tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post8811469982937789904..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Translating the Appellate Decision in the San Joaquin CaseA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-6715439675806079082010-11-19T19:12:24.443-08:002010-11-19T19:12:24.443-08:00I was impressed with the tone of the decision. T...I was impressed with the tone of the decision. The judges concluded that what TEC was arguing was, "we believe this is our bishop, so judges, you believe it, too!"<br /><br />As you say, Mr. Haley, it's really just a side issue to whether there is anything in the property deeds that created a beneficial interest for TEC.<br /><br />It's clear that the diocese never committed the property affiliated with it to TEC, but rather, simply joined TEC. Then it left.<br /><br />I would bet most of the parishes have deed language something like "Episcopal Church in the Diocese of San Joaquin". This simply points to the Diocese as the governing entity.<br /><br />Roman Catholic practices and beliefs are not state civil law, and this seems to be the shadow argument being made by TEC. Nothing to do with what was actually written down on property documents. <br /><br />TEC is saying, "we created (i.e. believe as a matter of doctrine in) this new bishop of ours, so give him all of that property over there."<br /><br />There was a study done out there recently which showed that the United States has a banana republic level of justice nowadays, so it will be interesting to see how this case turns out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-54690840485228428092010-11-19T14:58:27.729-08:002010-11-19T14:58:27.729-08:00Mr. Haley,
Thank you for explaining the tacit mes...Mr. Haley,<br /><br />Thank you for explaining the tacit message in the Appeal Court's ruling. I suppose I am simply too direct and forthright to have ever been a jurist, with the possible exception of replacing Judge Judy on the TV <i>banc</i>.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42086801054468592352010-11-19T10:36:08.255-08:002010-11-19T10:36:08.255-08:00Martial Artist, you are quite correct that there w...Martial Artist, you are quite correct that there was nothing that prevented the Court of Appeal from looking at whether ECUSA had followed proper procedures in re-creating its Diocese of San Joaquin. However, the most it could have done in that regard was to find that there were disputed issues of fact whether they had done so, and send the case back for further proceedings and evidence on that point.<br /><br />Instead, the Court chose a more expedient route -- one that gets rid of the question altogether. By focusing, not on the organization of the new "diocese", but on the issue of who was the proper "Bishop of San Joaquin", the Court demonstrated the futility of wrangling over internal procedures, and got the parties back to the main track. In effect, it said: "Take those issues of legitimacy back to your churches and resolve them there. If you want us to tell you who now owns the properties, show us the deeds, and any other documents you claim establish a binding and valid trust on the property in question. We will analyze those documents in terms of traditional property and trust law, and tell you whether Bishop Schofield was under any constraints or not when he conveyed the properties to a diocesan holding corporation after his diocese had withdrawn from the Church."<br /><br />I like that approach, because it greatly simplifies the trial of the case. Can ECUSA show <i>any</i> language in its Constitution or Canons which imposes a trust in its favor on the property of its member dioceses? I know that they cannot, and that is why I am hopeful that this decision will point the way to the ultimate demise of ECUSA's bogus property claims against the Diocese and its parishes.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-49410131051928829852010-11-19T08:52:09.226-08:002010-11-19T08:52:09.226-08:00Mr. Haley,
I have one major problem with the sort...Mr. Haley,<br /><br />I have one major problem with the sort of thinking embodied in the Court of Appeal's decision. Specifically, I do not understand how anyone literate in English can determine (once it is recognized that an organization has established <i>specific, clear and <b>non-doctrinal</b> rules that establish required administrative procedures</i>) how a court can rationally decide that applying those rules to establish whether or not an outcome is procedurally valid somehow requires the court to decide that doing so would entangle the court in First Amendment issues. To hold that opinion is quite illogical on its face.<br /><br />To assert that the failure of a body, particularly one which has <b>no identifiable "highest adjudicatory,"</b> to follow its own rules in calling a convention, <i>etc</i>., amounts to alowing the party who has acted outside the organization's rules to do anything they want, justifying their actions on the basis of "because I said so!" That seems to me a reasonable example of what I could only term <i>lawlessness</i>.<br /><br />Is there something in the Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," that I am overlooking?<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.com