servant claimed this was for the 2022 election cycle.
78. Williams Taylor violated the Rule 4.16(H)(3) of the South Carolina House of
Representatives which states:
Notwithstanding Section 8-13-1340, a member of the House shall not,

directly or indirectly, establish, finance, maintain, or control any entity
including, but not limited to, a noncandidate committee that receives
or makes contributions as defined in Section 8-13-1300. This rule does
not apply to a candidate committee or a legislative caucus committee
79. Taylor’s campaign maintains a bank account in the Coastal Carolina National Bank,
located in Horry County, South Carolina.

80. Taylor’s campaign has paid Coastal Carolina National Bank monthly interest on an
undisclosed loan for more than five(5) years. While the payments are listed as
“expenditures” in campaign disclosure documents, no loan from Coastal Carolina
National Bank has been reported on the same disclosure forms nor on the Statement of
Economic Interests filed with the S.C. Ethics Commission.
81. Campaign Services was dissolved by the Georgia Secretary of State in 2015. The P.O.
Box referenced by Defendant Servant is now registered to “Ace Tomato Enterprises,
Inc.” which is just another false front for Defendant Robert Cahaly.
82. Robert Cahaly is a citizen and resident of Atlanta, Georgia and is not a constituent of
Tyler Servant or Luke Rankin.
83. Upon information and belief, no advertisements or other campaign promotional materials
for the 2022 election have been created on behalf of Tyler Servant.
84. Upon information and belief, this payment was for campaign advertisements created by
the AIP Group and the Emerson Group for Defendant Rankin.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Defamation
86. Defendants knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, published false statements
asserting Plaintiff was mentally unstable and that he physically abused his wife.
Defendants provided those statements to third parties by and through local news media
and social media wherein any user can access and view.
87. The written allegations about Plaintiff were defamatory and published with actual malice,
to wit: (a) the statements were disseminated despite Defendants knowing they were
false; (b) the statements contained illegally disclosed mental health records of Plaintiff’s
10 year old daughter; (c) and the advertisements published by the Emerson Group, the
AIP Group, and the Payne Group were all specific attacks on Defendant Rankin’s
opponent in violation of South Carolina and federal election/ethics laws.
88. The allegations by Defendants were false and made with the expectation and intention by
Defendants that such allegations would harm Plaintiff’s reputation and deter third persons
from associating or dealing with the Plaintiff.
89. As a result of Defendant’s libel, Plaintiff has been specially harmed and damages have
been incurred, including but not limited to, actual and future damage to reputation. In
addition, Plaintiff lost substantial business and clients in excess of $1 million as a direct
result of false and defamatory statements published by Defendants.
90. Plaintiff is entitled to recover consequential, nominal, actual, and special damages, costs,
and punitive damages as a direct result of Defendants’ defamation.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
92. Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress, or was
certain, or substantially certain, that such distress would result from their conduct
93. Defendants’ conduct was so extreme and outrageous so as to exceed all possible bounds
of decency and must be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.
94. Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff's emotional distress.
95. Plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe such that no reasonable man could be expected
to endure it, to wit: Plaintiff was forced to seek therapy for the mental stress and anguish
caused by the intentional destruction of his reputation, loss of business and income
caused by the attacks on him.
and punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Conspiracy
98. Defendants all conspired to violate mental health privacy laws and campaign finance
laws in an effort to personally injure Plaintiff, destroy his campaign, and pit his 10 year
old daughter against him in a political campaign.
99. Defendants committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy by creating and
publishing false advertisements that used illegally obtained mental health records of a 10
year old girl in violation of South Carolina campaign finance laws.
100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff suffered special
damages, to wit: Plaintiff suffered (1) irreparable damage to his relationship with his
daughter and (2) severe emotional distress due to the alienation between himself and his
daughter caused by the dissemination and misrepresentation of his divorce records to the
public.
and punitive damages from Defendants upon a finding of civil conspiracy.
WHEREFORE, having fully set forth his Complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff prays for the
following relief: That a jury be impaneled to decide all disputed issues of fact and that Plaintiff
be awarded a judgment against Defendants in such amounts and upon such terms as will fully
and fairly compensate Plaintiff for his nominal, actual, general, special and consequential
damages as will be proven during the trial of this action; That Plaintiff be awarded punitive
damages against Defendants as found appropriate by the Court and trier of fact; and for such
other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted
s/Tucker S. Player, Esq.

SC Bar 16217
Player Law Firm, LLC
PO Box 21005
Columbia, SC 29221
803-772-8008 (phone)
803-772-8037 (fax)
Tucker@playerlawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
This 2nd day of June, 2021

7/31/2020 Nonprofit Explorer - Unknown Organization - Form 990 - ProPublica
SIGN UP DONATE
From https://projects.propublica.org/nonpro its. © Copyright 2019 Pro Publica Inc.
Nonproﬁt Explorer
Research Tax-Exempt Organizations
Unknown Organization
Full text of "Form 990" for iscal year ending Dec. 2018
Tax returns iled by nonpro it organizations are public records. The Internal Revenue Service releases them in two formats: page images and
raw data in XML. The raw data is more useful, especially to researchers, because it can be extracted and analyzed more easily. The pages below
are a reconstruction of a tax document using raw data from the IRS.
Source: Data and stylesheets from the Internal Revenue Service. E- ile viewer adapted from IRS e-File Viewer by Ben Getson.
← Back to main page for Unknown Organization Form 990
EXHIBIT 1
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/821227553/201913199349321016/IRS990 1/14
efile Public Visual Render ObjectId: 201913199349321016 - Submission: 2019-11-15 TIN: 82-1227553
OMB No. 1545-0047
990 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
2018
Form
Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations)
Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public.
Department of the Treasury Open to Public
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
Internal Revenue Service Inspection
A For the 2019 calendar year, or tax year beginning 01-01-2018 , and ending 12-31-2018
C Name of organization D Employer identification number
B Check if applicable:
AMERICAN INDUSTRY PROJECT
Address change
82-1227553
Name change
Initial return Doing business as
Final return/terminated
E Telephone number
Amended return Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite
Application pending 2020 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW NO 3009 (703) 549-7705
City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
G Gross receipts $ 241,500
F Name and address of principal officer: H(a) Is this a group return for
DAVID SATTERFIELD
228 S WASHINGTON ST 115 subordinates? Yes No
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 H(b) Are all subordinates
included? Yes No
I Tax-exempt status:
501(c)(3) 501(c) ( 4 ) (insert no.) 4947(a)(1) or 527 If "No," attach a list. (see instructions)
J Website: N/A H(c) Group exemption number
L Year of formation: 2017 M State of legal domicile: DC

K Form of organization: Corporation Trust Association Other
Part I Summary
1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities:
TO SERVE DOMESTIC UNITED STATES INDUSTRY BY PROMOTING AND EDUCATING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC REGARDING ETHICS,
INTEGRITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC OFFICIALS
2 Check this box

3 Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) . . . . . . . . 3 2
4 Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) . . . . . 4 2
5 Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2018 (Part V, line 2a) . . . . . . 5 0
6 Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0
7a Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 . . . . . . . . 7a 0
b Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 34 . . . . . . . . . 7b 0
Prior Year Current Year
8 Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) . . . . . . . . . 0 241,500
9 Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) . . . . . . . . . 0 0
10 Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) . . . . 0 0
11 Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e) 0 0
12 Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) 0 241,500
13 Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 ) . . . 0 0
14 Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4) . . . . . 0 0
15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 0 0
16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) . . . . . 0 0
b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 0
17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e) . . . . 0 185,821
18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 0 185,821
19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12 . . . . . . . 0 55,679
Beginning of Current Year End of Year
20 Total assets (Part X, line 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,877 57,556

21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0
22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20 . . . . . 1,877 57,556
Part II Signature Block
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has
any knowledge.
2019-11-15
Signature of officer Date
Sign
Here DAVID SATTERFIELD TREASURER
Type or print name and title
Print/Type preparer's name Preparer's signature Date PTIN

2019-11-15 Check if P00357837
Paid self-employed
Preparer Firm's name LOBEL COOPER & ASSOCIATES PC Firm's EIN 46-2736821
Use Only Firm's address 6309 EXECUTIVE BLVD Phone no. (301) 637-7080
NORTH BETHESDA, MD 20852
May the IRS discuss this return with the preparer shown above? (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat. No. 11282Y Form 990 (2018)
Page 2
Form 990 (2018) Page 2

Part III Statement of Program Service Accomplishments
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission:
TO SERVE DOMESTIC UNITED STATES INDUSTRY BY PROMOTING AND EDUCATING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC REGARDING ETHICS, INTEGRITY,
TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC OFFICIALS
2 Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on
the prior Form 990 or 990-EZ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
If "Yes," describe these new services on Schedule O.
3 Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program
services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
If "Yes," describe these changes on Schedule O.
4 Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses.
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses,
and revenue, if any, for each program service reported.
4a (Code: ) (Expenses $ 116,638 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )

PROVIDED PUBLIC EDUCATION ON ISSUES BENEFICIAL TO UNITED STATES DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES SPECIFICALLY ETHICS, INTEGRITY, TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC OFFICIALS VIA INTERNET AND BROADCAST ADVERTISING
4b (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4c (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4d Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)

(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e Total program service expenses 116,638
Form 990 (2018)
Page 3
Form 990 (2018) Page 3

Part IV Checklist of Required Schedules
Yes No
1 Is the organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 4947(a)(1) (other than a private foundation)? If "Yes," complete No
Schedule A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Is the organization required to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors (see instructions)? . . . 2 Yes
3 Did the organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates Yes
for public office? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Section 501(c)(3) organizations.

