This is a HORRIBLE man. He should be immediatelt booted off of the council. He is a selfish, non-compassionate and just a rude, crude nasty OLD MAN that is only happy when he is bringing missery to others. Pittiful human being. BTW I am exhibiting my 1st ammendment right. Give the children their dog back. It is plain that he not like children. Remember this Mr. Nasty, our children are our future and all you are teaching them is how to be very selfish and inconsiderate to others.

Concerned citizen

Lisa from
Simpsonville

How many laws can one person break and get away with it? I'm sure the average citizen wouldn't be allowed to do the things he has done. Also Mr. Watson you could move venues a hundred times no one with any morals is going to side with what you've done. I live in Greenville and I haven't met one person yet that doesn't think you are just being an a**.

This man, should not only give the dog back, he should apologize to the father of those children, for trying to make it seem like they mistreated that dog. Step down from being a councilman, and give the dog back, and, go get you another dog. These children will remember this the rest of there lives,,, While you have a chance ,for a little bit of dignity ,, do the right thing, Back down , and give them their dog.

What's Above-The-Law Dave Watson new attorney name?

You people are idiots. He abided by the law. He did what was required of him. You all overlook that he took in a stray dog, fed and gave it shelter as well as love this dog. Hate the law, not him. And why this is anyones business but his is beyond me. Small town with a bunch of busybodies with nothing better to do. Oh yeah, Lisa Keller, you are exhibiting your freedom of speech, but get spellcheck honey because you certainly need it.

Kelly Dixon, you can not possibly be following this story and feel this way! Then you personally attack someone for misspelling a few words, well that just shows what kind of character you have! Check your facts and keep your insults to yourself!!!!!!!!!!

Kelly Kelly Kelly Kelly Kelly, it amazes me how this pair of idiots, the Watson's, always has one ally on their side. You have to be related!

This is a private dispute between twi families. It is a civil issue of a he said, she said, and that is why we have civil court. The court will settle this matter, not you all or the police or the city council. Why do you feel the need to get involved or go to the city council? You are going to boot him off the council based on what, Lisa Keller? You don't like him? Where is that defined in the law as an impechable office -- you don't like him. Why go to the city council? What can they do about it? Nothing, they issued a statement, showing they can do nothing about it. It is none of their business either, and they should have told you all that, instead they caved and acted concerned. They should be spending their time working through the problems the city faces, not a private dispute.
Anyone who says Watson has broken the law is foolish-- the police would have arrested him. Anyone who says he has violated his oath of office is foolish-- the would have been removed by the state attorney general. You just have an opinon on the case, and it is meaning less. The courts will decide so stop embarrassing yourself by letting us all know what you don't know about the law, ethics laws or civil law.

It's not about breaking the law. It's about character and when you know you have found another's possession you need to return it. No matter how long you have had it! There are children's hearts involved. Adults are supposed to show children how to grow up with character and morals. The Watsons are selfish and they just want free publicity for their store.

Bottom line, Mr Watson shows his lack of character and the ability to make good judgements. These are things that we should look for in anyone that holds a position of power. This is why it IS everyone's business that he has someone else's pet and refuses to return it.

It was reported last night on Fox Carolina News at 11 the hearing is Friday.
Does anyone know Dave Watson new attorney name?

It want be anything new for Watson to spend thirty days in jail he's familiar with those surroundings.

Cathy, your case is desperate. Watson was not charged by the police in the dog case. He isn't breaking any ethics laws. The city council isn't doing any thing about it. This is a civil case that a judge will hear. The judge will listen to the case and rule on it.

Your love for pets and animals is muddying up your thinking. You believe if someone parked in a place he should have, he must then, 2 years later, be guilty of stealing a dog. Really, that is what you are saying. Thank God you aren't a judge in our legal system.

If you got a speeding ticket, which I would say you probably have like the rest of us, that was a misdemeanor. Most all traffic violations are misemeanors. It doesn't mean we are all guilty of stealing dogs. That was pretty desperate on your part.

