tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post9138516113105751069..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Pittsburgh Church Assets Thrown into ChaosA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-71824368922053807092010-02-09T13:53:54.943-08:002010-02-09T13:53:54.943-08:00I think that, at this juncture, the more portentou...I think that, at this juncture, the more portentous question is not how the courts will rule on this, any or all of the cases involving the dissociation of dioceses from TEC. In my opinion it is, rather, given the illogical decision of Judge James, whether there is any reason, other than faith in a just God, that we ought to entertain the hope that there is any longer any hope of rational justice from the judicial structures of the United States.<br /><br />None of this is, pardon the expression, <i>rocket science</i>. A person of ordinary intelligence, experience and vocabulary, having access to the appropriate dictionary of legal terms, and presumed to be neither "under the influence" of an intoxicant, nor eligible to be declared <i>non compos mentis</i>, must begin to despair at the shoddy quality of the judicial reasoning coming from so many of the sitting judges.<br /><br />It bodes exceedingly ill for these United States that we are seeing such abominably poor legal analysis. If I am going to be forced to live in a land which has abandoned the <i>Rule of Law</i>, I might as well move to the UK, where the climate is (meteorologically speaking) more comfortable for me, now, rather than remain in the U.S. and watch the distintegration of the nation in whose defense I spent 20 years of my adult life.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-10972418911017986312010-02-01T16:49:09.712-08:002010-02-01T16:49:09.712-08:00OK, I am calling a halt to further back-and-forths...OK, I am calling a halt to further back-and-forths with Father Woodward -- at least on the topic of court decisions and what he persists in regarding as "theft". I have posted his last comment in order to show the severe difficulties that exist in trying to carry on a meaningful dialogue with people who feel as does Father Woodward. As you can see, there is no meeting of the minds, no engaging of the issues. We shall just have to let these ships pass in the night.<br /><br />Attempts at further comment in response will be severely moderated, and may be rejected without further explanation.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-26589807612190689982010-02-01T13:56:25.820-08:002010-02-01T13:56:25.820-08:00Joe, on the one hand you have a lower court (SC) m...Joe, on the one hand you have a lower court (SC) making a decision different from appellate decisions in Texas, California, New York and on and on and on. On the other hand you have all the settled decisions of appellate courts and the Supreme Court. <br /><br />Fr. Haley, you must be well aware that Bob Duncan attempted to walk away with the property of his former diocese as well as the funds clearly under the Dennis Canon. <br />You must also be well aware that he or any entity of TEC cannot transfer assets or anything else to another jurisdiction without going through an elaborate process. Even then the transfer is to a different Province of TEC and not to Uganda, Argentina or Nigeria. <br />You must also know that there are no appellate courts which have ruled differently from granting deference to the hierarchy in hierachical denominations. Bob Duncan was never elected or appointed to that position.<br /><br />As to Iker, et. al. never "bringing suit:" of course they didn't. They were the ones stealing the property. Had they filed suit to take property with them to Uganda or Argentina, the courts would have laughed at them. I believe we are within months of sanctions against their right wing tactics - the courts saying, in effect "Why are you wasting the assets of the Episcopal Church when the court decisions in State after State go against you - you have crossed the line into the filing of frivolous lawsuits.Thomas B. Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742944114518979523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42038736042435940002010-02-01T12:04:12.800-08:002010-02-01T12:04:12.800-08:00OK Tom - but why dont you point out to us where th...OK Tom - but why dont you point out to us where the "accession" clause is in the CORPORATION documents filed with the Secretaries of each State that the church operates in.<br /><br />Thats what I thought - you cant.<br /><br />You're confusing - as Allan said - ecclesiastical issues with legal ones.<br /><br />And by the way - the HIGHEST court in South Carolina has ruled AGAINST ECUSA. That will pretty much put an end to these frivolous lawsuits that TEC continues to file.