Did the organization engage in lobbying activities, or have a section 501(h) election in effect during the tax year?
If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 Is the organization a section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organization that receives membership dues,
assessments, or similar amounts as defined in Revenue Procedure 98-19?
5 No
If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Did the organization maintain any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts for which donors have the right
to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts?
If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No
6
7 Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space,
the environment, historic land areas, or historic structures? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part II . . . 7 No
8 Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets?
If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 No
9 Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21 for escrow or custodial account liability; serve as a custodian
for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation
services?If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 No
10 Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in temporarily restricted endowments, 10 No
permanent endowments, or quasi-endowments? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part V . . . . . .
11 If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is "Yes," then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX,
or X as applicable.
a Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line 10?
If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11a No
b Did the organization report an amount for investments—other securities in Part X, line 12 that is 5% or more of its total
assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VII . . . . . . . 11b No
c Did the organization report an amount for investments—program related in Part X, line 13 that is 5% or more of its
total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VIII . . . . . . . 11c No
d Did the organization report an amount for other assets in Part X, line 15 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported
in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IX . . . . . . . . . . . . 11d No
e Did the organization report an amount for other liabilities in Part X, line 25? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part X
11e No
f Did the organization’s separate or consolidated financial statements for the tax year include a footnote that addresses
11f No
the organization’s liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740)? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part X
12a Did the organization obtain separate, independent audited financial statements for the tax year?
If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Parts XI and XII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12a No
b Was the organization included in consolidated, independent audited financial statements for the tax year?
12b No
If "Yes," and if the organization answered "No" to line 12a, then completing Schedule D, Parts XI and XII is optional
13 Is the organization a school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)? If "Yes," complete Schedule E
13 No
14a Did the organization maintain an office, employees, or agents outside of the United States? . . . . . 14a No
b Did the organization have aggregate revenues or expenses of more than $10,000 from grantmaking, fundraising,
business, investment, and program service activities outside the United States, or aggregate foreign investments valued
at $100,000 or more? If "Yes," complete Schedule F, Parts I and IV . . . . . . . . . 14b No
15 Did the organization report on Part IX, column (A), line 3, more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to or for any
foreign organization? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Parts II and IV . . . . . 15 No
16 Did the organization report on Part IX, column (A), line 3, more than $5,000 of aggregate grants or other assistance to
or for foreign individuals? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Parts III and IV . . . 16 No
17 Did the organization report a total of more than $15,000 of expenses for professional fundraising services on Part IX, 17 No
column (A), lines 6 and 11e? If "Yes," complete Schedule G, Part I(see instructions) . . . .
18 Did the organization report more than $15,000 total of fundraising event gross income and contributions on Part VIII,
lines 1c and 8a? If "Yes," complete Schedule G, Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 No
19 Did the organization report more than $15,000 of gross income from gaming activities on Part VIII, line 9a? If "Yes,"
complete Schedule G, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 No
20a Did the organization operate one or more hospital facilities? If "Yes," complete Schedule H . . . . 20a No
b If "Yes" to line 20a, did the organization attach a copy of its audited financial statements to this return?
20b
21 Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to any domestic organization or domestic 21 No
government on Part IX, column (A), line 1? If “Yes,” complete Schedule I, Parts I and II . . . . .
22 Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to or for domestic individuals on Part IX, 22
column (A), line 2? If “Yes,” complete Schedule I, Parts I and III . . . . . . . . No
Form 990 (2018)
Page 4
Form 990 (2018) Page 4

Part IV Checklist of Required Schedules (continued)
Yes No
23 Did the organization answer "Yes" to Part VII, Section A, line 3, 4, or 5 about compensation of the organization’s current
and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees? If "Yes," complete 23 No
Schedule J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24a Did the organization have a tax-exempt bond issue with an outstanding principal amount of more than $100,000 as of
the last day of the year, that was issued after December 31, 2002? If “Yes,” answer lines 24b through 24d and
complete Schedule K. If “No,” go to line 25a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No
24a
b Did the organization invest any proceeds of tax-exempt bonds beyond a temporary period exception? . . .
24b
c Did the organization maintain an escrow account other than a refunding escrow at any time during the year
to defease any tax-exempt bonds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24c
d Did the organization act as an "on behalf of" issuer for bonds outstanding at any time during the year? . . . 24d
25a Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(29) organizations.
Did the organization engage in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person during the year? If "Yes,"
complete Schedule L, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . 25a No
b Is the organization aware that it engaged in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person in a prior year, and
that the transaction has not been reported on any of the organization’s prior Forms 990 or 990-EZ? 25b No
If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26 Did the organization report any amount on Part X, line 5, 6, or 22 for receivables from or payables to any current or
former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, or disqualified persons? 26 No
If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27 Did the organization provide a grant or other assistance to an officer, director, trustee, key employee, substantial
contributor or employee thereof, a grant selection committee member, or to a 35% controlled entity or family member 27 No
of any of these persons? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part III . . . . . . . . .
28 Was the organization a party to a business transaction with one of the following parties (see Schedule L, Part IV
instructions for applicable filing thresholds, conditions, and exceptions):
a A current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee? If "Yes," complete Schedule L,
Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28a No
b A family member of a current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee? If "Yes," complete Schedule L,
Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28b No
c An entity of which a current or former officer, director, trustee, or key employee (or a family member thereof) was an
officer, director, trustee, or direct or indirect owner? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part IV . . . 28c No
29 Did the organization receive more than $25,000 in non-cash contributions? If "Yes," complete Schedule M . . 29 No
30 Did the organization receive contributions of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets, or qualified conservation
contributions? If "Yes," complete Schedule M . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 No
31 Did the organization liquidate, terminate, or dissolve and cease operations? If "Yes," complete Schedule N, Part I .
31 No
32 Did the organization sell, exchange, dispose of, or transfer more than 25% of its net assets?
If "Yes," complete Schedule N, Part II . . . . . . . . . . . 32 No
33 Did the organization own 100% of an entity disregarded as separate from the organization under Regulations sections
301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part I . . . . . . . . 33 No
34 Was the organization related to any tax-exempt or taxable entity? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part II, III, or IV, and
Part V, line 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 No
35a Did the organization have a controlled entity within the meaning of section 512(b)(13)? 35a No
b If ‘Yes’ to line 35a, did the organization receive any payment from or engage in any transaction with a controlled entity
within the meaning of section 512(b)(13)? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part V, line 2 . . . 35b
36 Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization make any transfers to an exempt non-charitable related
organization? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part V, line 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
37 Did the organization conduct more than 5% of its activities through an entity that is not a related organization and that
is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part VI 37 No
38 Did the organization complete Schedule O and provide explanations in Schedule O for Part VI, lines 11b and 19? Note.
All Form 990 filers are required to complete Schedule O. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Yes
Part V Statements Regarding Other IRS Filings and Tax Compliance

Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part V . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes No
1a Enter the number reported in Box 3 of Form 1096 Enter -0- if not applicable . . 1a 2
b Enter the number of Forms W-2G included in line 1a.Enter -0- if not applicable . 1b 0
c Did the organization comply with backup withholding rules for reportable payments to vendors and reportable gaming
(gambling) winnings to prize winners? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1c Yes
Form 990 (2018)
Page 5
Form 990 (2018) Page 5
2a Enter the number of employees reported on Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and
Tax Statements, filed for the calendar year ending with or within the year covered by
this return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2a 0
b If at least one is reported on line 2a, did the organization file all required federal employment tax returns? 2b
Note.If the sum of lines 1a and 2a is greater than 250, you may be required to e-file (see instructions)
3a Did the organization have unrelated business gross income of $1,000 or more during the year? . . . 3a No
b If “Yes,” has it filed a Form 990-T for this year?If “No” to line 3b, provide an explanation in Schedule O . . . 3b
4a At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a 4a No
financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account, securities account, or other financial account)? . .
b If "Yes," enter the name of the foreign country:
See instructions for filing requirements for FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).
5a Was the organization a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction at any time during the tax year? . . 5a No
b Did any taxable party notify the organization that it was or is a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction? 5b No
c If "Yes," to line 5a or 5b, did the organization file Form 8886-T? . . . . . . . . . . . .