I agree, you no longer sound desperate. In your last post, you sound hysterical. So, no, I won't see you in court. This is a private dispute between two families and frankly I have no desire to meet you personally.

In addition to the lack of understanding of our court, governmental and law enforcement systems, the personal hatred coming out of your mouth is quite frightening. You hate Dave Watson. We all got that.

Why not change the venue? With people like you on the jury who want to convict the defendent of stealing a dog because he got a parking ticket 2 years ago and had to pay a $5 fine, I would be doing the same thing. His lawyer wisely advised it is he is a good lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised if they move the case, given how polluted the jury poll is now thanks to the scores of illogical and unsupported statements on this website the last few weeks.

Poll? We don't try and convict people based on polls or mob rule. What country are you from? Iran? China?

Thomas, if he didn't break the law why was he served? He did break the law and he has to go to court and prove that he didn't.

Cathy, was he charged by the police under those laws? Or is this just your opinion.

Cathy, thank you for saying that and showing what I have been saying. The police did not arrest him or charge him. He did nothing to break the law with the dog.

What you were talking about was a parking violation two years ago where he was found guilty. He broke the law and paid a $5 fine. A misdemeanor like a speeding ticket. That is the issue he had with the police. 2 years ago.

This dog case is not a matter for the city council. It is not a matter for the state ethics commission and the office he holds. All those things you are tying to pull into this case in a desperate attempt to smear Watson.

He has the dog, and said he would give it back if the former owners paid the bills he incurred. They didn’t want to pay Watson some or all the money, so Watson is keeping the dog. The former owner sued Watson in magistrate court to try and get the dog back. The magistrate court served Watson to appear in court. That doesn't mean he broke a law. He just a party in the lawsuit.

It is a civil dispute. Nothing more. The judge will decide. If Watson loses, he won’t be arrested for it. He’ll have to give up the dog and maybe pay a fine. If Watson wins, the judge may let him keep the dog or if not, make the former owners pay his bills.

Cathy your first comment made me laugh -- he was charged/ served/ whatever by the magistrate!

To you law enforcement, civil disputes and county government are all one big blur.

Thomas

Thank you and have a nice day.

Good but I wouldn't put it past him to have the dog put down before giving it back.
I was in emergency services for over twenty years and I have run into some bad people.
But this trash not man is pure evil.

Some of these comments are amazing. Especially that last one. This is how you get mob rule and public stonings. We have created a court system to prevent such mob rule or what we are seeing on display above. The court will decide what side is in the right and what is in the wrong. Fairly, after both sides are heard. To call someone evil you don't know and who has not been arrested, committed no crime, but is in a dispute where both sides have valid points of view shows how low this conversation is. This is why changing the venue makes total sense.

The magistrate did not serve Dave Watson to appear in court. That's a fact!.

Rogers information is wrong. Don't argue with him he doesn't know what he talking about. Rogers has a comment about every issue on Easley Patch. He has a answer for everything on here. Rogers is like Watson trying to make himself look important. Go back through the all posts on The Patch and see everything he committed on. Just enter his name in the search box. Don't waste your time on him.

What people are not understanding is how much Watson costing us taxpayers money .First by taking this to court to start with and now more money by changing venture. Watson doing all this for Watson. He hoping some show will hear about this like one of the magazine shows or one of the major news channels. Dave Watson is a show boat he likes feeling important this is feeding right in to his ego.Just like Rogers when you go tic for tac with him.

Remember how ridiculous Dave Watson looked on Kimberly Kelly's show. Dave Watson asked several people should he do her show. He was told no don't do it you will just stir the pot. His ego again he just couldn't resist going on there.
Dave Watson.is out of touch with reality in his old age because a logicality thinking person would had gave the dog back. Now Dave and Trish Watson going to be remember as the kooks of Easley.

