Speaking out brings subpoenaMan 'summoned' after public meeting By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
MOUNT PLEASANT — A Snee Farm resident said he is unnerved by a subpoena requiring him to give a deposition to a developer's lawyers after he spoke out at a public meeting against a plan to build 57 homes on 7 acres in the subdivision. Peter Jayne is to provide pre-trial testimony to a law firm representing JKM Holdings Inc. A limited liability company called Save Snee Farm LLC sued to stop the project, but its partners have remained anonymous. Jayne said he criticized the development at a public hearing Sept. 11 shortly before Town Council voted 6-3 to approve it. Two days later, he received the subpoena, he said. "I am intimidated by this subpoena and have no idea why and how I can be summoned to appear ... for stating my opinions about my concerns with my local town issues," he said in a statement. Jayne said he has never heard of JKM Holdings or Save Snee Farm LLC. "If I say something wrong, are they going into my past and dig up dirt?" Jayne said. Limited liability companies are not required under law to reveal their membership in papers filed with the Secretary of State. However, the LLC members can be unmasked in pre-trial depositions. Jayne provided a copy of the subpoena that asks him to appear Friday at the Richter & Haller law firm to give a pre-trial deposition. A spokesman for the firm could not be reached Tuesday. "I have nothing to hide," Jayne said. Strong-arm tactics in the town are intended to stifle dissenting opinions, he said. "If a citizen acting independently can be forced into a courtroom, then the system is malfunctioning." Snee Farm has 890 residents. Jayne questioned whether the wishes of a majority of homeowners regarding the 57-home development were accurately represented to Town Council. He noted that the Planning Commission, which makes recommendations to council, rejected the Snee Farm development. Opponents argue that the 57 homes on 7 acres would change the character of Snee Farm because the homes would be built near the subdivision entrance in an area that should be preserved as open space. Supporters see the project as a chance to replace dilapidated amenities such as a clubhouse and swimming pool. In another LLC case, Save Hungry Neck Corridor LLC versus the town of Mount Pleasant, town lawyers planned to depose the plaintiffs, which would have been a way to discover the LLC members. The LLC settled the suit last week before that could happen, sparking a flurry of criticism about how state law shields LLC members from public scrutiny while costing taxpayers legal fees. The suit sought to overturn a Town Council decision in May that approved the Central Mount Pleasant development on 110 acres between Rifle Range Road and Hungry Neck Boulevard. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 16 comment(s)
Posted by charleston on September 26, 2007 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Subpoenas are issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case in which the witness is to testify." -Wikipedia
Was that actually done in this instance? Without seeing the actual subpoena the reader of this article cannot be certain. Supposing that the clerk of the court did not issue the subpoena then Mr. Jayne is not required to give a deposition to any party.
However, the law firm associated with the “subpoena” request may actually be seeking an expert witness. Perhaps the law firm quite innocently chose the wrong legal instrument. Expert witnesses are paid for their services and if Mr. Jayne chooses to act in this capacity then he should quote his pay rate to the requesting law firm. Such services come with a premium as do lawyer fees.
Posted by Mayor on September 26, 2007 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The owners of Snee Farm are pieces of crap from New Jersey who bought the club for $1.5 million from Club Corp of America. They will make twice that with this new development. 57 homes on 7 acres is really forcing the issue down the residents throats. It will be shoddy, just as they treat their members and the community. Everyone who is a member at Snee should quit. They will not even spend the proper amount of money this winter to overseed their golf course. The whole operation at Snee Farm Country Club is a joke. Their attitude is to make as much money as they can, and to heck with the members and the neighborhood. Hey golfers, every other course in the area is better, patronize elsewhere. Snee brings in $250,000 in members dues. Stop paying and they will sell the club to you. Unite and kick some NJ booty.
Posted by poorboy on September 26, 2007 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Opponents argue that the 57 homes on 7 acres would change the character of Snee Farm because"
You think? You think developments like this contribute to our traffic problems, school overcrowding, etc, etc ??