5c
6a Does the organization have annual gross receipts that are normally greater than $100,000, and did the organization 6a No
solicit any contributions that were not tax deductible as charitable contributions? . . .
b If "Yes," did the organization include with every solicitation an express statement that such contributions or gifts were
not tax deductible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6b
7 Organizations that may receive deductible contributions under section 170(c).
a Did the organization receive a payment in excess of $75 made partly as a contribution and partly for goods and services 7a
provided to the payor? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b If "Yes," did the organization notify the donor of the value of the goods or services provided? . . . . . 7b
c Did the organization sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of tangible personal property for which it was required to file
Form 8282? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7c
d If "Yes," indicate the number of Forms 8282 filed during the year . . . . 7d
e Did the organization receive any funds, directly or indirectly, to pay premiums on a personal benefit contract?
7e
f Did the organization, during the year, pay premiums, directly or indirectly, on a personal benefit contract? . . 7f
g If the organization received a contribution of qualified intellectual property, did the organization file Form 8899 as
required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7g
h If the organization received a contribution of cars, boats, airplanes, or other vehicles, did the organization file a Form
1098-C? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7h
8 Sponsoring organizations maintaining donor advised funds.
Did a donor advised fund maintained by the sponsoring organization have excess business holdings at any time during
the year? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
9a Did the sponsoring organization make any taxable distributions under section 4966? . . . 9a
b Did the sponsoring organization make a distribution to a donor, donor advisor, or related person? . . . 9b
10 Section 501(c)(7) organizations. Enter:
a Initiation fees and capital contributions included on Part VIII, line 12 . . . 10a
b Gross receipts, included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, for public use of club facilities 10b
11 Section 501(c)(12) organizations. Enter:
a Gross income from members or shareholders . . . . . . . . . 11a
b Gross income from other sources (Do not net amounts due or paid to other sources
against amounts due or received from them.) . . . . . . . . . . 11b
12a Section 4947(a)(1) non-exempt charitable trusts. Is the organization filing Form 990 in lieu of Form 1041? 12a
b If "Yes," enter the amount of tax-exempt interest received or accrued during the year.
12b
13 Section 501(c)(29) qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers.
a Is the organization licensed to issue qualified health plans in more than one state?
Note. See the instructions for additional information the organization must report on Schedule O. 13a
b Enter the amount of reserves the organization is required to maintain by the states in
which the organization is licensed to issue qualified health plans . . . . 13b
c Enter the amount of reserves on hand . . . . . . . . . . . . 13c

14a Did the organization receive any payments for indoor tanning services during the tax year? . . . . . 14a No
b If "Yes," has it filed a Form 720 to report these payments?If "No," provide an explanation in Schedule O . . 14b
15 Is the organization subject to the section 4960 tax on payment(s) of more than $1,000,000 in remuneration or excess
parachute payment(s) during the year? If "Yes," see instructions and file Form 4720, Schedule N . . . . . 15 No
16 Is the organization an educational institution subject to the section 4968 excise tax on net investment income?
If "Yes," complete Form 4720, Schedule O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 No
Form 990 (2018)
Page 6
Page 6
Form 990 (2018) Page 6

Part VI Governance, Management, and Disclosure For each "Yes" response to lines 2 through 7b below, and for a "No" response to lines
8a, 8b, or 10b below, describe the circumstances, processes, or changes in Schedule O. See instructions.
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section A. Governing Body and Management
Yes No
1a Enter the number of voting members of the governing body at the end of the tax year
1a 2
If there are material differences in voting rights among members of the governing
body, or if the governing body delegated broad authority to an executive committee or
similar committee, explain in Schedule O.
b Enter the number of voting members included in line 1a, above, who are independent
1b 2
2 Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other
officer, director, trustee, or key employee? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 No
3 Did the organization delegate control over management duties customarily performed by or under the direct supervision
3 No
of officers, directors or trustees, or key employees to a management company or other person? .
4 Did the organization make any significant changes to its governing documents since the prior Form 990 was filed? . 4 No
5 Did the organization become aware during the year of a significant diversion of the organization’s assets? . 5 No
6 Did the organization have members or stockholders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 No
7a Did the organization have members, stockholders, or other persons who had the power to elect or appoint one or more
members of the governing body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7a No
b Are any governance decisions of the organization reserved to (or subject to approval by) members, stockholders, or 7b No
persons other than the governing body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 Did the organization contemporaneously document the meetings held or written actions undertaken during the year by
the following:
a The governing body? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8a Yes
b Each committee with authority to act on behalf of the governing body? . . . . . . . . . . . . 8b Yes
9 Is there any officer, director, trustee, or key employee listed in Part VII, Section A, who cannot be reached at the
organization’s mailing address? If "Yes," provide the names and addresses in Schedule O . . . . . . . 9 No
Section B. Policies (This Section B requests information about policies not required by the Internal Revenue Code.)
Yes No
10a Did the organization have local chapters, branches, or affiliates? . . . . . . . . . . . . 10a No
b If "Yes," did the organization have written policies and procedures governing the activities of such chapters, affiliates,
and branches to ensure their operations are consistent with the organization's exempt purposes? 10b
11a Has the organization provided a complete copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the
form? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11a Yes
b Describe in Schedule O the process, if any, used by the organization to review this Form 990. . . . . .
12a Did the organization have a written conflict of interest policy? If "No," go to line 13 . . . . . . . 12a No
b Were officers, directors, or trustees, and key employees required to disclose annually interests that could give rise to
conflicts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12b
c Did the organization regularly and consistently monitor and enforce compliance with the policy? If "Yes," describe in
Schedule O how this was done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12c
13 Did the organization have a written whistleblower policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 No
14 Did the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy? . . . . . . . . . 14 No
15 Did the process for determining compensation of the following persons include a review and approval by independent
persons, comparability data, and contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and decision?
a The organization’s CEO, Executive Director, or top management official . . . . . . . . . . . 15a No
b Other officers or key employees of the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15b No
If "Yes" to line 15a or 15b, describe the process in Schedule O (see instructions).
16a Did the organization invest in, contribute assets to, or participate in a joint venture or similar arrangement with a
taxable entity during the year? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16a No
b If "Yes," did the organization follow a written policy or procedure requiring the organization to evaluate its participation
in joint venture arrangements under applicable federal tax law, and take steps to safeguard the organization’s exempt
status with respect to such arrangements? . . . . . . . . . . . .
16b
Section C. Disclosure
17 List the States with which a copy of this Form 990 is required to be filed
18 Section 6104 requires an organization to make its Form 1023 (or 1024-A if applicable), 990, and 990-T (501(c)(3)s
only) available for public inspection. Indicate how you made these available. Check all that apply.
Own website Another's website Upon request Other (explain in Schedule O)
19 Describe in Schedule O whether (and if so, how) the organization made its governing documents, conflict of interest
policy, and financial statements available to the public during the tax year.
20 State the name, address, and telephone number of the person who possesses the organization's books and records:
THE ORGANIZATION 228 S WASHINGTON ST 115 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 (703) 549-7705
Form 990 (2018)
Page 7
Form 990 (2018) Page 7

Part VII Compensation of Officers, Directors,Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees,
and Independent Contractors
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
1a Complete this table for all persons required to be listed. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization’s tax
year.
List all of the organization’s current officers, directors, trustees (whether individuals or organizations), regardless of amount
of compensation. Enter -0- in columns (D), (E), and (F) if no compensation was paid.
List all of the organization’s current key employees, if any. See instructions for definition of "key employee."
List the organization’s five current highest compensated employees (other than an officer, director, trustee or key employee)
who received reportable compensation (Box 5 of Form W-2 and/or Box 7 of Form 1099-MISC) of more than $100,000 from the
organization and any related organizations.
List all of the organization’s former officers, key employees, or highest compensated employees who received more than $100,000
of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.
List all of the organization’s former directors or trustees that received, in the capacity as a former director or trustee of the
organization, more than $10,000 of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.
List persons in the following order: individual trustees or directors; institutional trustees; officers; key employees; highest
compensated employees; and former such persons.
Check this box if neither the organization nor any related organization compensated any current officer, director, or trustee.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Name and Title Average Position (do not check more Reportable Reportable Estimated
hours per than one box, unless compensation compensation amount of other
week (list person is both an officer from the from related compensation
any hours for and a director/trustee) organization organizations from the
related (W- 2/1099- (W- 2/1099- organization and
organizations MISC) MISC) related
below dotted organizations
line)
(1) TYLER SERVANT 10.00

...................................................................... ................. X X 0 0 0
DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT
(2) JAMIE HUVAL 2.00

...................................................................... ................. X 0 0 0
DIRECTOR
(3) DAVID SATTERFIELD 2.00

...................................................................... ................. X 0 0 0
TREASURER
Form 990 (2018)
Page 8
Form 990 (2018) Page 8

Part VII Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees (continued)
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

Name and Title Average Position (do not check more Reportable Reportable Estimated
hours per than one box, unless person compensation compensation amount of other
week (list is both an officer and a from the from related compensation
any hours for director/trustee) organization (W- organizations (W- from the
related 2/1099-MISC) 2/1099-MISC) organization and
organizations related
below dotted organizations
line)
1b Sub-Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A . . . .
d Total (add lines 1b and 1c) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0
2 Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000
of reportable compensation from the organization 0
Yes No
3 Did the organization list any former officer, director or trustee, key employee, or highest compensated employee on
line 1a? If "Yes," complete Schedule J for such individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 No
4 For any individual listed on line 1a, is the sum of reportable compensation and other compensation from the
organization and related organizations greater than $150,000? If "Yes," complete Schedule J for such
individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 No
5 Did any person listed on line 1a receive or accrue compensation from any unrelated organization or individual for
services rendered to the organization?If "Yes," complete Schedule J for such person . . . . . . . . 5 No
Section B. Independent Contractors

