tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Anglican CurmudgeonA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger6502125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71068460854195452512023-07-20T13:45:46.642-07:002023-07-20T13:45:46.642-07:00I wonder if they can use now the most recent DNA s...I wonder if they can use now the most recent DNA sex chromosome studies with amplification and PCR. The study of the blood stain were done before this more recent progressive technique.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967052504735989750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-73734903890115557072023-04-06T05:32:23.208-07:002023-04-06T05:32:23.208-07:00And based on the recent events in NYC, we are trul...And based on the recent events in NYC, we are truly a Banana Republic. No doubt there will be some interesting conversations when US diplomats try and lecture some small country about how they should conduct themselves.<br />Tregonseehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705100658499499100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-47380359134100545702023-01-19T19:28:44.962-08:002023-01-19T19:28:44.962-08:00And now, in the last two weeks, we learn that Lunc...And now, in the last two weeks, we learn that Lunch-Bucket Joe had made off years ago with documents that he was allowed to see, but only within the confines of his offices on 17th Street, discovered in one or more of his personal spaces in DE and PA. In the last day or so at least one state AG has begged Merrick Garland not to interfere in DOJ's investigation, as if Garland were the only one in the hierarchy who would be tempted to interfere.<br /><br />You laid out your beliefs about the reasons behind the raid on Trump, and I agree with them. Any ideas as to why no raid on Biden, even allowing Joe's own attorneys to sift through classified documents, as if the reasons aren't obvious?<br /><br />Re: Garland. The Biden docs and the way the AG appears to handling the investigation (being done by Biden's own attorneys, not the DOJ) reinforce, for me, Tom Cotton's immortal words to the AG in a Senate committee hearing: "I thank God that you are not on the Supreme Court."<br /><br />One service Trump could do us all Alto en chamadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099000363883633775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71591800146728271032022-08-10T07:40:13.884-07:002022-08-10T07:40:13.884-07:00We'll probably never know unless the swamp get...We'll probably never know unless the swamp gets drained.Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-24193158201912890982022-06-27T05:13:24.184-07:002022-06-27T05:13:24.184-07:00Dear Mr Haley, I was unsuccessful writing to you a...Dear Mr Haley, I was unsuccessful writing to you at ashaley@nccn.net. I hop you are ok. Please advise.john kerrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14038677174521768406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-64180111034016050432022-06-25T00:53:53.933-07:002022-06-25T00:53:53.933-07:00Since this seems to be the end, can I briefly than...Since this seems to be the end, can I briefly thank-you for your work over the years, Mr Haley.<br /><br />It has been sad, but fascinating.Matt Wardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326720801362744582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-16598713239647427172022-06-20T15:21:23.143-07:002022-06-20T15:21:23.143-07:00I doubt it, the YouTube reference you give does no...I doubt it, the YouTube reference you give does not, as far as I can tell, mention any details of DNA analysis of the blood on the shroud. There has been mention of DNA on some authoritative sites, but they have not given the analytical results that enable a reader to determine just what was tested (i.e., blood from the stains? cells vacuumed up from the cloth that could have been left by anyone?). The most detailed recent analysis appears to be <a href="https://shroud.com/pdfs/kearse3.pdf" rel="nofollow">this one</a>, but even it is inconclusive, and says more testing is needed.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-58130636286838073882022-06-20T07:13:08.775-07:002022-06-20T07:13:08.775-07:00Mr. Kerrison, you may contact me at ashaley[-at-]n...Mr. Kerrison, you may contact me at ashaley[-at-]nccn.net, and I will try to help you.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-62192853251898805382022-06-20T05:02:14.290-07:002022-06-20T05:02:14.290-07:00Mr Haley, Would you consider letting me interview ...Mr Haley, Would you consider letting me interview you for a podcast I am putting together. I am a member of St Philips and wanting to tell this story in a cohesive way. john kerrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14038677174521768406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-1696179252935818932022-06-18T13:46:09.568-07:002022-06-18T13:46:09.568-07:00Gary, I was sold on the XX-Male idea until just re...Gary, I was sold on the XX-Male idea until just recently where I heard people state that the Shroud's DNA samples had both X and Y chromosomes. I want to make sure I am not passing along something inaccurate. Can you help me out here, as I find the XX-Male argument fascinating. Please see https://youtu.be/K91jWtBTOFo where Wayne Phillips mentions the XY chromosomes multiple times in his presentation. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Mark ShawI Doubt Ithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04170975040181397846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-44144862804633510442022-04-24T10:40:13.101-07:002022-04-24T10:40:13.101-07:00I do think that the "not precedential" p...I do think that the "not precedential" phrase is the key to the entire opinion. Of course its preposterous for a state supreme court to declare any of their opinions as not precedential. Surely this must be because they know that it cannot be squared with any of their prior relevant precedents nor the factual record, and hence they don't want to have to explain in a future case how this result fits into SC church property law. But logically, if a decision is not precedential law, then despite being cloaked as law, it is in fact pure equity. This was just SCSC deciding to end the embarassment by imposing a final split the baby result that seems equitable to it under the circumstances. Hardly what a supreme court should be doing, but there you have it.