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285325003136746333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90713898828853783432010-02-01T06:19:39.060-08:002010-02-01T06:19:39.060-08:00It's funny that certain posters on this blog c...It's funny that certain posters on this blog continue to use the same old lines, probably issued by 815, when it comes to "leaving" TEC. I'd like for those/that person/s to show where local parish property is in the name of 815/TEC! They can't. Funny how a diocese in forming requests to become a member of TEC, not the other way around, but once a member can't leave? Yeah, right! Show us all where in any Constitution or Cannon Law that once a member, always a member......waiting....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-43945347397674535322010-01-31T21:58:45.062-08:002010-01-31T21:58:45.062-08:00Fr Woodward, you are doing yourself no credit here...Fr Woodward, you are doing yourself no credit here with your misstatements of canon law. As Joe warned, they may get overlooked on other blogs, but not here.<br /><br />The "accession clause" to which you refer is not a specific clause that is expressed uniformly, or even at all, in diocesan constitutions. See <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/ecusas-hierarchy-rip.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> for details.<br /><br />Even when a diocese does accede to the Church's constitution and canons, nothing in those documents says that a <b>diocese</b> holds its property in trust for the national Church. Read the Dennis Canon <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/dennis-canon.html" rel="nofollow">at this page</a>. You will see it speaks only of property held by or for parishes, and <i>not</i> property held by or for dioceses.<br /><br />Bishops Duncan, Iker and Schofield <i>sued no one.</i> The Episcopal Church (USA) sued <b>them</b> -- claiming a Dennis-Canon-type trust on diocesan property <b>when there is no such canon, and no such trust.</b> As a result, the Church is spending its contributed millions trying to prove a trust where none exists.<br /><br />I am afraid that your comments here show the same kind of confusion of the law that Northwest Bob laments is infecting much of our current judiciary. <i>None</i> of the cases involving departing dioceses has yet been decided at the appellate level (so there are no rulings "overturning" any lower courts -- yet).<br /><br />Please do yourself a favor, Fr Woodward, and use the links above and the <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/03/guide-to-this-site.html" rel="nofollow">Guide to This Site</a> to educate yourself in the actual provisions of the ECUSA Constitution and Canons before misstating what they say.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-38396556451485789792010-01-31T20:34:36.898-08:002010-01-31T20:34:36.898-08:00The problem here, of course, is the accession clau...The problem here, of course, is the accession clause in the Constitution and Canons of each diocese in the Episcopal Church. You can't become a diocese in TEC without incorporating it into your C&C. It says that all property, real and personal, is held in trust for the whole of the Episcopal Church.<br /><br />The problem is that, despite the yearnings of Bob Duncan, no diocese can change this covenant. There is not a court in this country that has ruled otherwise (except those whose rulings were overruled by higher courts). <br /><br />When Bob Duncan told the people of his diocese that they could unilaterally change the accession clause he simply did not know what he was doing -- or he knew and did not care about the effects of such mischief.<br /><br />This is the issue: if you join my basketball team and agree to the terms that all equipment belongs to me, even if acquired after you join the team, then you cannot leave the team taking the basketballs, uniforms and my bank accounts -- even if 75% of the team quits at the same time.<br /><br />Duncan, Iker, Schofield, et. al, have cost the mission of the church millions upon millions of dollars because of their unwillingness to accept what is in their dioceses' founding documents.Thomas B. Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742944114518979523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-83412700075647082462010-01-31T16:51:25.152-08:002010-01-31T16:51:25.152-08:00Dear Curmudgeon,