1 Complete this table for your five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 of compensation
from the organization. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization’s tax year.
(A) (B) (C)
Name and business address Description of services Compensation
2 Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of
compensation from the organization 0
Form 990 (2018)
Page 9
Form 990 (2018) Page 9

Part VIII Statement of Revenue
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(A) (B) (C) (D)
Total revenue Related or Unrelated Revenue
exempt business excluded from
function revenue tax under sections
revenue 512 - 514
1a Federated campaigns . . 1a
b Membership dues . . 1b
c Fundraising events . . 1c
d Related organizations 1d
e Government grants (contributions) 1e
f All other contributions, gifts, grants,

and similar amounts not included
1f
above
241,500
g
Noncash contributions included
in lines 1a - 1f:$
h Total. Add lines 1a-1f . . . . . . . 241,500
Business Code
2a
b
c
d
e
f All other program service revenue.
g Total. Add lines 2a–2f . . . .
3 Investment income (including dividends, interest, and other

similar amounts) . . . . . .
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds
5 Royalties . . . . . . . . . . .
(i) Real (ii) Personal
6a Gross rents
b Less: rental expenses
c Rental income or
(loss)
d Net rental income or (loss) . . . . . .

(i) Securities (ii) Other
7a Gross amount
from sales of
assets other
than inventory
b Less: cost or
other basis and
sales expenses
c Gain or (loss)
d Net gain or (loss) . . . . .
8a Gross income from fundraising events
(not including $ of
contributions reported on line 1c).
See Part IV, line 18 . . . . a
b Less: direct expenses . . . b

c Net income or (loss) from fundraising events . .
9a Gross income from gaming activities.
See Part IV, line 19 . . .
a
b Less: direct expenses . . . b
c Net income or (loss) from gaming activities . .
10a Gross sales of inventory, less
returns and allowances . .
a
b Less: cost of goods sold . . b
c Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory . .

Miscellaneous Revenue Business Code
11a
d All other revenue . . . .

e Total. Add lines 11a–11d . . . . . .
12 Total revenue. See Instructions. . . . . .

241,500 0 0 0
Form 990 (2018)
Page 10
Form 990 (2018) Page 10

Part IX Statement of Functional Expenses
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations must complete all columns. All other organizations must complete column (A).
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(B) (C)
Do not include amounts reported on lines 6b, (A) (D)
Program service Management and
7b, 8b, 9b, and 10b of Part VIII. Total expenses
expenses general expenses
Fundraisingexpenses
1 Grants and other assistance to domestic organizations and

domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21
2 Grants and other assistance to domestic individuals. See
Part IV, line 22
3 Grants and other assistance to foreign organizations, foreign

governments, and foreign individuals. See Part IV, line 15
and 16.
4 Benefits paid to or for members
5 Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and
key employees . . . .
6 Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as
defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in
section 4958(c)(3)(B) . . . .
7 Other salaries and wages
8 Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section
401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) . . . .
9 Other employee benefits . . . . . . .
10 Payroll taxes . . . . . . . . . . .
11 Fees for services (non-employees):
a Management . . . . . .
b Legal . . . . . . . . . 35,000 28,000 7,000
c Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . 1,887 1,887
d Lobbying . . . . . . . . . . .
e Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17
f Investment management fees . . . . . .
g Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column 146,060 86,060 60,000
(A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O)
12 Advertising and promotion . . . . 2,500 2,500
13 Office expenses . . . . . . .
14 Information technology . . . . . .
15 Royalties . .
16 Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . .
17 Travel . . . . . . . . . . . .
18 Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any
f d l t t l l bli ffi i l
federal, state, or local public officials .
19 Conferences, conventions, and meetings . . . .
20 Interest . . . . . . . . . . .
21 Payments to affiliates . . . . . . .
22 Depreciation, depletion, and amortization . .
23 Insurance . . .
24 Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List
miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount
exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e
expenses on Schedule O.)
a COMPLIANCE EXPENSES 279 279
b BANK FEES 95 78 17
c
d
e All other expenses
25 Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e 185,821 116,638 69,183 0
26 Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization

reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined
educational campaign and fundraising solicitation.
Check here if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).
Form 990 (2018)
Page 11
Form 990 (2018) Page 11

Part X Balance Sheet
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(A) (B)
Beginning of year End of year
1 Cash–non-interest-bearing . . . . . . . . 1,877 1 57,556

2 Savings and temporary cash investments . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Pledges and grants receivable, net . . . . . . 3
4 Accounts receivable, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 Loans and other receivables from current and former officers, directors,
trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete
5
Part II of Schedule L . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under
section 4958(f)(1)), persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B), and
contributing employers and sponsoring organizations of section 501(c)(9)
6
voluntary employees' beneficiary organizations (see instructions) Complete
Part II of Schedule L . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Notes and loans receivable, net . . . . 7
8 Inventories for sale or use . . . . . . . . 8
9 Prepaid expenses and deferred charges . . . . . . 9
10a Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other
basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D 10a
b Less: accumulated depreciation 10b 10c

11 Investments—publicly traded securities . 11
12 Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 . . . . . 12
13 Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 . . 13
14 Intangible assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15 Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16 Total assets.Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34) . . . 1,877 16 57,556
17 Accounts payable and accrued expenses . . . . . 17
18 Grants payable . . . 18
19 Deferred revenue . . . . . . . . . 19
20 Tax-exempt bond liabilities . . . . . . . . . 20
21 Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D 21
22 Loans and other payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees,
key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L . . 22
23 Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties . . 23
24 Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties . . 24
25 Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, 25
and other liabilities not included on lines 17 - 24).
Complete Part X of Schedule D
26 Total liabilities.Add lines 17 through 25 . . 0 26 0
Organizations that follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and
complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27 Unrestricted net assets 1,877 27 57,556
28 Temporarily restricted net assets . . . . . . . . . . . 28
29 Permanently restricted net assets 29
Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958),
check here and complete lines 30 through 34.
30 Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds . . . . . 30
31 Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund . . . 31
32 Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds 32
33 Total net assets or fund balances . . . . . . . . . . . 1,877 33 57,556
34 Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances . . . . . . . . 1,877 34 57,556
Form 990 (2018)
Page 12
Form 990 (2018) Page 12

Part XI Reconcilliation of Net Assets
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part XI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Total revenue (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 241,500
2 Total expenses (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 185,821
3 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 2 from line 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55,679
4 Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (must equal Part X, line 33, column (A)) . . 4 1,877
5 Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 Donated services and use of facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7 Investment expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 Prior period adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 Other changes in net assets or fund balances (explain in Schedule O) . . . . . . . . 9 0
10 Net assets or fund balances at end of year. Combine lines 3 through 9 (must equal Part X, line 33, column (B)) 10 57,556
Part XII Financial Statements and Reporting
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part XII . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes No
1 Accounting method used to prepare the Form 990: Cash Accrual Other
If the organization changed its method of accounting from a prior year or checked "Other," explain in
Schedule O.
2a Were the organization’s financial statements compiled or reviewed by an independent accountant? 2a No
If ‘Yes,’ check a box below to indicate whether the financial statements for the year were compiled or reviewed on a
separate basis, consolidated basis, or both:
Separate basis Consolidated basis Both consolidated and separate basis
b Were the organization’s financial statements audited by an independent accountant? 2b No

If ‘Yes,’ check a box below to indicate whether the financial statements for the year were audited on a separate basis,
consolidated basis, or both:
Separate basis Consolidated basis Both consolidated and separate basis
c If "Yes," to line 2a or 2b, does the organization have a committee that assumes responsibility for oversight
of the audit, review, or compilation of its financial statements and selection of an independent accountant? 2c
If the organization changed either its oversight process or selection process during the tax year, explain in Schedule O.
3a As a result of a federal award, was the organization required to undergo an audit or audits as set forth in the Single
Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133? 3a No
b If "Yes," did the organization undergo the required audit or audits? If the organization did not undergo the required
audit or audits, explain why in Schedule O and describe any steps taken to undergo such audits. 3b
Form 990 (2018)
Form 990 (2018)

Additional Data Return to Form
Software ID:
S ft V i
ProPublica
© Copyright
Pro Publica Inc.
2/8/2021 Luke Rankin's Sealed Divorce File: What's Good For The Goose ... - FITSNews
Luke Rankin’s Sealed Divorce File: What’s Good For The Goose …
EXHIBIT 2

SC
Luke Rankin’s Sealed Divorce File: What’s

0
x
Good For The Goose … Posts

Remaining
Powerful lawmaker’s dirty laundry remains under lock-and-key while his opponent’s is strewn across newspaper hea
Published 8 months ago on June 16, 2020

