Schori’s Letter to Bishops Re September HoB Meeting

“Concerning the issue of Bishop Duncan . . .
“We had mentioned the possibility of a one-day May meeting. I am not sure there was adequate desire for it on the part of the House at this point . . . .”—-KJS

Sic semper tyrannus!

Shalom? Is she a Rabbi now? She does it all!!!

Whatever!!!!!

P.S. - There is a vicious rumor being spread on the blogs that Bishop Duncan has responded with a letter.  This is most certainly not true, and even if it is, I am the Presiding Bishop and I can declare that there is no such letter even if there is.

P.P.S. - In the future, David Booth Beers and I have agreed that it will be our interpretation of the canons that the phrase in the deposition canon referring to “whole number of bishops eligible to vote” shall refer to me and me alone.  So please think twice about questioning me in any way.

Fishy.

Funny how the thoughts about my dear bishop are interspersed with thoughts on Lambeth.  Anyone who thinks the two have nothing to do with one another need only to look to this letter to be disproven.

Did I miss something?  Is Bishop Duncan inhibited?

With the way the bandit queen carries on I wonder if the HOB will ever get to Lambeth.

You all need to turn up in September so we have have a sufficient majority this time to do what I sorry we want.

Concerning Bishop Duncan, Goodwin Proctor have done the necessary so there is no need to bother your little heads with the evidence, canons etc - really, we’ve decided it’s fine.

We don’t have any money for Lambeth because we have spent it all on lawyers so cough up - now.

I sorry we mentioned the possibility of a May meeting but I couldn’t get my sorry our way so I sorry we are going to keep asking until I sorry we get the correct answer.

Yucky Dar!

Check out photos I found on Flickr of the GC2006. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowiesnodgrass/collections/72157600015872268/

Please send all Lambeth contributions to Our discretionary fund so that We can use Our discretion to decide who We take and who We leave behind.

We were going to depose Our dear friend +Robert, but We received the most unhelpful letter from that +Rowan fellow indicating that he just might invite +Robert anyway.  Where in the world does that stuck up British professor get the idea that he is in charge of this Lambeth party anyway?  But just to keep the peace, We have decided not to depose +Robert until after Our sister, the Queen’s tea party.  We have sent her appropriate rainbow headwear, for her appearance in Our presence.

Again, more detailed information about the agenda, registration fee

  So, let me guess, the detailed information is- If you vote “yea” to depose +Bob Duncan, your registration fee is $zero,  “nay” votes, “slightly” higher.

‘No, No!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first - verdict afterwards.’

T19 commenters have the link to the Title Review Documents. It looks like most of the evidence is based on his participation, initiation, and covenant with the Common Cause Partners , not specifically with the AAC or the Network. The CCP and the future departure seen to be the order. They say he has leave the communion and broken canons by recognizing bishops and priests in the REC, AMIA. CANA etc, but mainly the REC and declared himself in communion with thes outsiders not recognized by the Anglican Communion. Is that against canons? I can not make the link post so you will have to get it ovr at T19 to look at it.

SALT LAKE cITY!!??  Maybe she is going to get the LDS to help her.  Maybe outsource the prophet thing to get readings from the urim and thumin on the best strategy to supress the rebels.

that’s “left the communion”...time for bed, I think

Good God! Does no one see her for what she is???

Don’t forget your oven mitt.
Shallow… Shalom what’s the dif?
Intercessor

It makes every bit of sense to have a meeting in salt Lake City; the Bishop of Utah needs to be baptized, and what better time?

Everyone should read Mark McCall’s comment here which documents how the PB and Goodwin Proctor are now operating outwith the law.

If they can’t even comply with their own canons does anyone really think they will respect any Covenant?

It is worth remembering the authorities cited by ‘chancellor’ as to the failure to depose Bishop Schofield and others by a majority of the Members of the House of Bishops under TEC’s Canon IV.9.  I have heard no proper argument against this.

Indeed the only defence put forward by Mark Harris and Fr Jake who both know better, has been that in the case of two prior depositions the requirement of the canons were also ignored by the HOB.  These are the cases of Bishop Donald Davies by the HOB in 1993 unanimously by 137 bishops attending and Bishop Neptali Larrea Moreno in the Spring HOB meeting in Camp Allen on April 23rd 2004.  No figures are given to back this claim up but even if true, prior breach of rules for deposition is in law a specious argument which would get short shrift in any civil court.

