By Michael Phillips | REBUILT Justice Project
What’s the difference between legal assistance and legal advice? If you’re a self-represented (pro se) litigant trying to file a motion in family court, the difference can feel like the gate between freedom and imprisonment.
For William Sewell, a military veteran and blue-collar mechanic in South Carolina, that gate has been slammed shut—repeatedly. And not by a judge. Not even by opposing counsel. But by the very person standing behind the glass window at the Dorchester County Family Court clerk’s office.
This is a story not just about legal confusion, but legal obstruction.
The Clerk’s Role: Gatekeeper or Guard Dog?
Clerks are supposed to facilitate access to the court—not deny it. But when I spoke to William Sewell on the phone the morning of June 2, I heard in real time how this system fails people like him.
“You need three copies of every motion… and a self-addressed stamped envelope for each one,” the clerk told him.
William replied, “I’ve got three—one for the court, one for opposing counsel, one for the GAL.” But she shook her head. “No. The clerk of court needs three. I can’t tell you more than that.”
When he asked what was incomplete, her response was chilling:
“I can’t tell you that. That’s legal advice.”
This wasn’t legal advice. This was stonewalling—a deliberate refusal to allow a man facing jail to even hand his motion across the counter.
Financial Barriers Used as a Weapon
William shared that the Dorchester County courthouse demanded $25 per motion, plus the cost of envelopes and stamps. He summed it up:
“That’s over a month’s worth of groceries for me just to file some paperwork.”
The system he faced didn’t allow for bundled filings. Instead, it demanded a fee for each document, burying him in nickel-and-dime extortion that could only be designed to discourage the poor from defending themselves.
He said the total came to over $250. And as he pointed out, “that might just go down the hallway to the judge and get ignored.”
This is the paradox: poor fathers are expected to pay hundreds just to beg for their constitutional rights—with no guarantee the court will even look.
When Court Becomes a Country Club
As I told William during our call, “It makes me think of Dukes of Hazzard… like it’s Hazzard County and they’re all having steak dinners together on Saturday night.”
William laughed, but the joke carried weight. He’s not just fighting a legal case—he’s in a small town good ol’ boy system, where judges, lawyers, and even clerks appear more loyal to each other than to justice.
This kind of silent obstruction happens far too often in small jurisdictions, where legal circles are tight and favoritism runs deep. In these courthouse cliques, everyone knows everyone. The judge plays golf with the lawyer. The GAL used to clerk for the judge. The opposing counsel went to church with the clerk.
And in Dorchester County, William Sewell has run up against that machine. After hiring and firing three attorneys—each of whom he says played footsie with local powerbroker Donnie Gamache—William tried to go pro se. To protect himself. To stay out of jail.
But now the clerk—the very person meant to help him file motions to do that—won’t tell him what’s wrong with his papers. Won’t accept his filings. And when William even mentions Donnie Gamache’s name? She walks away.
This isn’t incompetence. This is institutional collusion.
A Day in the Life of a Pro Se Father
“I’m at the post office now trying to get some stamped envelopes just to save time… It’s going to be $250 just to file this stuff. If I had a regular job, I would have lost it by now.”
— William Sewell, June 2, 2025
From Alexandria to Summerville: A Pattern of Pro Se Persecution
This pattern isn’t limited to Dorchester County. In Alexandria City, Virginia, the same behavior has been reported under Judge Lisa Kemler, where clerks routinely deny filings without explanation to pro se litigants—particularly in custody cases.
What all these stories have in common:
- The parent is pro se.
- The parent is fighting a custody battle against a better-connected party.
- The clerk refuses to explain the issue with filings.
- The threat of jail or contempt hangs overhead.
So how is someone like William—who simply wants to be a father to his daughter—supposed to defend himself in a courthouse that won’t even let him in the door?
What Is William Supposed to Do?
Let’s be brutally honest: William is being set up. He’s being blocked from filing motions, denied basic due process, and told jail is on the table.
And all while the opposing side—represented by attorneys who allegedly have cozy ties to Donnie Gamache—marches through the court system without issue.
Here’s what should be available to him—but isn’t:
- Court self-help centers. Many states have online or walk-in centers to help pro se litigants. Dorchester County offers none.
- Accessible rules and checklists. Clerks should provide filing checklists for common motions. In William’s case, they do not.
- ADA accommodations. If William has PTSD or literacy-related challenges, he is entitled to accommodations under federal law. The court hasn’t offered any.
- Judicial review. If a clerk refuses to accept a filing, there should be a mechanism to escalate the issue to a judge. That hasn’t happened.
- Accountability. But in South Carolina’s tightly guarded legal network, there is none.
Court Is Not a Casino for the Connected
The Dorchester County courthouse didn’t just turn William Sewell away. It sent him a message: “You don’t belong here.”
But William isn’t backing down. With help from friends, some borrowed money, and his own resilience, he’s preparing to resubmit everything. He’ll spend the $250. He’ll print every copy. He’ll attach every envelope.
Because fathers like William aren’t asking for handouts. They’re asking to be heard.
This is Part 3 in our ongoing series, “Court of Ruin: The William Sewell Files.”
Justice doesn’t happen by itself. We build it — or we let it rot.
If you have a case in Dorchester County, SC you would like to share, please contact us.
All claims in this article are based on the personal experiences and allegations made by William H. Sewell. This article includes opinions and reporting based on interviews, court documents, and publicly available information. Donnie Gamache and any other named parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless proven otherwise.
The Republic Dispatch 