A court order prevents me from speaking on behalf of GrassRoots, but I can
speak on behalf of myself as an individually named defendant.
In January 2013, an appeal to the SC Court of Appeals of preliminary orders
issued by the trial judge was heard. We are awaiting the decision of the
Court of Appeals.
The appeal argued 1) that the trial court's order that GrassRoots give the
plaintiffs everything the plaintiffs wanted prior to a trial on the merits
of the case was wrong as a matter of law; 2) that the trial court's order
that GrassRoots be put out of business until GrassRoots give plaintiffs
everything the plaintiffs wanted prior to a trial on the merits of the case
was wrong as a matter of law; and 3) that the trial court's finding of fact
that GrassRoots failed to provide a copy of the proposed amendment to the
articles of incorporation in the materials soliciting the mail in ballot
was wrong as a matter of fact.
As to #1 above, why even have a trial on the merits if the judge makes the
defendants give up everything before the trial?
As to #2 above, it is well established law that a temporary restraining
order is to maintain the status quo. Since GrassRoots was an ongoing
business involved in heated political advocacy speech, the trial court's
order shutting GrassRoots down changed the status quo.
As to #3 above, the trial court failed to recognize the copy of the
proposed amendment even after GrassRoots pointed to the exact exhibit that
contained the copy. Instead, the trial court quoted from a different
exhibit than the one that contained the copy of the proposed amendment and
used that as "proof" that there was no copy included.
I hope this helps.