Laws are our only protections for our freedoms; if we ignore them, particularly when dealing with the rights and the removal of individuals from office and ministry, then what price freedom.  What did so many of our parents and grand parents fight and die for in Europe?

#20 - it is being ignored at many levels. Duncan has responded to KJS, but I am afraid the deck is stacked and once again, those orthodox who are in TEC are asleep in the pews. As I keep asking (and will at every opportunity), how are you responding? I hear a lot of talk but see no action. If you don’t stop the DSJ coup, false inhibitions, and canon violations, don’t expect any defense when your time comes. TEC is nothing but a bunch of jack booted thugs and heretics; somehow I think windsorites are still buying the need for a listening conversation and don’t realize they are being kicked and ganged mauled.

Get it straight!  You can give communion to the unbaptized.  You can share the altar with a Muslim.  Druid priests can dance around the altar.  All paths lead to the same place.  Yaddy yaddy ya!  But woe unto you who shares communion with clergy from REC!  That shall not pass!  Could anlyone make this stuff up?

Festivus, you wrote,
I hear a lot of talk but see no action. If you don’t stop the DSJ coup, false inhibitions, and canon violations, don’t expect any defense when your time comes.
Make some suggestions and I’ll follow up on it. As someone who’s written a number of letters in the past, I’m up for more!

http://www.phg.anglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/TitleIVreport.pdf is the link I was talking about last night. If I am reading it right and I may not be, it is about the goals of the CCP, the covenant of the CCP, etc. The voluminous evidence is probably off the AAC, Network, CCP, GAFCON sites that they are using against him. I am afraid that +Iker is next and maybe +Ackerman. (Off topic) By the way, did everyone have a good Lent? After 40 days away from the blogs, I admit I did not miss them, although had withdrawals the first week or so. Looks like the mess is still here and has gotten worse.

What Schori is doing is trying to drive a wedge between Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburg with the outcome of effecting the vote on seperation. If Pittsburg loves and supports their Bishop, Schori is driving the faithful to Duncan. Any court of law will see through this ploy when the property suits begin and since PECUSA violated its own canons in this process, applying canons relating to Duncan is senseless. There is a chance of getting an inhibition vote on Schori though. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Would someone(s) with the ecclesiastical standing necessary to do so, and in light of all her intentional and blatant commissions of canonical irregularities please begin right now the process of bringing a presentment against the Presiding Bishop?  If y’all aren’t going to do this, understand the deluge is already upon you and your flocks, for which you bear grave responsibility.  Christe eleison!

Is there a way that the laity through a formal petition file charges for inhibition or presentation on the PB? If enough people filed can it be done? It would be ignored and never reach the HOB but can it be done? Also since she is not considered a Christian by any means, could a civil lawsuit be filed against here without violating the scriptures? That I pass to Father Matt or anyone else. Most people feel that it is not a case of inaction but do not know what can be done. People might take action if there was a way to take action from the pew level. Can a formal petition be made to remove and charge her and even if it goes nowhere can we get it out and in media etc so we have a voice. People do want to take action.

Hypothetical question:  what would it take to inhibit the PB?  Like any hypothetical, if you can think it through, you can start to work on it.  I’m clueless on this, would like to hear what those more informed have to conjecture about this.

Hypothetical question:  what would it take to inhibit the PB?

ANSWER: A lot more cojones than anyone in the HOB has shown heretofore, specifically including the so-called Windsor/Camp Allen Bishops.

the snarkster

Shalom? Is she a Rabbi now? She does it all!!!

No, silly.  It’s voila she just pulls the Rabbi out <a href=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/11033/”> and says: <strike> Shazzam! </strike> Shalom!

We had mentioned the possibility of a one-day May meeting. I am not sure there was adequate desire for it on the part of the House at this point, and so this will be determined after a poll in April. 