I just got zonned to build 13 homes on 5 acres in Berkeley county! That was the max allowed. Sounds like Chas needs to some density work?
Posted by mggoose2000 on September 26, 2007 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"After we've cut down all the trees, dammed all the rivers, paved over every field, then and only then, will we realize we can't eat money"
Anonymous
It's all about money and intimidation, folks! We are seeing the result of decades of corruption and politics in big business. When large companies can pay their CEOs and Executives millions of dollars for salaries and stock options, they must get their money from the customers they bilk and in some cases, their own employees. When they are caught, they get fines that don't touch the millions they've accumulated and their prison sentences, if any, are a joke.
Posted by dog on September 26, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exercise your right to free spch, get a subpoena.
Posted by mostavidreader on September 26, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if Save Snee Farm LLc and Save Hungryneck LLC are related? Is the town being sued in this one too?
Posted by Early on September 26, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
57 homes in a 7-acre plot? That's .122 acre or 5,349 sq ft per home site. In perspective a standard small lot in a subdivision is 9,600 sq ft. What are they going to live in a 5-gallon bucket?
Money talks and BS walks.
Posted by streetmutt on September 26, 2007 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early -- I heard they were condos. Not to be on individual lots.
There are two sides to every story y'all ... who knows if this individual is lying or not? He might be a part of the LLC and the lawyers are trying to out him. Which would be a good tactic.
I'm certainly not pro destroying quality of life, but these guys have a right to make money. If Snee Farm LLC wants to run the plantation, they need to buy it from the current owners, those NJ ne'er do wells (of whom, coincidentally, make up a majority of new home owners in Mount Pleasant, haha).
Anyway, if Snee Farm residents want to live the country life, then they shouldn't have invested in Urban sprawl. You can't live in the country in a subdivision. Serves them right for taking farm land that they are getting packed in more tightly.
If you want to live in the country with very few neighbors, you should raise animals and plow the land ... don't expect rows of cookie cutter houses and a Publix on the corner. You simply can't have it both ways.
Posted by Reader on September 26, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Charleston said:
"Subpoenas are issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case in which the witness is to testify." -Wikipedia
That is not accurate. In South Carolina, subpoenas are orders of the court, but lawyers, in their capacity as officers of the court, simple print them and send them out. If there is a problem, the deponent or his lawyer must file an objection with the court.
Posted by Mayor on September 26, 2007 at 11:31 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by mostavidreader on September 26, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Harry Hallman voted for this. Are you calling him a moron?
Posted by coccougs on September 26, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Reader" is absolutely correct. S.C. allows law firms / lawyers to independently issue subpoenas. The system trusts them to use this authority with integrity, but it is often abused. The proper thing for this citizen to do would be to bring a motion to quash the subpoena in the circuit court. Hopefully, the judge would do so and publicly embarass this law firm. Subpoenas are supposed to be used to secure testimony from material witnesses, not to intimidate.
Posted by MtP on September 26, 2007 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just what Mount Pleasant needs.........More homes with a bunch of For Sale signs in front of them.
Posted by charleston on September 26, 2007 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for the corrections Reader and coccougs. I further investigated this subject and was surprised to learn that lawyer(s) in SC do abuse the subpoena instrument. The following is a list of violations associated with one such wayward lawyer. I suppose if the law firm issuing Mr. Jaynes "subpoena" has committed one of these violations then as coccougs suggests they too should be subject to a public reprimand.
LAW
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR:
Rule 5.3 (lawyer having supervisory authority over non-lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer);
Rule 8.4(a) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct);
Rule 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);
Rule 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR:
Rule 7(a)(1) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct) and
Rule 7(a)(5) (it shall be ground for discipline for lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law).
Posted by Kerry on September 26, 2007 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about a new name for Snee Farm...Snee Sprawl.
Yes, Hallman is a moron.
Posted by rollo on September 26, 2007 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting,...people are willing to "MAKE A STAND"... until they find out that their stand may actually mean something. Then they run like a opposum caught raiding a trash can.
If Jayne won't stand up and say it for the record, I wonder if he actually believes it.