Subscribe
By FITSNewstoday for full access
Current subscriber? Login hereHOME SC DC 2024 BIZ SPORTS SUBSCRIBE LOGIN MAKE CONTACT FAQ NEWSLETTER
https://www.fitsnews.com/2020/06/16/luke-rankins-sealed-divorce-file-whats-good-for-the-goose/ 1/10
0
x
Posts
Remaining
Subscribe today for full access

W
e did not want to write this column. At all. Two weeks ago – when
our news outlet was among the recipients of explosive, leaked
information about S.C. Senate candidate John Gallman – we
bluntly told our sources that publishing such information would
be unfair unless we were also able to obtain (and report on) sealed divorce records of
veteran state senator Luke Rankin, Gallman’s opponent in next Tuesday’s election.
Frankly, we would rather not report on either domestic drama. The race between
these two candidates (assuming it comes off as scheduled) should be decided based
on their respective views – not their respective dirty laundry.
But the fact that one candidate in this race is able to bury his dirty laundry (and in
fact, appoints the shovelers who bury it) – while the other must watch as his soiled 
linens are littered all over the front pages of local newspapers – strikes us as a
disturbing double standard.
0
Don’t
x get us wrong: The allegations against Gallman (that he physically abused and
stalked his former wife) are serious. And, if true, they should absolutely cause any
Posts voter to pause before tapping the touch screen next to his name. Furthermore, this
Remaining news outlet has written unfavorably about Gallman in the past – questioning his
commitment to some of the reforms he has championed on the campaign trail.
We are not fans of the guy …

In fairness to Gallman, though, he was never arrested or charged in connection with

any of the allegations included in the court documents we were provided – which
lends at least a modicum of credibility to his denials.
(SPONSORED CONTENT)
0
x
Posts
Remaining
STORY CONTINUES BELOW
Also, the alternative on the ballot next Tuesday for S.C. Senate District 33 (.pdf) is a
Current subscriber? Login hereHOME
known
SC DCcommodity when SPORTS
2024 BIZ it comes SUBSCRIBE
to pure status quo subservience
LOGIN MAKE CONTACT …FAQ
a candidate
NEWSLETTER
whose record of anti-taxpayer, anti-free market advocacy and slavish devotion to
special interests has had disastrous consequences for the people of the Palmetto
State.
And that’s just what we know about Rankin …
We don’t know what else might be in his past because he won’t let us see it.
Whatever your view on this election, the fact that reporters David Weissman and
Tyler Fleming of The (Myrtle Beach, S.C.) Sun News saw t to publish the allegations
against Gallman without even mentioning Rankin’s high-pro le divorce case is very
telling … and very troubling.
Weissman and Fleming also failed to mention that Rankin’s divorce case was sealed
… and that the powerful Senate judiciary chairman, more than any other lawmaker in
Columbia, S.C., is responsible for appointing the judges who ultimately decide which
les get sealed.

And which ones remain open and accessible to the public …
All relevant facts, right?
0
x
We certainly think so. In fact, we have written often (here, here, here, here and here)
Posts about how powerful, politically connected South Carolinians – like Rankin – are able
Remaining to habitually hide their bad behavior from public view.
“The sealing of public records for in uential individuals is standard operating

procedure in South Carolina … yet another example of the preferential treatment
received
SC DC by those
2024 inBIZpower (or those with proximity
LOGIN toMAKE
power) in theFAQ
Palmetto State,”
Current subscriber? Login hereHOME SPORTS SUBSCRIBE CONTACT NEWSLETTER
we noted in a story we published back in March.
It works like this: When normal people screw up … everybody gets to read about their
dirty laundry. When those with “connections” screw up, the sordid details of their
dirty deeds are kept under lock and key … zealously guarded by judges who clearly
have no conception of the notion of equal protection under the law.
*****
0
x
Posts
Remaining
RELATED || Luke Rankin Race Already Off The Rails

Current subscriber? Login hereHOME SC DC 2024 BIZ SPORTS SUBSCRIBE
*****LOGIN MAKE CONTACT FAQ NEWSLETTER
Which is precisely why Horry county residents are reading alleged details of one
candidate’s failed marriage this afternoon … but not the other’s.
To the disappointment of many of our readers, this news outlet is not delving into
any of the sordid details allegedly tucked away in Rankin’s sealed les. Nor are we
going to traf c in related rumors that have circled around the S.C. State House for
years. We understand other media sites on the coast may decide to publish (or
speculate) as to certain raunchy alleged particulars – and we will certainly review
those reports just as we have reviewed The Sun News’ report on Gallman.
But we do not believe such salaciousness has any place in the public forum – even for
an elected of cial as demonstrably despicable as Rankin.
If he has failings in his personal life, that is really not for us to judge … barring of
course some criminal behavior or abuse of his position of public trust.
Similarly, in the absence of an arrest or indictment based on probable cause, we do


not believe the domestic allegations against Gallman should have been submitted to
voters … certainly not in the one-sided fashion The Sun News chose to submit them
less than seven days before an election.
0
x
Posts But hey … clicks, right?

Remaining
Stay tuned … clearly, the nal week of campaigning for this Senate seat is going to
get very interesting. And while we have no intention of traipsing through the mud
with either of these campaigns (certainly not Rankin’s), this situation does amplify
Subscribe today for full access allegations made against the veteran lawmaker on another front – namely that he
Current subscriber? Login hereHOME SC DC his2024
leverages BIZ over
in uence SPORTS SUBSCRIBE
the judges LOGIN toMAKE
he appoints CONTACT
his favor. FAQ NEWSLETTER
-FITSNews
*****
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open
microphone policy! Submit your own letter to the editor (or guest column) via-email
HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to
report? CLICK HERE.
Banner: Columbia SC Photographers Travis Bell
RELATED TOPICS: #DAVID WEISSMAN #FEATURED #JOHN GALLMAN #LUKE RANKIN #TYLER FLEMING
DON'T MISS
Former South Carolina President’s

UP NEXT
Midlands Boy Scout Council Sued


 
Property Tax Bill Draws Scrutiny By Man Who Was Sexually Abused
At Age 13 By Leader, SC Lawsuit
Says
0
x
Posts
Remaining YOU MAY LIKE

More ‘Transparent Hypocrisy’ Eleventh Hour Dramas Rock South South Carolina Redistricting
Luke Rankin’s Sealed
FromDivorce
Luke RankinFile: What’s Good ForJudicial
Carolina The Goose
Races … Battle: Dick Harpootlian’s
Promises Versus Luke Rankin’s
Politics
Who Blocked Russell Ott’s Bid To Dick Harpootlian Vows To Block Santee Cooper’s Cash Situation
Serve On Energy Oversight Panel? NextEra Purchase Of Santee Deteriorates Further
Cooper
COMMENTS
0
x
Posts
Remaining

Current subscriber? Login hereHOME SC DC 2024 BIZ SPORTS  SUBSCRIBE
 LOGIN MAKE CONTACT FAQ NEWSLETTER
SC DC USA 2024 BIZ GLOBE SPORTS SUBSCRIBE LOGIN MAKE CONTACT FAQ NEWSLETTER
Copyright © 2008-2021 FITSNews, LLC

Follow me on Blogarama
0
x
Posts
Remaining

Current subscriber? Login here
2/2/2021 State senate candidate disputes domestic abuse allegations in court records | Horry County | myhorrynews.com
https://www.myhorrynews.com/news/local/horry_county/state-senate-candidate-disputes-domestic-abuse-allegations-in-court-
records/article_17a3ef14-afe1-11ea-9fb1-dbb2629e463c.html
State senate candidate disputes domestic abuse allegations in court records

By Christian Boschult christian.boschult@myhorrynews.com
Jun 16, 2020
EXHIBIT 3
https://www.myhorrynews.com/news/local/horry_county/state-senate-candidate-disputes-domestic-abuse-allegations-in-court-records/article_17a3ef14-afe1-11ea-9fb1-dbb2629e463c.html 1/25
John Gallman disputes allegations of abuse contained in court records. Photo by Christian Boschult
John Gallman will face state Sen. Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, in next week’s runo for the District 33 seat.
Throughout the campaign, Gallman has criticized Rankin’s nearly three-decade record as liberal and weak: soft on anti-abortion
measures, supportive of the gas tax hike, and entangled in the failed V.C. Summer nuclear project.
Gallman’s supporters have hailed him as a staunch family values conservative who can nally oust a former Democrat. And he’s
come close, nishing just over 1,000 votes behind the incumbent last week and forcing the runo on June 23.
But hundreds of pages of court documents paint a di erent picture of Gallman. Those documents describe a physically and
emotionally abusive husband who beat his wife in front of their child, broke her nger and even hired a private investigator to
track her movements after their divorce.
Gallman, 44, has never been charged with a crime in connection with these incidents. In two instances when police were called
about the couple’s disputes, his then-wife declined to pursue charges. But he lost custody of his children last year, with a judge
expressing concerns about his behavior.
Despite the allegations in court records, Gallman maintains he never intentionally hurt his ex-wife and he is the victim of a
system stacked against fathers.
“That’s not true,” he said of the abuse allegations. “That’s absolutely not true. That’s 100% inaccurate.”
Rankin was also previously married and divorced. His court records are sealed.
Ten years of marriage

