tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post2117995871556784680..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Through a Glass Darkly: Considerations behind the Christ Church SettlementA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-47793481223569530232012-05-10T15:54:47.136-07:002012-05-10T15:54:47.136-07:00Plaintiff, we are engaged right now in disputing t...Plaintiff, we are engaged right now in disputing that identical point in the suits brought by the faux Diocese of San Joaquin against the parish corporation -- and also their rectors and vestry members, individually.<br /><br />One judge -- in one of the nine cases -- dismissed the suit against the individuals. That's one out of nine, so far -- and the plaintiffs have taken that decision up on appeal! Motions in two more cases are pending, and even if the plaintiffs lose them, they will appeal again, because their motive is to punish, and not just to regain property.<br /><br />But that is why I say we should let someone who was involved closely with the CC litigation explain just what happened there. Without all the actual court files, it's very difficult to tell.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-81556077506581848592012-05-10T15:36:23.607-07:002012-05-10T15:36:23.607-07:00Was there a motion filed claiming the "wrong ...Was there a motion filed claiming the "wrong party in interest" was being sued or was there any motion filed to dismiss the suit claiming the plaintiff was not the real party in interest? <br /><br /> I think if there was any merit to that argument that would have been the first motion filed as suing the wrong party or the wrong party having no standing is a sure way to get your case dismissed before it ever gets started.plaintiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189676917562567019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-16741451944285853222012-05-10T14:36:42.320-07:002012-05-10T14:36:42.320-07:00Plaintiff, I have published your comments in respo...Plaintiff, I have published your comments in response to my challenge so that others more familiar with the facts and the history of the proceedings can take issue with them, if they choose. <br /><br />I take note of the fact that the amended articles put the vestry "<i>in charge of</i>" the parish's assets, including the endowment fund. That is not the same thing as <i>putting legal title</i> to those assets in the names of the individual vestry members.<br /><br />A corporation holds legal title to its assets. A vestry is like a corporation's board of directors. The board <i>manages and controls</i> the assets, because it manages and controls the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. But if you want to take back possession of the assets under some trust claim, you do not sue the vestry members individually; you sue the parish corporation, which holds legal title.<br /><br />Likewise, if there are any claims about dissipating those assets while the corporation was under the control of a given vestry, then those claims have to be brought <i>by the corporation</i> against the defalcating directors, and not by ECUSA or the Diocese. And if, as I understand it, the Diocese now has the parish corporation back in its fold, then it must have agreed to relinquish any such claims when it reached its settlement with the departing congregation -- which included all of the individual defendants.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-20452075978642562082012-05-10T04:57:38.112-07:002012-05-10T04:57:38.112-07:00Page 15, order on cross motion for summary judgeme...Page 15, order on cross motion for summary judgement is where you will find this. This was in 2006. The Diocese did not sue until the next year - after they found out that the break away congregation had amended the articles of incorporation as to how the property was held.<br />So yelling and screaming that the Diocese was aggressive and sued the vestry was just not factual. <br /><br /> The vestry and lawyer in 2006 just took control of the property at that time by amending the long standing articles of incorporation! That is just insane! The Diocese merely asked for it back....and won...over and over again...but not until almost $1,000,000 went "missing". (or so that is the number that is being thrown out there)<br /><br />Does this help?plaintiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189676917562567019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-80026734842043805542012-05-10T04:50:44.631-07:002012-05-10T04:50:44.631-07:00If you research the Georgia Corporation's you ...If you research the Georgia Corporation's you can find the articles of incorporation that change the way the property was held. It was now under an amended articles of corporation that held "vestry shall have charge of affairs, property and assets" ...etc. Even the lower court ruling made reference to that fact and stated they could not amend their way out of the long standing articles of incorporation just like you cannot amend your way out of a mortgage. <br />Once Neil Creasy amended the articles of incorporation changing the way the property was held in 2006 he made the vestry personally liable for the property, assets, etc and with that they became personally liable for any lawsuits or allegations of wrong-doing. It worked both ways.<br /><br />It was not a personal attack but their own legal counsel put them in that position.<br /><br />Why not question where all of the endowment funds went? Are you aware of the malpractice claims against the attorney in charge of this whole thing? He has two pending lawsuits against him, both alleging mismanagement of client funds? <br /><br />Coincidence?<br /><br />Criminal attorneys got involved in the contempt action? Why? Why not account for the endowment funds? How much went to the lawyer that led this? Can you take property (endowment fund) that was at the time "unresolved" as to who the proper owner was and put that money towards legal fees? <br /><br />There is a much bigger story here.....this is about one thing.....money. And the lawyer that led this is where you need to do your research.plaintiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189676917562567019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-58373755231963537442012-05-09T21:24:42.443-07:002012-05-09T21:24:42.443-07:00plaintiff, I challenge you to produce proof of you...plaintiff, I challenge you to produce proof of your assertion. Th opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court (p. 38) recites as fact only that:<br /><br />"Then, on March 30, 2006, without advance notice to the Bishop, the wardens and a majority of the vestry voted to amend Christ Church’s Articles of Incorporation. On April 10, 2006, Articles of Amendment were filed with the Georgia Secretary of State that removed all references to the Episcopal Church and the Georgia Diocese and stated that the 1918 and 1923 amendments to the 1789 charter were 'repealed and annulled.'”