An amendment of a complaint automatically gives the defendants another period in which to respond. So ECUSA's (and its remnant group's) responses will now (by agreement, in exchange for ECUSA's stipulating to the amendment) be due on April 4.
Meanwhile, buried in an ENS story about the meeting of the Executive Council recently in Linthicum Heights, Maryland was this tidbit:
In other plenary business Feb. 26, council:
* authorized a $250,000 line of credit for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.Now, this is an interesting number. If the "Episcopal Church in South Carolina" is prepared to concede the legal issues in the Diocese's complaint (chiefly, the rights to the Diocese's name and identity, and the rights of the individual parishes to their own properties), then two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is not necessary for such a purpose. Five thousand dollars (even at the "discounted" rates charged to the Church by the Chancellor's own law firm) would be more than ample with which to concede the merits of the Diocese's lawsuit.
Indeed, $250,000 would pay a great deal of episcopal and clergy salaries as the remnant group establishes its own presence in South Carolina. But it is difficult to imagine that the remnant group went to the Executive Council with such a request, because the amount would be years ahead of its actual needs in supporting a provisional bishop (who almost by definition is only part-time).
It is far more probable that we have, with this grant of a line of credit, a recognition of what the litigation will cost to oppose it, and to oppose it vigorously. And if that is a correct observation, then ECUSA has not shown its colors yet. Instead, everything about ECUSA's agenda in South Carolina will become clear once it files its response to the lawsuit on April 4.
If, as I fully expect, it answers the suit with a cross-claim against Mark Lawrence's Diocese for all of its bank accounts and real and personal property (along the lines of what it has done in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy), then we will know that we are dealing with the same old leopard that is unable to change its spots.
What I have not figured out yet is how the remnant group, which is forbidden to use the words "Episcopal Diocese" together with "South Carolina" in its name, will appear in the lawsuit as a bona fide ECUSA diocese -- given that General Convention will not gather again until 2015. Indeed, it seems to me that its standing to assert its status as a "diocese" of ECUSA under South Carolina law would be very much in question, given the prior ruling of the court that Mark Lawrence's group is the only "Episcopal Diocese" in South Carolina.
We enter uncharted waters as this suit unfolds. Given the State court precedents that have already been established, it will not be like any of those that have gone before.
As an Episcopalian, my hope is that the Executive Council, before voting to approve a $250,000 credit line for the remnant group in South Carolina, received fully independent advice from a source other than the Presiding Bishop's personal Chancellor, or his law firm.
"As an Episcopalian, my hope is that the Executive Council, before voting to approve a $250,000 credit line for the remnant group in South Carolina, received fully independent advice from a source other than the Presiding Bishop's personal Chancellor, or his law firm."
ReplyDeleteBefore some recent renovations, we sought three estimates from three different sub-contractors for one aspect and three more for another phase of the project. We didn't just turn to our buddy across the table and ask him, "What do you need to do the job?"
I worry that a bit of what we here in SC call the "good old boy" network is in play in 815's executive council decision.
And guess what the word scramble to prove that I'm not a robot was today?
"Nutsia"
We were going to comment, but it would only be a poor imitation of what the Underground Pewster has already stated in a better manner.
ReplyDeleteTo me it appeared to the trailer from the movie, "Dracula and Mosquito Man Fight to the Death"...If there were any integity, bids would certainly be in order...or at least a consideration of counsel in South Carolina.
Everything about the Presiding Bishopess and her minions still continues to smell worse by the day. Imagine a week from now.
We typed in "Nutsia" and it did not work.
El Gringo Viejo
Hmmph, They probably asked Tisdale. He seems pretty confident that they will win. Check out that other entity's website.
ReplyDeleteTo quote from the TEC in SC website- ""The Episcopal Church in South Carolina" is the working name for the diocese in the eastern part of South Carolina that is associated with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion."
ReplyDeleteWell, most of the Anglican Communion might question the "association"- but they make pretty clear they intend to fight to the bitter end to claim the property, name, etc of the diocese for TEC, and that they, and not the real diocese, are the successors of the founders of the Diocese of South Carolina. And Tisdale is confident of victory. Of course, with a $250,000 line of credit to pay legal fees, the recipient of those fees is likely to be reasonably optimistic in any case.
This was also listed in the ENS report on actions taken during the Executive Council session in addition to the $250,000 line of credit.
ReplyDeleteMake available $185,000 of undistributed accumulated income and appreciation calendar year 2013 from one or more of nine specific trust funds to provide financial assistance to the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (FFM013). Here is the link:
http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2013/02/27/a-summary-of-executive-council-resolutions-4/
At least Tisdale is confident of his share anyway regardless of outcome.
ReplyDelete"What I have not figured out yet is how the remnant group, which is forbidden to use the words "Episcopal Diocese" together with "South Carolina" in its name, will appear in the lawsuit as a bona fide ECUSA diocese -- given that General Convention will not gather again until 2015. Indeed, it seems to me that its standing to assert its status as a "diocese" of ECUSA under South Carolina law would be very much in question, given the prior ruling of the court that Mark Lawrence's group is the only "Episcopal Diocese" in South Carolina."
ReplyDeleteSC has no right to determine who is or is not a diocese of TEC/ECUSA. The breakaway group has self-determined that they are NOT a diocese of same. The "diocese which shall not be named", as we have taken to call ourselves in church, is the only diocese in these parts that is part of TEC.
SC may determine that the breakaway group has the right to continue to call their corporation by its current name. That would be a shame. These folks are trying to steal the identity of TEC/ECUSA.
The breakaway group has no right to throw me or my church out of TEC by their actions. They do not and never did speak for me or people who believe that they are the ones being "un-Christlike".
John Schroeder, ordinarily I would not have cleared such a comment as yours for posting, because it demonstrates on its face that you have not absorbed any of the historical material on this blog, and you are just interested in making your claims, no matter how ill-informed they are.
ReplyDeleteWe will always engage here those who make an honest endeavor to engage with us. I have chosen to put up your comment, both as an illustration of how not to comment here, and also to show the others who come here just how far removed are those who form the core of the SCEpiscopalians, Forum members, and other supporters of the national Church's power grab.
Your so-called "ECinSC" has practically zero identity of its own -- read the comments above to see how the national Church has already funded your group to the tune of $435,000 which it does not have on its own. This news it not publicized, because it shows what a Potemkin-like creation the ECinSC really is, intended only to serve as a vehicle to enlarge the scope of the current litigation (which is only about corporate identity and titled ownership to property).
If you really want to understand how the dioceses historically came first, and how the national Church was mainly a clearing house for diocesan reports and actions until about the 1960s, then please go to this page, and start reading up on your ECUSA history.
We are supposed to find out tomorrow (Mar 7) about the ruling here in Fresno for the Diocese of San Joaquin. Let God's will be done.
ReplyDelete