Gallman met his former wife, who has remarried and is now known as Sarah Price, when he was the youth pastor at the church
her family attended.
When they married, he was 32 and she was 22.
Gallman and Price divorced in 2017 after 10 years of marriage. But even before the divorce, Gallman had a history of con ict
with his family, according to public records.
Notes from a Children’s Recovery Center interview show that Gallman’s minor daughter alleged he had hit her mom on more
than one occasion, and that he would frequently yell at her.
Gallman also hired a private investigator to follow his ex-wife for several months during their custody battle.
While working for Gallman, the investigator put a tracking device on Price’s vehicle and frequently took pictures of her and the
former couple’s children in an e ort to document what Gallman alleged was irresponsible behavior.
Price, who is engaged in current litigation with Gallman, declined to comment.
When a judge gave sole custody of their two children to Price in October 2019, Gallman was ordered not to have contact with
them.
“The Court is concerned that the minor daughter has been subjected to ridicule by a paternal relative for not substantiating the
alleged abuse as stated by the father,” the judge wrote in her order, referring to Gallman. “The minor daughter has expressed
discontent with the father as to his actions.”
Gallman’s history of con ict with his ex-wife goes back to at least 2014, according to records obtained by myhorrynews.com,
which is basing this report on public court records including interview notes, police reports and third-party a davits in order to
avoid relying purely on Price or Gallman’s narratives. Myhorrynews.com is not naming Gallman’s minor children to protect their
privacy.
Police reports detail at least two instances in which Gallman allegedly became violent, according to his ex-wife’s statements to
o cers.
The earliest documented evidence of alleged violence contained in public records was in July 2014, according to a report from
the Greenwood County Sheri ’s O ce.
An incident report from the altercation says o cers responded to the Gallman home in Hodge, South Carolina, in response to
an argument between the couple. Gallman and Price both called police. Price, then known as Sarah Gallman, took the children
and left the house before o cers arrived.
The incident report says John Gallman told o cers they had a verbal altercation, while Price told o cers that Gallman began to
“chase” her while outside, “grabbed her by the hair and pushed her around,” and that he “drug her into the garage and threw
her into the door.” Neither one pressed charges.
Price’s friend Kira Payne backed up the account in a 2017 report by guardian ad litem Deborah Dantzler, saying she got a
“panicky” call from Price who told her she was eeing their lake house in Greenwood after Gallman “dragged her across the
yard by her hair in front of the children.” Gallman disputes the accuracy of the GAL report.
Price told Gallman that if he gave her the keys, she would not call 911, but she did call 911 as she was leaving the scene and
later told police their “children observed the whole incident,” according to the sheri ’s o ce report.
Gallman denied becoming physical with his ex-wife.
“I’m the one that called the police rst,” he said during an interview at his home, which was decorated with pictures of his
children. “And I gave her the keys so she could leave. On the 911 log, she tells them the only way she got the keys is because I
gave them to her in exchange for her not calling the police. If that is in fact true, as soon as I gave her the keys, then why would
I call the police?”
Gallman also provided a picture stored on his phone that he said showed him with his children at a zoo following the incident.
“If you took my children and left because I’ve abused you, how did I get them back?” Gallman asked. “Would a mother that’s
concerned about a man beating a woman give the children back to them less than a week later? She could have taken the
children and gone anywhere because we were not divorced.”
The con icts didn’t end with the Greenwood County incident.
In June of 2015, Horry County police responded to another dispute between the couple at their home near Myrtle Beach. The
police report says the argument was over “notes [Price] found on [Gallman’s] cell phone that were saved from previous
arguments and incidents involving his children.”
At one point in the disagreement, the couple was ghting over a cellphone when Price’s nger was broken, according to an
incident report and medical records.
Gallman told o cers that after he “grabbed his cellphone from [Price]” she grabbed his shirt sleeve and “laid on the oor while
still holding on to his shirt causing bruising to his arm,” according to an incident report.
Price told o cers that when Gallman “grabbed her hand in an attempt to take her cell phone,” he “twisted her hand and she
ended up on the ground,” breaking her nger in the process, the incident report said.
Price told o cers she could “only assume he did it intentionally,” the report says, but again, neither party pressed charges. An
o cer told Price that the case would be presented for warrants due to her accusation that the break was intentional, but no
judge signed o on it and Gallman wasn’t charged.
Price’s current husband, Chris Price, who was working with her at the time of the accident but hadn’t started dating her yet, said
in an a davit that he remembered her “coming to work with a broken nger which she said was caused by John taking her
phone.”
In his interview, Gallman denied breaking her nger intentionally, and presented photos stored on his phone of his arm with
bruises where he said Price had grabbed him.
“She didn’t cry, she didn’t squeal, she didn’t say ‘you hurt me’ when I jerked away,” Gallman said. “She left and then I’m like
‘OK.’”
Again, both Gallman and Price called police, with Gallman calling rst. He wanted the incident documented.
He said he called police for the June 2015 nger-breaking incident because “they give out criminal domestic violence charges
like candy,” because it creates business for attorneys.
After he called police, an o cer asked if he wanted to press charges against Price, whom he accused of grabbing him and
causing bruises.
“If I had abused her or broken her nger, I would not have called the police,” Gallman said. “I wanted it documented. The police
said to me, ‘We could arrest her for CDV.’ I was like ‘No, no no, I don’t want you to go arrest her. I just want it documented.’”
A letter from David Lee at Strand Orthopaedic Consultants disputed the idea that Sarah Gallman fractured her nger while
twisting her hand.
After reviewing X-rays, Lee wrote, “I feel it is improbable that a twisting type injury could have occurred which was stated by the
patient’s husband. It is more consistent type of fracture with a bending type of mechanism causing the fracture.”
Gallman disputed the letter and questioned Lee’s ability to make an assessment because he wasn’t a doctor, but a physical
therapist.
“He’s completely unquali ed to make that kind of assessment,” Gallman said.
Lee’s letter identi ed himself as a physician assistant, which are medical professionals licensed to practice under the
supervision of a physician.
Dantzler wrote in the guardian ad litem report that while Sarah Price didn’t think Gallman would intentionally hurt their kids,
she “is afraid for them because of his explosive temper.”
A detailed report
The GAL report was based on interviews with 25 people close to the couple, including family and friends, teachers, coaches, co-
workers and medical professionals, as well as other pieces of supplementing evidence. Dantzler began doing interviews in
September of 2016 and completed her nal report in June of 2017.
Other witnesses appearing in the guardian ad litem report also expressed concerns about Gallman’s temper. Four potential
witnesses “asked at the beginning of a phone call whether [Gallman] would nd out what was said,” Dantzler wrote. “They
expressed fear of retribution by him if he did not like what they said.”
Dantzler talked to both Gallman and Price for the report, as well as teachers, friends and the children.
Their son’s kindergarten teacher at St. Andrew Catholic School, Jennifer Kosydar, said in the GAL report that once Price and
Gallman began keeping the children separately on alternating weeks their son “began to show a very sad demeaner. On
[Gallman]’s weeks he frequently had not completed his homework and would come to school without his snack. On
Wednesdays the children are required to wear a dressier uniform because they attend mass. Often son was not wearing the
correct uniform.”
Dantzler also wrote, citing Kosyday, that Gallman’s daughter “would be wearing the wrong uniform on [Gallman]’s week.”
Gallman said the situation with the wrong uniforms didn’t happen on his watch.
“It didn’t happen when they were with me,” he said. “The school would have not known who they were with or who they were
not with. It was not an ongoing issue with the school. The report was completely inaccurate.”
According to the GAL report, teacher Noreen Hancheck said the pair’s son was more serious and quieter than normal during
Gallman’s time, an observation also supported by the school nurse, Jenna Cunningham.
Dantzler wrote that Cunningham was worried about Gallman’s “emotional well-being,” and said he could “come unhinged in no
time. As a result, she will not allow her children to play at [Gallman’s] house.”
After Dantzler’s report came out, Gallman sued Cunningham for defamation. The case is still pending.
Price’s friend, Payne, who lived next door to Gallman, also had concerns, the report said.
“Kira Payne is afraid of [Gallman’s] temper,” Dantzler wrote. “She has seen him go from zero to sixty in a split second. She is
afraid for her children to be alone with him.”
Dantzler said Payne remembered several times that she was in the couple’s house when Gallman would come home from
work, and he “demanded dead silence so he could unwind, and [Price] and children complied.”
The school’s principal at the time, Debbie Wilfong, said that Gallman’s attitude towards the school and sta had deteriorated
during the course of the divorce proceedings, according to the GAL report.
After the interim guardian ad litem report came out, Dantzler wrote, Gallman began challenging school sta about the contents
of the report, accusing school sta ers of conspiring with Price’s attorney, a charge Wilfong denied.
“[Wilfong] told [Gallman] that some parents had complained to her that they were uncomfortable with him being around their
children,” Dantzler said in the report, adding that after one “unproductive” conversation, Wilfong “ nally told him that she
would no longer meet with him without a priest or a lawyer present.”
Gallman said the characterizations of him having a hot temper with school sta is “not true at all, and I don’t think the principal
would tell you that was true. What did happen – and then I never went back – I asked to get records from the school.
“What the school did do, when I wanted to get records, did not get me records.”
Wilfong, reached by phone, did not dispute the report, and the Diocese of Charleston said in a statement that “Pricipal Wilfong
stands by the comments attributed to her in the guardian ad litem report.”
Rankin appears in Gallman’s le

