Monday, February 22, 2021

Dennis Canon Dead in Texas

 With its denial of certiorari (review) this morning to two of the Episcopal Church in the USA's ("ECUSA's") groups in Fort Worth, Texas, the United States Supreme Court has put to rest the multiple adverse claims made for the last twelve years against the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.  All of those various claims, and the stages of their ups and downs, have been chronicled on this blog, which began just before the legal disputes emerged. It is gratifying, therefore, to report that this blog has managed to outlive, along with (retired) Bishop Jack Iker and his faithful flock, the Machiavellian intrigues of the schemers at 815 Second Avenue to hound and intimidate them into surrender of their properties.

Denial of review of the May 2020 decision by the Texas Supreme Court puts finally to rest ECUSA's dogged attempts to enforce its notorious and one-sided Dennis Canon in Texas. The brazenness of that Canon, which attempted unilaterally to impose (after the fact) an enforceable, perpetual trust everywhere on all the parish properties of its members in ECUSA's favor, ran directly into long-standing Texas trust law, which requires the consent of a property's owner to place it into a trust, and which also requires express language to make a trust irrevocable. The Dennis Canon failed the test on both of those grounds.

Nor could ECUSA succeed by giving its successor group the same name as Bishop Iker's Diocese, and then pretending to assume its identity. The Texas Supreme Court saw through those machinations, and held that the majority controlling the Diocesan corporation, and not ECUSA's minority faction, were the true successors under Texas corporate law to the group that founded the original Diocese in 1983. In that respect, the Texas courts were far more perspicacious than the feckless courts in California, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere who simply allowed ECUSA's attorneys to pull the wool over their eyes, and pretend that the newest kid on the block was actually the oldest, who (they claimed) had been there the whole time.

Those on the losing side reacted with predictable assurances that life will go on as before.

I am not certain about this, but the Supreme Court's denial of review may now make it finally possible for Bishop Ryan Reed (Bishop Iker's successor) and his Diocese to have a Texas court call a halt to the ECUSA group's impersonation of that Diocese's identity, by using the same words to describe itself (see the previous link).

The success in Texas leaves just one long-standing ECUSA dispute still festering: its pursuit of Bishop Mark Lawrence and his Diocese of South Carolina. For the reasons articulated in this post, your Curmudgeon has hopes that that litigation, too, will finally resolve itself before too much longer in favor of Bishop Lawrence and his withdrawing Diocese, notwithstanding ECUSA's machinations to the contrary (and that almost carried the day).

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

What You Aren't Hearing about Election Fraud [UPDATED: Now They Are Openly Bragging]

What would you say is the prevailing opinion in the media about fraud in the 2020 presidential election? 

Is it that many lawsuits were brought, in all the disputed States, and none showed any evidence of fraud?

Or is it that while fraud may have occurred, it was on a local and very small scale?

Or is it just that all claims of election fraud have been debunked?

That is what the mainstream media have wanted you to believe -- because they will never aid in circulating any news to the contrary. But now, three months after the election, a different picture is emerging -- just not in the major media.

Here is a well-sourced and very detailed summary of the abundant evidence of result-changing fraud in all the various key States that showed anomalous results. In turn, it links to other compilations, such as this definitive list of the outcome of all 79 cases to have been brought in the various courts challenging local and State tallies as reported. The article links to another at the same Website, which has still more links to mathematical evidence of widespread fraud, as well as to this comprehensive survey of the evidence.

As the compilation shows, only 19 of the 79 cases brought to date were decided on their merits, i.e., based on a review of the actual evidence offered. Another 37 cases were disposed of on technical grounds that allowed the courts to avoid reviewing any evidence -- such as deciding that challenges brought before Election Day were "premature", so that the plaintiffs "lacked standing" because "no injury had yet occurred." 

Or, for those suits brought after Election Day, the evading courts found that the complaints were "too late", and the plaintiffs were guilty of "laches" (prejudicial delay) by waiting too long to challenge the rules by which the election was conducted. Thus did many courts play "Catch-22" with the various challengers.

But of the 19 cases that went to trial on the merits, the compilation linked above shows that the Trump team (or his allies, as plaintiffs) has won twelve of them, i.e., almost two thirds of the cases brought resulted in findings of improper procedures or illegality in voting.

And there are still are another 23 active cases yet to be decided. 

So how do those documented facts tally with the memes circulated in the media? Answer: Hardly at all.

According to the media's talking points, Trump (or his supporters) lost all of his challenges, and failed to prove any of his claims of election fraud. But twelve cases already decided prove that claim wrong, and another twenty-three cases await a final decision. 

Your Curmudgeon holds that many out there are like him in suspecting that all was not right with the tallies in the 2020 presidential election. The din of the media panning that idea has to date drowned out the dissenting voices.

But perhaps that will not be the case for much longer. May the truth emerge -- as eventually it can do no other.

[UPDATED 02/05/2021: Truer words than my last paragraph above were never written. Now we have it from the horse's mouth: the Left is openly bragging about how they carried off the biggest election fraud of all time.  No doubt the Department of Justice, under their new leadership, will postpone all prior recreations in pursuing the Capitol rioters on RICO charges to launch new RICO proceedings against those who have brazenly admitted participation in this unparalleled theft and scandal against democracy.]