<br /><br />I can find no reference in the reported decisions to the facts which you allege. It would be worthwhile to see a copy of the actual complaint filed by the Diocese and ECUSA against the rector and vestry.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-80267428336741848432012-05-09T19:21:22.253-07:002012-05-09T19:21:22.253-07:00The vestry was sued personally for one reason. Th...The vestry was sued personally for one reason. The articles of incorporation were changed by the legal counsel of the breakaway congregation to actually hold title to the property personally in the name of the vestry members....resulting in them being personally responsible in any litigation. Not such a smart legal move. But if they held ownership they were the rightful parties to be sued.....plaintiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189676917562567019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-14928430939923061022012-05-04T19:25:19.315-07:002012-05-04T19:25:19.315-07:00Dear Mr. Haley,
In my somewhat hastily written le...Dear Mr. Haley,<br /><br />In my somewhat hastily written <a href="http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/16665" rel="nofollow">letter of 26 September 2008</a> resigning my membership in The Episcopal Church and my Episcopal parish I unambiguously characterized the actions of some of the leadership of the Episcopal Church, including the current Presiding Bishop, as "lawless." I stand by that analysis to the present day, and extend it to the further subsequent actions of TEC and the Episcopal Bishop of Georgia, as similarly deceitful and lawless.<br /><br />In my estimation, the actions of the Diocese of Georgia, whether in concert with the Presiding Bishop or not, in using the patently deceitful, and possibly fictive, Dennis Canon, coupled with lawsuits against individual Vestry members, which are transparently obvious acts of punitive coercion, are yet further examples of the unChristian and lawless nature of the current leadership of the Episcopal Church.<br /><br />It saddens me to see such vengeful brigands triumph at the expense of the faithful parishioners of any formerly Episcopal parish, and I pray fervently that the faithful will be granted some measure of safety, peace and recompense by our Lord in return for the tribulation visited upon them by such unrighteous "leaders."<br /><br /><i>Pax et bonum</i>,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-61731104124671670832012-05-03T21:15:55.043-07:002012-05-03T21:15:55.043-07:00sophy0075, I hope there are still descendants arou...sophy0075, I hope there are still descendants around to enforce the terms of the endowment funds, or that the Georgia Attorney General can be persuaded to look into how the Diocese decides to use them, once they are under its control. <br /><br />Most endowment funds are restricted so that only their current income may be used for operating expenses, such as maintenance and upkeep. It would be improper under such restrictions to use principal for that purpose. But those of you who are closer to the scene will best be able to look into the details, and to police how the Diocese tries to tap into the funds.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42997977341010245602012-05-03T21:12:14.381-07:002012-05-03T21:12:14.381-07:00homeward, thank you for those additional details. ...homeward, thank you for those additional details. I did not intend to imply that the suit by the Diocese for personal liability against the rector and vestry was only a recent maneuver. The fact remains is that its object was to hold them personally accountable for most of the money spent by the parish in the years since it voted to leave -- and that their greatest expense item was defending against the litigation the Diocese itself had brought against them.<br /><br />The Dennis Canon allows parishes to spend their assets freely on parish purposes so long as they are still in ECUSA. It is only when there is a vote to leave that the Canon's "enforcers" try to argue that the parish cannot spend any of its accumulated or reserve funds to defend themselves. But they cannot argue about moneys spent for routine maintenance and upkeep, since that would have had to be spent whether the parish was still in ECUSA or not.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-9092846877385709432012-05-03T19:14:54.640-07:002012-05-03T19:14:54.640-07:00Thank you for mentioning that the Diocese of GA an...Thank you for mentioning that the Diocese of GA and the Episcopal Church had personally sued the CCA rector and vestry. Unfortunately, this outrageous fact is not widely known, even in Savannah! <br /><br />You mentioned that the Diocese of GA and the congregation calling itself Christ Church Episcopal could not legally use the endowment funds except for limited purposes. The building on Johnson Square is almost 200 years old and is very costly to maintain. The small congregation that now controls the building, and the cash-strapped Dio GA will certainly wish to be able to access those funds. I expect the Dio GA will try to raise cash by moving some of the small other episcopal parish congregations into the Johnson Square building and attempting to sell or rent their facilities.sophy0075https://www.blogger.com/profile/03313315186411760221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-84948700876625109182012-05-03T17:47:00.794-07:002012-05-03T17:47:00.794-07:00A point of clarification is needed. The rector and...A point of clarification is needed. The rector and vestry were personally sued immediately after the Christ Church voted to leave TEC five years ago. None of the subsequent rulings addressed the issue. As soon as the Anglicans vacated all real estate, property (e.g., vestments) and relinquished the frozen endowment, the Episcopalians filed a contempt motion, sued for additional damages, made further demands on the Anglicans and renewed their commitment to sue the rector and members of the parish personally.homewardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403247468794400035noreply@blogger.com