Plaintiffs Attorneys refer to the ARP Synod action to appoint a new board as a “corporate-law equivalent of a midnight coup of Erskine College.”

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case of Taylor, Young, Chestnut et al versus the ARP Synod concerning the governance of Erskine College and Seminary filed papers on Wednesday with the South Carolina Court of appeals.

These papers were an answer to the recent ‘strongly worded appeal’ filed by the defendant ARP Synod on April 19th (full story of the appeal can be found at http://bit.ly/azuEBX). This appeal asked the court to set aside the recent Preliminary Injunction which the defendants described as “patently unconstitutional.”

The responding document from the Plaintiffs is at least equal in its strong wording, referring to the actions of the ARP synod at their March 3 special meeting as the “corporate-law equivalent of a midnight coup of Erskine College, by purporting to remove Erskine’s existing board without cause or notice, and by declaring a new interim board … to be the true board.”

Additionally, the responding attorneys reiterate the primary issue at stake in this case; to wit, that the current Erskine bylaws allows removal of trustees only for cause. It is this issue that will be settled when and if the case is finally heart in the Abbeville Circuit Court, which is predicted to be some time in 2011.

In the meantime, the current legal battle is over the Preliminary Injunction, which the ARP Synod believes, in addition to being unconstitutional, is ‘pure speech prior restraint’ required by Judge Eugene Griffith, Jr., who signed the Preliminary Injunction on April 9th.

Keith Munson, lead attorney for the ARP synod explained the unusual immediate appeal at the time of the filing when he wrote: Preliminary injunctions, especially those including prior restraints on speech, are somewhat akin to being convicted before trial. Therefore, as a precaution to overly burdensome or premature preliminary injunctions, most states, including South Carolina, allow for their immediate appeal.”

The plaintiffs, in their responding papers to this appeal give their reasons why this Preliminary Junction should not be suspended or modified.

The Anderson, SC Independent Mail in their online edition the afternoon of March 6, is reporting a statement received from a spokesperson at Erskine College. The spokesperson said that, according to the Plaintiff Attorneys, the General Synod is now entitled to file a reply to the document filed Wednesday, meaning a decision is at least a couple of weeks away.