So what is the end result of all...Dear Curmudgeon,<br /><br />So what is the end result of all this chaos? Is there a judge that can follow your impeccable legal line of thinking? So far judges have not been "confused by the facts" and have plodded off in a direction based on their own notions. NW Bob is pretty discouraged about the state of the rule of law these days.Northwest Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628175652567391109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42831215888129589422010-01-31T11:20:02.142-08:002010-01-31T11:20:02.142-08:00The BOARD OF TRUSTEES was NOT a party to the lawsu...The BOARD OF TRUSTEES was NOT a party to the lawsuit. <br /><br />Since they are not a party, the court order does NOT apply to them.<br /><br />Thats the problem here. <br /><br />Who cares about whether dioceses can leave? Of course dioceses can leave. The people vote with their feet. Whats a diocese without any people? Its a nullity. It doesnt exist.<br /><br />Stick to LEGAL issues here Tom. Go over to Stand Firm if you want to discuss anything else.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285325003136746333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-68125432158465143802010-01-31T11:09:00.201-08:002010-01-31T11:09:00.201-08:00"When Duncan, et al. left, the only diocese r..."When Duncan, et al. left, the only diocese remaining consisted of those loyal to TEC -- there was no diocese 1 and diocese 2, only the Diocese of Pittsburgh . . ."<br /><br />Fr Woodward, I know that is what you think happened from an <i>ecclesiological</i> point of view. And I also do not dispute your ability to reach that conclusion through a process of canonical argument and reasoning (with which I do not agree).<br /><br />What the argument ignores, however, is that churches, just like everybody else, must conform to the secular laws. They cannot form or exist as a corporation, for example, without filing appropriate and legally prescribed papers with the Secretary of State, executed by the proper individuals.<br /><br />Having requested the law to recognize them as certain entities which are then able to hold title to property in their own name, churches cannot then turn around and say: "Only one legal Diocese has always existed in Pittsburgh, because dioceses cannot leave churches, only people can." The simple and unarguable fact is that there was a legally called meeting of the Diocese, and its members decided in accordance with their own governing documents to change them. That was their <b>legal</b> right (if not their canonical right, as you would contend). <br /><br />The change in the governing documents did not do anything to change the underlying entity in the eyes of the law. This is where the canonical argument breaks down. For it has to contend that by the very act of exercising their right to amend their governing documents, the deputies automatically ejected themselves as members of the association whose constitution they were voting to change. But the deputies themselves did not think they were doing so, because they took their vote, and then continued with their legal organization exactly as it was before -- same officers, same bank accounts and assets (minus those belonging to the churches that dissented from the vote), and so on.<br /><br /><i>In the secular law,</i> the vote changed nothing about the Diocese's status: it was still a Pennsylvania unincorporated association, and its Board of Trustees were still made up of the same individuals who still held the title to the same property as they did before the vote. To call that "theft" is to call the law of property itself "theft". That might be the view of a revolutionary who wants to overturn society, but it is not the view the law itself holds -- otherwise ownership would be impossible.<br /><br />To change the ownership of property without the owner's consent, you have to go to court and prove a claim against that property. In doing so, you are bound by the rules of due process and fair play. You cannot ask a judge to order someone to do something when they have not been joined as a party to the lawsuit. But now you have Judge James signing a piece of paper that tells a Savings & Loan Association they must take instructions only from this person, and not the person who is on their signature cards and account records (and who is also not a party to the lawsuit).<br /><br />That may be how you would like church law to work, but it is not how the civil law works.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-78172462349878419642010-01-31T08:27:27.436-08:002010-01-31T08:27:27.436-08:00The problem with your argument is that no diocese ...The problem with your argument is that no diocese can "leave" the Episcopal Church. Duncan convinced himself and others they could and then they left AS INDIVIDUALS (again, parishes and dioceses cannot leave). <br />State Courts, Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court have upheld what Duncan has opposed. He, in effect, was removing property to which he had no claim.<br />It is OK for Duncan, et. al. to leave the Episcopal Church for some homosexual free group - it is not OK to steal.<br />When Duncan, et. al. left, the only diocese remaining consisted of those loyal to TEC -- there was no diocese 1 and diocese 2, only the Diocese of Pittsburgh (loyal to TEC) and a group of former Episcopalians.Thomas B. Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742944114518979523noreply@blogger.com