Gallman’s opponent, Luke Rankin, and former Myrtle Beach Mayor Mark McBride also appear in the report.
On March 11, 2017, Gallman was taking his kids to his son’s soccer game when he turned too sharply and wrecked his vehicle,
the GAL report said. Gallman’s right front tire blew out and the car rolled onto the driver’s side. The children were wearing
seatbelts but had to crawl out the back.
The report says that a neighbor took the kids to the soccer game. After the game, the report says Price texted Gallman to tell
him the kids needed to go to the hospital, to which Gallman replied that he would take them if they needed to go.
Price texted again to say she was taking them to a Doctor’s Care location, Dantzler wrote. Price said in the report that the sta
at the Doctor’s Care where she took the kids told her she should take them to a hospital emergency room, which she did.
Dantzler wrote that “disorder at the hospital ensued. [Gallman] was angry that [Price] had brought the children to the hospital.”
The report said a nurse tried to soothe Gallman, explaining to him that “I would be upset if my kids were in a wreck and taken
to a soccer match if they had not been checked out.” Dantzler wrote the comment “infuriated [Gallman] even further.”
Dantzler said she reviewed police body cameras from o cers who were already at the hospital for a di erent incident, and said
the videos showed Gallman talking in a loud voice outside the emergency room examination rooms, claiming that Price was
“posturing.”
Gallman said in an interview that Price was also at the soccer game, and was aware of the accident, but didn’t take the kids to
the hospital right away. And he repeated the accusations contained in the GAL report that Price was posturing.
Gallman said when he got to the hospital, he was met by a social worker asking him about the accident.
“The social worker says, ‘We’re going to have to call DSS in,’” Gallman said. “I said ‘Not a problem, I’m going to sit right here until
DSS comes… But I want to make sure that you note the Happy Meal boxes that are sitting on the beds where my two children
are sitting.’ Mom was so concerned about the children she had time to go get Happy Meals before she brought them to the
hospital. Thank God I was able to stay in my thinking and thank God my kids brought the Happy Meal boxes.”
Dantzler wrote Gallman told police that Rankin could vouch for him.
The report said Gallman told o cers that “the presidents of DR Horton and Raymond James, and Luke Rankin rode by the
accident, and they can say the children were not hurt.”
Gallman con rmed the account in an interview.
At the time, he said, they lived in the same neighborhood.
“I don’t recall that at all, and I was shocked to read my name when someone showed me that ad litem report,” Rankin said. “He
lives in the neighborhood, and there was a lot of talk about it. A lot of buzz by folks in the neighborhood. I later heard neighbors
talking about it given his run for o ce.”
One o cer at the hospital tried to help Gallman understand why Price wanted the kids checked out, Dantzler wrote in the
report, “by saying ‘God forbid your kids collapsed on the soccer eld.’ [Gallman] launched into a tirade saying ‘Do you know
what it is like being discriminated against because I am a man trying to get access to his children? I have spent $200,000 in
attorney’s fees.’ Then he said he had called Mark McBride to come to the hospital.”
Gallman also “threatened the police that he was going to call Warren Gall, the [Myrtle Beach] chief of police,” Dantzler wrote.
She did not report any injuries as a result of the wreck.
At the end of the guardian ad litem report, Dantzler said Price was not immune from poor judgement, citing Price’s request for
Gallman to bring the children from their Greenwood County house in the upstate back to her house in the Myrtle Beach Pine
Lakes neighborhood after Hurricane Matthew, even though her home didn’t have power yet.
And on one occasion in February of 2016, Dantzler wrote that Price was found sleeping in her car one morning after a Feb. 4
work dinner when she mixed a pill with several glasses of wine. Price said in the GAL report that she didn’t go home because
she didn’t want to deal with any arguing that she thought would ensue upon her arrival. She said it “was probably her lowest
point,” and accepted responsibility, calling it “a major mistake.”
Dantzler also said Price needed to do a better job of standing up to Gallman in order to be treated as an equal, but she
criticized Gallman’s framing of the divorce litigation.
Gallman “has consistently framed nearly every issue as if it were solely about him,” Dantzler wrote. “For example, from his
perspective anything less than him having equal time with the children is not fair to him. He refuses to even consider the
possibility that frequent movements between households might be di cult for children especially during the school year.”
She added, “everything is about him and how persecuted and mistreated he has been. While he occasionally uses words or
phrases like ‘ ghting for my children’ or ‘in my children’s best interests,’ they are generally in the context about what is ‘fair’ to
him.”
In an interview, Gallman repeatedly denied the allegations that he had an intense temper, and said if it were true, he wouldn’t
have gotten 50% custody under the divorce arrangement nalized in 2017.
“If that were true to any extent, the guardian would not have allowed me to have 50/50 custody,” Gallman said. “Her attorney
would not have allowed me to have 50/50 custody, the judge would not have allowed me to have 50/50 custody. It was a
consent agreement. I didn’t even have to go into court and argue to win that. There was a deal that was agreed to outside of
the courtroom through a consent agreement. The guardian testi ed in court that she had no problem with the arrangement.”
Losing custody
The couple was o cially divorced on June 12, 2017, following more than a year of separation, according to a court order, and
they got shared custody.
“I just wanted to be a daddy to my children,” Gallman said. “That’s all I wanted.”
But the estranged couple’s con ict didn’t end there.
On Dec. 17, 2018, Price led a complaint asking for sole custody of their children, due to Gallman’s behavior, alleging numerous
instances of Gallman harassing and threatening members of her family while becoming hostile and confrontational.
An a davit by Price’s husband, Chris Price, also alleged similar behavior.
Court records show that Gallman hired a private investigator on May 6, 2019, who began following Price and her family on May
9. The next day, records show the investigator put a tracker on Price’s vehicle, and tracked Price and her family until early
August of 2019.
While working for Gallman, records show the investigator frequently took pictures of Price and her children, and claimed to
have evidence of Price drinking before driving with the children, falling asleep while the kids were in the pool, and speeding
with the kids in her vehicle.
The investigator also claimed that Price was letting her kids play in stormwater runo near the ocean during a time of elevated
bacteria levels, but a photo purporting to prove the claim showed the kids playing in a pool of water running parallel to the
ocean surf. It’s unclear from the photo if the pool of water was connected to a storm runo drain.
Gallman paid the investigator $13,744 for her work, according to billing records.
Judge Jan Bromell-Holmes awarded Price temporary sole custody of their children on Oct. 11, following an incident where
Gallman didn’t turn over their children during a scheduled exchange on Sept. 8, and alleged without evidence that their
children were being abused.
Records show no evidence that Price or her husband abused her children, and the kids never made any allegations of abuse
against their mother. Gallman’s daughter, however, made several allegations in a Children’s Recovery Center interview that her
father was physically and emotionally abusing her mother.
The night of Sept. 3, Gallman took their daughter to the Medical University of Charleston. Court records show he was
concerned about a recurring pattern of bruises.
Records contained in the court lings show he brought his daughter to MUSC for “alleged child abuse.”
He also called police to report his concerns, even though he told o cers that the children had made no claims of abuse or
maltreatment.
According to records from MUSC, the “patient denies any causes of bruising included anyone hitting her. Gets along with
mother and stepfather.”
In a later forensic interview at the Children’s Recovery Center in Myrtle Beach, Gallman’s daughter said she often gets bruises
from her dance class when her instructors would help her perform ips, as well as when she’s playing on the trampoline and
with their dog.
On Sept. 8, Gallman didn’t turn over the children to Price during the scheduled meeting.
Gallman said in a court ling that due to the lack of government services during Hurricane Dorian, his attorney advised Gallman
to keep the children until the scheduled forensic interview at the Children’s Recovery Center. He said in an interview that he
had noti ed Price’s attorney.
“I followed the directives of my attorney to the ‘T,’” Gallman said. “He’s the one that said that. He sent information to the
guardian that said that, he sent information to her attorney that said that. I also followed the direction of O cer Fletcher with
the Horry County Police Department who said they should not be exchanged as well.”
He declined to say whether he currently believes his children are being abused because he didn’t want to comment on pending
litigation.
After Gallman failed to turn over the children to his ex-wife, she led a motion on Sept. 9, asking for an ex-parte order to get
her children back, and included an a davit from Department of Social Services investigator Amanda Sutherland.
After speaking with the children’s counselor, Roberta Bogle, a former guardian ad litem and others, Sutherland said in her
a davit, “I do not have concerns about the care the children receive in the custody of Mr. and Mrs. Price. I do have concerns
about Mr. Gallman, and his behavior based on previous case history, his current actions, as well as current collateral contacts.
Those contacts I have spoken to have all expressed concerns about Mr. Gallman. I would like to speak with the children, at this
time I have not, and I am not aware of their location as they are with Mr. Gallman.”
Gallman criticized Sutherland, although he declined to o er speci cs due to pending litigation.
“I’ve had one conversation with Amanda Sutherland in my life, it was a 10-minute conversation,” He said. “Amanda Sutherland’s
never been to my house, DSS has never been to my house. They’ve got some answers that they’ve got to answer to.”
A judge issued an ex-parte order on Sept. 9, giving Price sole custody of their children. The order was rescinded several days
later, but Price and her husband still got their children back, with the help of police, according to records contained in the court
documents.
Gallman’s daughter described the situation in her forensic interview with the Children’s Recovery Center.
Gallman’s daughter told the interviewer that her father sent her to a room in the house and locked the door when he saw Price,
her husband and a police o cer coming to the house, according to the CRC records.
She was able to escape through an adjoining bathroom with two entrances, but said her dad was positioned in front of the
door as her mother came to get her, the CRC records said.
Gallman’s daughter “states she reached out her hand in between her father’s arm and leg and her mother ‘pulled me out of the
house,’” the interview notes said.
Price said in an a davit, “I will never forget the police o cer who helped us to get the children and my daughter looking at her
with tears in her eyes, saying ‘thank you!’”
In the interview with the Children’s Recovery Center, Price and Gallman’s daughter accused Gallman of hitting her mother on
several occasions, and said he would often yell and get mad without a reason.
Dr. Carol Rahter with the Children’s Recover Center wrote that “during her forensic interview she discloses physical abuse by
her father, John Gallman, by throwing her on the bed as well as emotional neglect secondary to exposure to domestic violence
between her father and mother, Sarah Price.”
Court records show DSS investigated the incident involving Gallman throwing her daughter on the bed but could not nd
evidence of abuse.
“When she describes the domestic violence, she only discloses only father hitting mother,” Rahter wrote. “She also disclosed
emotional abuse by her father and mother telling her what to say and sharing adult relationship conversations with her. During
her medical exam she describes an incident where her father was punching her mother in the arms, legs and abdomen when
he was angry at her.
“She describes her father calling her mother ‘stupid’ and getting angry at her when she defends her mother. She states her
father is often angry and screams a lot.”
The interview notes expand on this behavior.
Gallman’s daughter alleged in the CRC interview notes that Gallman would frequently prevent her from using her phone to call
her mother, and would sometimes take her phone for “a whole week straight,” but that she could call her father whenever she
wanted while in her mother’s care.
According to the CRC notes, Gallman’s daughter said she “has seen her father hitting her mother ‘at least two or three’ times.”
The interview notes say that Gallman’s daughter wanted DSS to know that she “does not want to go to her father’s house
anymore because ‘he yells at me and stu and he just like really, really, really mean sometimes,’ and ‘he loses his temper.’”
Gallman denied the accusations, saying they were “100% percent untrue.”
“My daughter was put in an environment and was coached to say that,” Gallman said. “You won’t nd that accusation ever put
forth. The guardian, as bad as her report was, never reported that. The guardian met with my child multiple times. The only
time the daughter would have been in the presence of me and her mother was when we were married, prior to the divorce. So
this was reported after the divorce. My daughter had seen four di erent counselors, it’s not in one counselor’s notes, it’s not in
Deborah Dantzler’s report. It’s not even in anything that the mother said.”
But Price’s court lings also allege domestic violence by Gallman. “John has broken my nger and dragged me around our back
yard by the hair,” Price wrote in a Sept. 23 a davit. “He has thrown glass, remotes, even a hot pot of chili at me. He was abusive
in every other way there is as well.”
Roberta Bogle, the children’s counselor and clinical director at The Center for Counseling & Wellness in North Myrtle Beach,
wrote in a davits submitted to the court on Sept. 23 that Gallman had taken a “threatening, manipulative posture” towards
her.
She said in her a davits that both children had expressed a desire to stay with their mother.
She also said Gallman had claimed she wasn’t including him in the counseling sessions, but she said that she had made “many
o ers” to him to discuss the children’s counseling, which “he has refused to respond to.”
Gallman, Bogle wrote, “is not sincerely interested in helping [his children] make adjustments to living in two households,
becoming a more e ective parent, or building a healthier relationship with [his children] but rather seeks to ‘win’ the custody
dispute with Sarah at all costs regardless of the harm it causes to [his children] or anyone else in the process (including me). At
this point, John has become hostile and disruptive to me, my o ce sta , and the counseling process. In keeping with ethical
practices, I feel it would be counter-productive for me to engage with John in the counseling process.”
On Oct. 11, Judge Bromell-Holmes issued a temporary order giving sole custody of the children to Price, and said the court
wasn’t happy with Gallman’s unfounded abuse allegations and other behaviors.
The “Defendant father has led/made a complaint against the minor children’s therapist/counselor, Roberta Bogle, that have
been dismissed,” Holmes wrote. “Further, anyone involved with this case or individuals who have led a davits in support of
the mother as father perceives it have been harassed, intimidated or ridiculed by the father or others acting on his behalf as
being untruthful or biased towards the mother. This court will not be intimidated and will do what is in the best interest of the
children.”
Holmes continued in the order, the “Defendant-Father is to have no visitation with the minor children, no telephonic contact or
electronic contact with the children, and will not participate or attend any of the children’s extracurricular activities,
appointments or events.”
Price was granted sole custody. The case is still pending.
Gallman declined to comment on e orts to get his children back.
“That is current litigation,” Gallman said. “We will win again in the end. That’s all I’ll say.”
Domestic violence resources include the Family Justice Center serving Horry and Georgetown Counties, at 844-208-0161.
The National Domestic Violence Hotline is 800-799-7233.
+5
State Senate candidates spar in series of press conferences, statements
After contentious campaign, Rankin wins re-election
Christian Boschult
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT 9