Someone must have served him if he is being sued by the former owners. Cathy said it was the magistrate -- he was charged/ served/ whatever by the magistrate were her words. Argue with her about that.

Susan our courts were created to settle such disputes. The fact they cost money, is just how it works. Judges and clerks do not work for free. Would you rather not have courts, and free mob justice in the streets or on websites like this?

I don't know who should get the dog, but what I do know is he has not been arrested so no crime was committed. The city council has done nothing to him, because he is not breaking their rules and the attorney general isn't looking to remove him from office because he has not violated his oath of office. All those things you and your friends have alleged, but the police, city council and ethics commission doesn't agree with you.

The civil court will hear the case, both sides and a judge will decide. The judge will not care about how you think Watson looked on the Kimberly Kelly show. Your thinking that somehow that would matter to a judge is what is kooky to me.

Loved Scene on 7 tonight. "This has Judge Judy written all over it." Yep, pretty much does. I don't think it really matters where this case is heard. I believe the outcome will be the same. Just putting off the inevitable via delay tactics. Why on earth put this family through any more that what is necessary? Well, because Mr. Watson thinks he can. And being this was not a jury trial, looks to me like Mr. Watson is saying he doesn't trust the judges in Easley? Doesn't seem to me like that would be a wise thing really, to insinuate (sp?) that. And I wonder how the magistrate was when they filed this at the 11th hour? Wouldn't think that was appreciated.
Jason, thank you for posting my letter/email and thank you for your continued coverage.

To get the facts right
The Easley magistrate Michael Baker did not have the Watson's served but another magistrate did. A third party intervene. This was done to end this embarrassment to this county. This is why Watson wanted to move to a new venture. He knows he will loose in Easley court. Watson should had gave the dog up after her was served. Dave Watson enjoying all the attention he getting. He will do what ever he can to kept this drama going it's feeding his ego..

Does anyone know when the court will decide about the change in venue for low-life Watson?

Okay, change in venue was denied. BUT all judges recused themselves and they are bringing another in from another county. I heard the case may be heard in Liberty? Not sure. Just more BS....

Sorry - bringing a judge in from another county...should proofread first. lol

No it's not on the docket yet. Above-The -Law Watson still has tricks up his shelve. Just wait I want be surprise the next thing we hear is he sick. Rumor has it that's going around he not well and hasn't been for a long time. That's just a rumor. I find just a little coincidental.

Thanks Cathy. And thanks Mr.Watson for using more tax payers money for your low rent venture.

Maybe hes talking about his mental health. I think most of us would agree. There is,without question, something terribly wrong.

Change of venue was granted, but not for the reason Watsons and their attorney provided. I'm finishing up the story, hoping to have it up in the next 20-30 minutes.

Story is up, here's the link: http://patch.com/A-yZkJ

GIVE THE DOG BACK SLIME BALLS!

At this point anyone who thinks Dave Watson is such a good outstanding citizen needs their head examined as much as he does! He is hurting those precious children over and over again. How can he have such compassion and concern of the well being of Lucy, when he has NO compassion at all for the innocent children that are involved?
Each time these children think they might get Lucy ( I refuse to call her Gracie) back, Mr.Watson pulls out a victim card. Delaying the inevitable. He wanted to go to court, he asked for the public attention, now that he has it he is playing the victim card over and over again.Sorry the only victims here are those children who have cried, hoped and prayed for their dog each and everyday!!! Mr.Watson is gaining all this publicity, Wether it be good or bad, at the expense. of these children! Does this really sound like a good man?? A good decent human being would want to put a smile on those kids faces,NOT break their hearts over and over again. I ask you all now to put yourself in The Blanton's shoes. What if this were your children he is treating this way? Would you still think he is such an outstanding man?? I think not. And if you answered yes, either you don't have children or you are related to him. Most outstanding men try to build the children up,NOT tear them down!! I would love to hear your response to that. Dave Watson doesn't sound so outstanding now does he?

Has this gone before a magistrate yet? Or has it been delayed yet again?