What the PB really means is:  I’ve not yet been able to twist the arms of those wascally “three senior bishops with jurisdiction” into signing onto the inhibition of that evil +Robert.  So we’ll see what the “poll” I take in April will do to turn them around.  I was trying very hard to get them to buy into our “new reading” of that language in Canon IV.9, but those horrid bloggers have gotten everybody stirred up about this due process nonsense.  I’ve talked with David about this, but I think even he’s gotten a bit nervous with all the publicity.

Life’s a bitch, especially when people are looking over your shoulder all the time!

Unreal, you can endlessly piss all over the Christian faith and be in “good standing” with the GCC and yet merely associating with the faithful Christians of REC gets you in trouble.? Schori is a bad person and same for the disgusting bunch of creeps that surround her.

I went and looked at the Flicker pics. in the link posted by commenter 9, and all I can say is what a bunch of pompous crap and pretending. That series of picture of all the degenerates at the Integrity Eucharist is sickening. Anathema on them! I have a observation,judging from the pictures, it seem that at GC2006 GLBT propaganda was pretty much everywhere and in your face. Is that a fair observation? As of course ,I wasn’t there.

#22, DaveG . . . that just hits the nail square on the head!!! If Duncan++ were having dialog or saying he had a “common cause” with a Muslim or Buddhist, he’d be progressive, but whoa be unto him for having a common cause with the REC!

The interesting thing here in Pittsburgh is that while it appears every other bishop in The Episcopal Church received this letter via normal channels yesterday, neither Bishop Duncan, nor Bishop Scriven have yet received a copy.

I stand right there with ya #26 Athanasius Returns! To not bring charges against this woman is like having the grave burden of responsibility upon your shoulders that will be a weight you will not be able to bear when she comes after you and your flock and any more in the process. The wake of destruction she is and will leave you yourseles will share in by not bringing charges against her.

Stand up and defend!

#23 - at the risk of repeating myself (heck, I will anyways), why do those in TEC have to ask those of us who have left for ideas? For those that are in TEC, you get mighty outraged (at least on the blogsphere) at what is happening. But I can’t figure out why as you sit back and let it happen, act surprised, and never have seem to have a cohesive response (read A PLAN - isn’t that what ++Akinola suggested in Pittsburgh 3 years ago?). CCP is a wonderful organization that may build a common, viable Anglican future for US churches, BUT IT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT FORMS A DEFENSE TO INTERNAL TEC ACTIONS TARGETING YOU WHO REMAIN IN TEC.
I did draft a list but deleted it. As one who thinks the Communion as presently structured is dead, I’m probably not the person you should ask.

It’s likely that the <a href=“http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/3.14.08 Letter to Beers.PDF”> may have had something to do with the un-doing of the May meeting.  DBB and the PB have some serious thinking to do before they march forward with their Gestapo tactics.

The letter from +Duncan’s lawyer which I tried to link to is from the Diocese of Pittsburgh website and can be accessed here:
http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/filesforposting/3.14.08 Letter to Beers.PDF

Well Fest I’d still like to see your “list”, whatever it may be. I know you’re irritated with all talk and no action (as am I!), but you seem to be doing the same thing when you throw out a tidbit like that and then not let us see it.

Following is a link to the supporting documentation on +Duncan’s charges, with a cover letter under the signature of +Dorsey Henderson, President of the Title IV Review Committee: document link.

It is a forty page PDF, so you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader™ to view it. I have not yet read it, but thought a working hyperlink might be useful to some commenters.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

You know, after my post at #35, I am so wound up that here is a list of four things:
1. Build a defense and planning fund - a HUGE, DEEP bucket of funds to either defend yourself or plan an exit strategy. If you can’t even do this, then please realize you’re on your own. 
2. Use the rules to defend yourselves. File charges against those abusing the canons, presenting heresy, etc.
3. Hire a major marketing and media firm to present you to the public. I might even suggest a theme of “TEC hates Jesus” as the one to frame your responses and theological arguments around. I know that seems harsh, but that’s the ugly truth and it clearly questions the “God loves me, me, me, Adam and Steve, squids and trees, the MGDs” attitude TEC keeps harping. When jack booted thugs are beating you, there is no love and you should say so. If you don’t have the stomach for this battle, pack it in (PS - your enemy DOES).
4. Have an exit strategy and agree on when and where you are going ahead of having to use it.
I, for one, believe the decision to “hang separately” has been made at the level of Windsor bishops in TEC by their inaction as a “whole church”. That’s another reason why it’s not best to ask me. Sorry - you asked. Back to earn a paycheck.