<br /><br />Be that as it may, one could sort of move on from this kind of a decision. Bad decisions happen, and are not always rectified at the appellate level. Sometimes mistakes have to get fixed in future cases, and the positive side of "not precedential" is that the field is fully clear even in SC for a better decision in a future similar case. Waccamaw remains good law. Etc.<br /><br />But the one aspect that cannot just be fit into "better job next time" is the stain on the rule of law in South Carolina created by the failure of the SCSC to address the obvious misconduct of one of its members. There can be no principled argument for why Justice Hearn needed to recuse herself after the original decision but not before. Her doing so is prima facie evidence of her own misconduct. Surely the other justices know this - it is not a subtle or complex point. And the issue is that ONLY the SCSC really can address that sort of misconduct, given that SCSC is the body which supervises the judicial misconduct review process in SC. Their failure to do so does more than damage the reputation of their court - it communicates that the rule of law can be subverted in South Carolina if the subverter is sufficiently highly placed, and hence that the people of South Carolina cannot believe that, whatever their human flaws, the courts of their state make an effort to give every litigant a fair shake. That's the sort of thing that can be corrosive, if not firmly resisted and punished.Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687374164767473796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-15953767714586908882022-04-24T07:28:35.438-07:002022-04-24T07:28:35.438-07:00Great response to F. Ron, Allan. If he is the same...Great response to F. Ron, Allan. If he is the same Fr. Ron who used to attack me, then he is a New Zealand liberal Anglican priest who deeply resented the formation of the GAFCON diocese in Christchurch for departing the dying Anglican Church of Aotearoa. He’s just another troll watching his universe crumble.David Virtuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08153976628385853633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-7104036812824887922022-04-23T22:02:23.003-07:002022-04-23T22:02:23.003-07:00An excellent comment, Watt. The opinion will neith...An excellent comment, Watt. The opinion will neither help nor hurt any parish in SC wanting to withdraw from its diocese, assuming its governing documents are in order. But <i>All Saints Waccamaw</i> remains good law, and so any parish that can follow in its steps should be OK -- change its bylaws and articles, and get a title report showing that it is the sole record owner of its property under South Carolina law.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-69339618925620633812022-04-23T10:32:29.498-07:002022-04-23T10:32:29.498-07:00As best as I can tell, dieolisa, Holy Cross of Sul...As best as I can tell, dieolisa, Holy Cross of Sullivan's Island was no longer a party to the litigation when it came to trial before Judge Goodstein in 2014, and so it was not a party to the appeal taken to the South Carolina Supreme Court from the 2015 judgment in that case. Perhaps someone from Holy Cross or a nearby parish could enlighten us about how it managed to stay out of the litigation.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-27824196793983040422022-04-23T07:01:35.474-07:002022-04-23T07:01:35.474-07:00Am I missing the status of Holy Cross, Sullivan’s ...Am I missing the status of Holy Cross, Sullivan’s Island (not Stateburg) https://www.holycross.net/whoweare in the opinion?dleolisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04048618679352382116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-25413450664925813842022-04-22T22:59:33.844-07:002022-04-22T22:59:33.844-07:00Thank you for your interpretation of the legal mum...Thank you for your interpretation of the legal mumbo jumbo. I feel sorry for those parishes that chose the wrong words so many years ago not realizing how they would come back to haunt the next generation. This reminds me to review my earthly will and testament very closely, but if words die and lose their meaning as has happened to “accede”, then our descendants are doomed to suffer the pain that revisionism inevitably inflicts.Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90065086632554060492022-04-22T14:51:24.926-07:002022-04-22T14:51:24.926-07:00One thing the opinion strongly asserted was that i...One thing the opinion strongly asserted was that it was not to be taken as precedent. ("However, our decision today<br />is not precedential in any future church property dispute.") That struck me as absurd -- of course an opinion issued by a state's supreme court is assumed to be precedential.<br /><br />I had been thinking that, once the SC supreme court issued its opinion in this case, the individual TEC parishes in the diocese of Upper South Carolina could proceed by analogy -- leave if they wanted to, as long as their documentation etc. was consistent with however the court would rule. But now it seems that even if a parish has documentation analogous to that of the Diocese of SC parishes permitted to leave under the present opinion, that parish may not use the opinion as precedent to leave TEC. So, theoretically, the fight would have to be repeated in Upper SC if a parish or parishes decides to leave TEC. And the state supreme court could come up with a totally different result. Furthermore, the court has tied its hands -- it cannot cite itself as precedent the next time around. Totally random.Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13149621173096401729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-45489549980696640022022-04-22T14:34:57.709-07:002022-04-22T14:34:57.709-07:00Alto en chamade, I agree -- it troubles me, too, t...Alto en chamade, I agree -- it troubles me, too, that the Court took the opportunity of former Chief Justice Toal's retirement to ignore her opinion in the <i>Waccamaw</i> case. If you go back to my post on that opinion (linked in the text), you will see in footnote 5 at the end that the church in that case amended its corporate charter in 2003 (well after the passage of the Dennis Canon at both national and diocesan levels, and after the Diocese recorded a notice of its applicability to the parish's property) to eliminate language about the parish's purpose to "prosecute religious works under the forms and according to the canons and rules of the protestant Episcopal Church, and as a component part of the Diocese of said Church in South Carolina." <br /><br />The current Court would no doubt say: "Waccamaw is different, because the language it used was the same as a promise to perform that we held (in the case of the fifteen parishes we excluded from the operation of the Dennis Canon) was insufficient to create an irrevocable trust under South Carolina law. But I would argue that a statement that a parish "accedes to" or "adopts" ECUSA's canons is just as much a statement of intent to engage in future conduct "under the forms and according to the canons and rules of the protestant Episcopal Church" -- so that the Court's analysis has no substantive basis for the crucial distinction it purports to draw,<br /><br />This, in short, is the hallmark of a result-oriented opinion, fashioned to justify an arbitrary outcome rather than a principled one.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-1455676431147419122022-04-22T14:15:13.828-07:002022-04-22T14:15:13.828-07:00Where would this blog be without you as gadfly, Fa...Where would this blog be without you as gadfly, Father Ron? However, in this case I think you have missed the mark, because the lawyers on <i>both</i> sides are not moaning over, but are actively criticizing, the Court's decision.<br /><br />Your attempt to ridicule those attempts at criticism reminds me of the story about the inebriated tramp who, happening to spy a man who was grilling meat on a spit rotating over a barbecue in his back yard, offered the observation: "Hey, Mister -- don't look now, but your organ's broke and your monkey's on fire!" A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-21975720204643902772022-04-22T14:02:26.221-07:002022-04-22T14:02:26.221-07:00I agree that those parishes did not help their cas...I agree that those parishes did not help their case by adopting such language, Joe Frank, but for me the question is: does the language show any kind of intent that the parish meant their accession to be irrevocable under any circumstances? Consent, once given, is valid for that time, but unless it is a solemn oath before God, ordinary consent may be withdrawn when it no longer serves any practical purpose or need. And the parishes that "acceded" to the Canon uniformly, as far as I am aware, revoked that accession by later action -- so why cannot the Court recognize that fact as well as the fact of accession?A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-67632141710293208682022-04-22T14:01:03.564-07:002022-04-22T14:01:03.564-07:00What puzzles me is how and why the Waccamaw decisi...What puzzles me is how and why the Waccamaw decision seems to have been completely ignored. Did it have anything to do with the "accessions" some parishes had incorporated into their by-laws?Alto en chamadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099000363883633775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-91856138390298397332022-04-22T13:00:22.250-07:002022-04-22T13:00:22.250-07:00LAWYERS only moan when the decision goes against t...LAWYERS only moan when the decision goes against their own interests!<br />Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71480972110830566322022-04-22T11:54:59.573-07:002022-04-22T11:54:59.573-07:00I Personally agree with the lower court's deci...I Personally agree with the lower court's decision; however, some of the language that some of the losing parishes had put in their bylaws after the Denis Canon was passed, seems a little risky. For example,"accedes to and adopts the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of South Carolina and of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and acknowledges these authorities accordingly." <br /><br />What is your opinion on thatJoe Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15745024981279731851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-73262933910522558282022-04-21T15:06:16.871-07:002022-04-21T15:06:16.871-07:00Thank you, Mr. Haley, for your kindness in breakin...Thank you, Mr. Haley, for your kindness in breaking it down for us as we followed along with you. We are forever indebted for your wisdom on these matters. Well done, good and faithful servant of the Lord! Milton Finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06751775714568357428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-13744738486837867262021-12-11T05:22:05.003-08:002021-12-11T05:22:05.003-08:00I am new to this litigation, but I had read Judge ...I am new to this litigation, but I had read Judge Dickson's opinion. I was surprised how little discussion was had the validity of his factual findings and his legal conclusion therefrom. The ECUSA seems to be really rolling the dice on the law of the case argument. The whole thing screams form over substance and CJ Beatty appeared regretful that the case has been a procedural nightmare. I hope and trust they will find a way to reach the correct result on the merits, which the ECUSA seems to be doing all that it can to obfuscate. JS BACHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10119729657915228200noreply@blogger.com