Monday, January 25, 2021

A Review of the Precedents for "Impeachment" Ex Post Facto

 The sycophant media have rushed to report that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has at last sent her single, desultory  "Article of Impeachment" to the Senate for a trial.

Sic transit gloria mundi -- or, more specifically, "how low can the sun sink after already having sunk on the American republic?"

The deluded and foolhardy majority in the House of Representatives, in other words, wants to exercise its Constitutional power of impeachment (to call for the removal of a federal official from office) after the fact --- against a private citizen who no longer holds any federal office. 

Is there any precedent at all for this sort of thing? Let us travel back in time to see . . .

Set the time machine dial back 1,124 years, shall we, to January 897? Look what happened then to the hapless former Pope Formosus, in the notorious "Cadaver Synod":

. . . Nine months after Formosus died, his body was exhumed and made to sit on a throne so that he could face the charges levied against him by the then Pope Stephen VI. Dressed in all the fineries of papal vestments, Formosus faced accusations of perjury, coveting the papacy as a layman, and violating church canons while he was pope. Defended by a mere deacon and obviously incapable of defending himself, the dead Pope was found guilty on all counts.

             . . . 

Formosus was found guilty. He was literally stripped of his robes and deprived his title as pope. Then they cut off the three fingers he used to bless people and reburied the naked corpse in a commoner’s grave. 
And just how did the public take to his treatment at the hands of Pope Stephen VI? Read on:
This was all too much for the people, already sick of the intrigues of the Church. They demanded Stephen VI be removed and a proper pope be instated. Stephen VI was thrown in jail and later strangled in August 897.
That was then -- and so we move forward in time, to the infamous "Lollard" precedent, of John Wycliffe:
John Wycliffe was the most famous priest of his day. His learning was immense. He had been a leading scholar at Oxford and a chaplain to the King of England. More to the point, he spoke out boldly against the errors of the popes, the organizational hierarchy of the Roman Church, and the corruption of the clergy in his day. . . .

If the people in England were to know the truth, Wycliffe reasoned that they must have the Word of God in their own language. Under his direction, the Bible was translated into English for the first time, although the job was not completed by his associates until 1395, eleven years after his death. . . .

John Wycliffe died of his stroke on the last day of the year [1384]. The religious authorities had never excommunicated him because they feared public opinion--the people loved John and his fame was international. So he was buried in consecrated soil. But about thirty years later, the Council of Constance revenged itself on his criticism by condemning his teachings and ordering his bones to be dug up and burned. 
But the burning of such a man's bones could not end his influence. As John Foxe said in his book of martyrs, "though they dug up his body, burnt his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn; which yet to this day...doth remain."
So, once again, we do not have a favorable precedent. Fast forward to the case of Oliver Cromwell, in 1661:
Following [King Charles I]'s execution in 1649, the Commonwealth of England was introduced to replace the monarchy, and [Oliver] Cromwell became Lord Protector, a role in which he remained until his death five years later. Cromwell was succeeded by his son as Lord Protector, but he did not last long, and was overthrown by the army a year later. 

The monarchy was restored [in 1660] and Charles II became the new king. Immediately after gaining power, King Charles II ordered the arrest and trial of all who played part in the overthrowing of the monarchy. Of the 59 who signed the death warrant, several were hanged while others were imprisoned for life. Even those who had died were not spared. Several had their body exhumed and reburied in communal burial pits, but Oliver Cromwell and three others—John Bradshaw, the judge who was president of the court, Henry Ireton, a general in the Parliamentary army and Cromwell's son-in-law, and Robert Blake, a military commander—were awarded death sentences.

Cromwell's body was to have a special fate, illustrated in part below: 

On the [twelfth] anniversary of King Charles I’s death, Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and his disinterred body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. In the afternoon, the body was taken down and beheaded. Cromwell’s head was then placed on a 20-foot-tall wooden spike and raised above Westminster Hall where it remained for nearly twenty five years. For the next two centuries, the dismembered head rolled through the possession of many until it was given a dignified burial in a secret place at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960.
The posthumous punishment of Oliver Cromwell thus extended for almost three hundred years.  

Surely the House Democrats, and the members of the Senate, ought to have these (and other -- see the case of Gilles van Ledenberg at the previous link) precedents well in mind as they deliberate the solitary ex post facto bill brought against former President Trump. For there was, and is, no single example that your exacting Curmudgeon could exhume (pardon the expression) from the dustheap of history that resulted in a positive public regard for any judges (or executioners) who presumed to proceed in their cases after the fact.

Now, granted -- Donald John Trump is still very much among the living, and nothing the current Congress may do can alter that, despite the extraordinary powers to which it may try to lay claim. But its very attempt to assert such powers ex post facto brings discredit upon those who are so basely motivated. 

Ours is a government of laws, not men, despite how glum the present may appear to some. There is not one on the scene thus far, thank God, who proposes to rewrite, or replace, the Constitution. Its prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, both as to Congress and the several States, remains intact.

That said, nothing ever stopped politicians from making fools of themselves in public: just witness the examples I have adduced above. 

May history record their folly in full. And may the rest of us resist to the fullest their contempt for the very words of our Constitution.