#39 MA from the first page of your link: any idea who “Mary E. Kostel, Esquire” is?

Yup cobbled together by Goodwin Procter I see with the same attention to detail they give to advising the House of Bishops on the meaning of TEC’s canons.

Mary Kostel is listed in that firm as an “of Counsel” whatever that means and is based in their Washington, DC office.

Even if some of the bishops did have the ....whatever…to go on record at the HOB what are we looking at…maybe ten out of 294. Doesn’t anyone think that poll she is doing might be a way of looking for prey…I mean… nonsupporters. Lists are being compiled I am sure. Maybe as laity we need to confront our Bishops if we do not know what he/she thinks about this letter. To give them some credit, some of them do have to protect the congregations under them. Sometimes, I guess they have to be Shindlers and Ten Booms. One rule of war or battle is never fight a battle you can not win and always fight to win. Actually, I think that can be found in scripture.

[41] Pageantmaster,

I didn’t, but had a suspicion. A Google™ search turned up the following: Mary E. Kostel, Esq., which simply confirmed my initial surmise. She appears to be one of the shyster’s attorneys, presumably a relative junior, from Goodwin Procter working on this case with the Presiding Bishop’s chief shyster counselor.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

———————-
N.B., The initial inclusion of the stricken term is based on the opinion rendered by the senior attorney referenced above in respect to the question of the number of votes required in the TEC HoB to depose a Bishop—an opinion rendered invalid by the plain meaning of the words “a majority of Bishops eligible to vote,” used there and elsewhere in the Constitution and Canons of TEC. It is applied to his apparent junior by association. It is not a term that this writer routinely applies to practitioners of the legal profession. Ergo, if any reader of this comment is an attorney admitted to the bar and does engage int the invention of alternate meanings to clauses in order to obtain his or her client’s desired result, the term will never be used by this writer to apply to that reader.

#45 Thankyou Martial Artist.  Over here attorneys are held to a high standard of truthfulness both to their clients but also to others, for they are also officers of the Court and subject to the discipline of not only their profession but also under their duty to the Court not to mislead.

Mary Kostel is described as a “colleague” in this news release by Episcopal Life.

The Review Committee’s certification from Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, committee chair, said that the committee received submissions alleging Duncan’s abandonment of communion from “counsel representing individuals who are either clergy or communicants in the Diocese of Pittsburgh” and from the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, David Beers, and his colleague, Mary E. Kostel. They asked the Review Committee for a determination.

From the legal dictionary:

Where of counsel follows an attorney’s name on a letterhead or office sign, this designation indicates that the person is employed by the firm primarily as a consultant on specialized matters, not as a full-time partner or associate.

We’ll there you have it in #47s post. If it’s that easy, clearly some of you can come up with charges against KJS, DBB, and the graveyard gang. Heck, +RD might even sign it.

I am sure Ms. Kostel is a fine attorney; she went to an excellent law school and she is well credentialed.  But I laughed when I saw that her firm bio listed her as a specialist in “toxic torts” litigation.  Maybe that links directly into canon law issues…..

Tami ~ “whoa be unto him”?

Yeeha?

#51-Smuggs- Nothing that some sugar cubes or a handful of carrots can’t fix no doubt. Thanks and apologies Tami for indulging our humor gland.
Intercessor

Here is the original second to last paragraph of the letter that had been omitted after it was explained to the PB that since she scrupulously avoids contact with traditionalists of any sort and tends only to communicate with them through her lawyers or in depositions, her recollection must have been simply a powerful dream:

Please remember at all times that I have the qualifications and experience to lead this body in whichever direction I choose.  This has been proven by my courage in the face of sniper fire at the hands of ultra-traditionalist and fundamentalist Anglican Christian elements, even as I had come strictly as a messenger of peace and compassion.  When we had arrived to show our solidarity with people of non-Christian religions, my handlers told me that even if they stopped shooting, we needed to stay away from the far-right Anglican elements because they usually carried very large Bibles and golden censors that they had learned to use as weapons in a variety of clever and subtle ways, especially if you looked them straight in the eye.  They simply could not be trusted because they would draw you in with beautiful unedited statements taken directly from biblical texts combined with symbolic gestures, and then they would broadside you by hitting you with large portions of scripture somehow woven together.

