In a letter hand delivered today to Eugene Platt, Green Party nominee for South Carolina State House District 115, Attorney F. Truett Nettles, II told Platt that he had filed a case against Platt in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.

The Nettles Law Office LLC used the good services of the Charleston County Sheriff’s Department to serve the court papers on Platt. The firm’s website says that Nettles’ practice covers

Business Transactions; Commercial Litigation; Collections; Business Law; Business Enterprises; Debtor Creditor; Bankruptcy; Construction; Commercial Real Estate; Land Use; Licensing; Administrative Proceedings.

Platt is told in the letter, dated September 2nd, that a hearing has been set for September 10th at 9:00 AM. Judge Roger M. Young will be presiding. The attorney representing the Democrats told Platt in his letter that either he or Platt’s lawyer could contact him before the hearing for more information.

The case has been assigned case number 08-CP-10-4978

Earl Capps has written a post and conducted an interview with Judge Young. In the interview the judge, who served in the state legislature, lauds the benefits of running for office.

The Democrats have asked for a non-jury trial. The Democrats are apparently seeking an injunction. Paperwork, signed by Nettles, was submitted on August 22nd.

Other paperwork, dated August 29th and again signed by Nettles, says that Platt has thirty days from receipt of the summons to respond to it or forfeit judgment. Clearly there is a conflict between having 30 days to respond to a complaint and a court date set a mere 8 days from the day the paperwork was received by Platt. Although signed and dated August 27th, the official time and date stamp from the Clerk of Court Julie J. Armstrong was August 29th at 10:29 AM

In the body of the complaint, Charleston County Democratic Party Chair George E. Tempel points to South Carolina Code of Laws Title 7, Chapter 11, Paragraph 210. That section of SC Code provides for a pledge, enforceable not by state action but only by private lawsuit, in which the candidate promises

“I hereby file my notice as a candidate for the nomination as __________ in the primary election or convention to be held on __________. I affiliate with the __________ Party, and I hereby pledge myself to abide by the results of the primary or convention. I shall not authorize my name to be placed on the general election ballot by petition and will not offer or campaign as a write-in candidate for this office or any other office for which the party has a nominee. I authorize the issuance of an injunction upon ex parte application by the party chairman, as provided by law, should I violate this pledge by offering or campaigning in the ensuing general election for election to this office or any other office for which a nominee has been elected in the party primary election, unless the nominee for the office has become deceased or otherwise disqualified for election in the ensuing general election. I hereby affirm that I meet, or will meet by the time of the general or special election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for this office”.

Aside from Constitutional questions, this code may not apply to Platt because he won the Green Party ballot line before seeking the Democratic line. He has remained true to his pledge, and is not pursuing a place on the ballot as a petition candidate, nor has he sought write-in votes.

Platt is represented in other proceedings by the ACLU but has no attorney on retainer to assist him in this latest case. Those wanting to support Platt can donate via his website