Facts of the Motion To Disqualify Counsel and Firm

1: This case is a harassment case. The harassment began in late February 2002 and may have ended in May 2004.
1: Buist, Moore, Smyth and McGee, represented by Attorney David B. McCormack, represented L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc., and L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in both the matters of complaints filed by Patricia Thompson and Lee Kent Hempfling and may have knowledge of the charge of Lee Kent Hempfling and the manner in which it was or was not processed by EEOC for over 600 days to the date the case before this court was filed.
2: Buist, Moore, Smyth and McGee, represented by Attorney David B. McCormack, entered into an agreement of settlement with the EEOC on behalf of the defendants in the matter of Patricia Thompson's complaint before the EEOC.
3: Buist, Moore, Smyth and McGee, represented by Attorney David B. McCormack, held discussion with Billy C. Sanders of EEOC regarding the complaint filed by Lee Kent Hempfling before an on-site meeting was held to begin investigating the charge in which jurisdiction was allegedly challenged.
4: EEOC did not dismiss the complaint of Lee Kent Hempfling for over 570 days after accepting it.
5: EEOC did not provide confirmation of the FORM5 charge for two months and then only upon insistance of Lee Kent Hempfling.
5: EEOC did not conduct an on-site investigation into the charge made in the complaint of Lee Kent Hempfling or request statements of fact or investigatory inquiry for over 500 days.
6: EEOC did not ever provide Lee Kent Hempfling with a response from L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc., and L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc.
6: Defendants L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc, and L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., received Hempfling's FORM 5 charge from EEOC on September 9, 2002. 
7: EEOC typed on to the FORM 5 their confirmation of having invoked their mutual agreement with the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission and attested to having submitted the complaint to the state agency.
8: Contact from that state agency advised no such submission was received from EEOC.
7: Billy C. Sanders of EEOC requested Lee Kent Hempfling's charge be filed with his office and personally requested to handle both charges of Patricia Thompson and Lee Kent Hempfling.
8: Billy C. Sanders personally interviewed Patricia Thompson about her charge and refused to meet with Lee Kent Hempfling.
9: Prior to the passing of over 365 days, correspondence with Billy C. Sanders consisted of e-mails only, except for one short phone call placed by Lee Kent Hempfling in which Billy C. Sanders refused to speak, saying he was too busy.
10: Billy C. Sanders of EEOC was provided with a complete documentary collection of evidence supporting allegations made before the EEOC in the FORM 5 of Lee Kent Hempfling and referred to having read 'all of your stuff' in email.
11: Contact between Patricia Thompson and Lee Kent Hempfling and Lee Kent Hempfling's spouse, Suesie Kent Hempfling ended approximately four months after Patricia Thompson began meeting and regularly speaking with Billy C. Sanders of EEOC.
12: Billy C. Sanders advised Lee Kent Hempfling of a 'fact-finding' meeting set up for April 24-25, 2003 in Charleston, South Carolina where the 'charge' before Billy C. Sanders and EEOC was to be presented to the representatives of L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc., and L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., 
13: The 'fact-finding' meeting for Lee Kent Hempfling was canceled by Billy C. Sanders of EEOC a week before the set time and date. No 'fact-finding' meeting was ever rescheduled.
14: During the month of May, 2003, following no action taken on the 'fact-finding' meeting for Lee Kent Hempfling, the Defendant(s) entered into a negotiated settlement with EEOC for Patricia Thompson's complaint.
15: L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., was required by law to file a license renewal with the Federal Communications Commission and did so file such form and accompanying EEO report on July 28, 2003.
16: In the EEO report filed with the FCC L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., and L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc., jointly attested to the facts of the settlement between (them) and Patricia Thompson. 
17: In the EEO report filed with the FCC L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., and L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc., jointly attested to the wrong charge number, the wrong charge allegation and a statement of 'no further  action has been taken by EEOC' in the matter of Lee Kent Hempfling, which was a pending charge of over 330 days before EEOC.
18: At that time, Lee Kent Hempfling was awaiting notice from Billy C. Sanders of a contact from 'the radio station attorney' to set up another scheduled 'fact-finding' conference. 
19: In an attempt to secure due process within EEOC Hempfling contacted the office of Senator Lindsey Graham who's staff intervened with EEOC.
20: Within days after that contact Billy C. Sanders met with Hempfling in the Lobby of the Embassy Suites Hotel in Charleston.
21: That meeting was followed by a phone call the next day from Billy C. Sanders claiming Hempfling needed a statement from Patricia Thompson to proceed in his charge case.
22: Patricia Thompson had not spoken with the Hempflings for nearly 7 months at that point and did not respond to an email request for a response.
23: In advising Billy C. Sanders of the lack of response via email, Sanders responded (8/20/2003) with a threat of Thompson completely changing her 'story' and making it appear that Hempfling was the 'harraser'.
19: During the week of February 9, 2004, Lee Kent Hempfling received a written response from EEOC to a lengthy request for investigation into Billy C. Sanders' actions in the matter. That response did not address the allegations, but rather, implied (which was not true) that Lee Kent Hempfling had inquired about the time being taken to process the complaint.
20: In that letter EEOC advised that Billy C. Sanders would conduct an on-site visit to L.M. Communications of South Carolina Inc., and L.M. Communications II of South Carolina Inc., during the week of February 9, 2004 and would be in contact.
21: The letter further stated the reason the charge was delayed was it was a low priority charge based upon information received by EEOC or the lack of it.
22: Following the 'on-site' visit Lee Kent Hempfling received another harrassment email from 'Bruce Musso' using a similar email address as earlier in the 'case' containing a photo marking Hempfling as 'crazy' and a song file as harrassment continued.
23: Following the 'on-site' visit Lee Kent Hempfling received an email from Linda Grumbein (former employee and close friend of Bruce Musso and Charlie Cohn) claiming the government thought Hempfling to be 'crazy'.
23: Following that 'on-site' visit a letter dismissing the charge before EEOC was received from Billy C. Sanders (the very person the complaint was filed about) in which every phrase and statement presented is shown in direct evidence already submitted in this case to be false.
24: Bruce Musso posted derogatory remarks to a public Internet news posting site using his name and email address.
25: Posted the same day this case action was initially filed was yet another harrassment posting by Musso.
26: Upon receipt of the letter of dismissal Hempfling first learned of the counsel representing the defendants before EEOC.
27: Upon filing the complaint in this case Hempfling was not aware of the counsel to represent the defendants.
28: Documents filed by Buist, Moore, Smyth and McGee were not available for download on Pacer so Plaintiff did not receive those documents until the court clerk served them to Plaintiff.
29: Buist, Moore, Smyth and McGee filed a response to the motion to disqualify and apparently filed it with the clerk before it was server to the Plaintiff as the clerk's office closes at 4:30 and Federal Express did not pick up the overnight package until 5:15pm.

All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service