Filed Amended S&C William Taylor Added

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed Amended S&C William Taylor Added

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed Amended S&C William Taylor Added

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THE PLAYER LAW FIRM, LLC

submits the following Amended Complaint and alleges as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Horry County.

2. Defendant Luke Rankin is a citizen and resident of Horry County.

3. American Industry Project [hereinafter “AIP”] is a Political Action Committee with an

Huval of Louisiana, and David Satterfield (treasurer) of Alexandria, Virginia. (Exhibit

Servant was replaced by William Taylor of Aiken, South Carolina.

Project and the South Carolina Industry Project.

WBTW, attached as Exhibit 8.

8. William Taylor is a South Carolina legislator from Aiken, South Carolina.

director of Laginappe Communications Group.

theory of respondeat superior and common law agency.

Atlanta, Georgia operated by Defendant Robert Cahaly.

14. Robert Cahaly is a citizen and resident of Atlanta, Georgia.

Lexington County, South Carolina.

17. Robert Halpin is a citizen and resident of Horry County.

19. John McGuiness is a citizen and resident of North Carolina.

of South Carolina or through intentional tortious actions directed at and committed in

commitment of a tort in South Carolina subjects all Defendants to personal jurisdiction in

include Defendant Rankin, Defendant Spring Strategies, LLC, Defendant Smith,

Defendant Emerson, Laginappe Communications Group, LLC, Ace Tomato Enterprises,

shall include John McGuinness and Carter Smith.

22. Jurisdiction and venue are proper before this Court.

republican primary in 2020.

republican candidate for Senate District 33 in Horry County South Carolina.

Good for the Goose …”, FitsNews, June 16, 2020.

daughter were included.

§ 19-11-95, S.C. Code § 44-22-100, and S.C. Code § 62-11-310.

pursuant to S.C. Code § 44-11-100, et seq., § 44-22-11, and §63-11-310. It provides

having suffered abuse.

Code § 19-11-95, S.C. Code § 44-22-100, and S.C. Children’s Code.

seven days before the runoff election.

documents was false.

demonstrated the allegations of abuse were false.

obtain the truth of the allegations.

a political mudslinging contest.

in its campaign advertisements. Exhibit 4.

“Amber Alert Threat” next to Plaintiff’s name. Exhibit 5.

clearly showed he was not the aggressor. Exhibit 6.

confidential mental health records of a 10 year old girl.

the confidential mental health records of a minor.

health records of Plaintiff’s 10 year old daughter.

Law Firm in September 2019.

on the Dossier, the Emerson Group submitted a professionally produced, 30 sec

advertisement entitled “LRLindsayFinal” to be televised on local station WMBF.

Boschult Group article that had yet to be published.

the opponent of a targeted candidate.

another republican candidate in violation of S.C. Code § 8-13-1340, which constitutes a

misdemeanor under South Carolina law.

before June 16, 2020.

911 call, not his ex-wife.

Communications Group on behalf of the SC Industry Project and Defendant Servant on

Columbia, SC 29202 SCIndustryproject.org.”

Other Defamatory Acts by Defendants

direct link to the Boschult article.

across three pictures of Plaintiffs’ face.