#42, “Of Counsel” usually means that the lawyer is neither a partner nor an associate of the law firm, but is working at the firm. In practical terms, “Of Counsel” usually means that the lawyer and law firm share revenues that the lawyer collects, but the lawyer is not guaranteed a salary and does not share firm profits.

I think that the Presiding Bishop’s disregard of the Canons is appalling. Yet I think that to attribute that disregard to Goodwyn Proctor’s incompetence is misplaced. DBB has probably warned the Presiding Bishop to follow the canons to the letter. The flaw is really in the Presiding Bishop’s judgment. She is so determined to punish Bp. Duncan, et. al. that she is blowing past the procedural defects of TEC’s actions to create facts on the ground. Her ruthless results oriented determination is a sort of lawlessness, complimented by the cowardice among the Bishops in the HoB to confront her and force her to follow TEC’s own rules. This casual disregard of canons now contrasts with TEC’s strict interpretation of the canons against Bp. Lawrence’s election. Remember that? The leadership of TEC is entirely dysfunctional at this point, as TEC disintegrates.

#54 Publius thankyou. 
I suppose that I thought that since according to Episcopal Life it was Mr Beers of Goodwin Procter who advised the House of Bishops on the canons that Goodwin Procter are responsible if Mr Beers misled the HOB?

[54] Publius,

You wrote

I think that to attribute that disregard to Goodwyn Proctor’s incompetence is misplaced. DBB has probably warned the Presiding Bishop to follow the canons to the letter.

Unfortunately, in at least one posted item here at SFIF, a Bishop was quoted (in a published report) as stating that the Chancellor had explicitly asserted that the requirement for a “majority of bishops eligible to vote” could be interpreted as implying the additional prepositional clause “at that meeting,” or words clearly to that effect.

Now, according to my information (from a considerable variety of source documents) Mr. David Booth Beers of the law firm of “Goodwin Procter,” (not Goodwyn Proctor, nor even Goodgrief, Proctologist!) is the person known in TEC HoB circles as “the Chancellor.” So, IMHO, unless the Bishop in question has misspoken (unintentionally or otherwise), or was expressly misquoted, and has failed to amend his remarks, or correct the misquote, in the interval since the HoB meeting, the Chancellor is entitled to the just opprobrium that the attributed opinion so richly deserves.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

#46 Pageantmaster.  Same over here but “high” is subject to   whatever interpretation is available to the user, apparently

#57 thanks for the information john1 as well as Publius and MA.

Pageantmaster (#55) and Martial Artist (#56):

It would be interesting to clarify just who Mr. Beers thinks that his client is. The Episcopal Life article describes him as the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, not the chancellor to the House of Bishops. The distinction matters in several respects. If Mr. Beers views the Presiding Bishop as his client, then he would not feel free to share his real legal opinion with other members of the HoB if his opinion conflicted with whatever position the Presiding Bishop took in the HoB. In private with the PB, Mr. Beers may have told her that her position that deposing bishops takes only a majority vote of the bishops present was shaky, perhaps indefensible. But if the PB rejected that advice and decided to depose a bishop anyway, I think that Mr. Beers would back her in the HoB. A lawyer who viewed his client to be the HoB would see his duty to be to give his honest advice to the HoB collectively.

This counterintuitive way of analyzing the lawyer’s duty to the managers of institutions is used in US corprations all the time.

Episcopalians abor “legalism”, but in attempting to avoid the “legalistic” approach to Canon Law, the Church has fallen into the error of expediency whereby Constitutions and Canons may be changed, or ancient and applicable ones ignored, in favor of the wims and caprices of the moment.
    In matters which affect the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church is morally as well as canonically bound not to act by or for itself alone, but in harmonious agreement with that heritage through which it retains continuity with the past.  The Episcopal Church, its General Convention, its respective Diocesan Conventions, are not, by virtue of Episcopal Orders and the legislative power which accepted them for this Church, separate entities in the stream of spiritual, doctrinal, and canonical Catholic order and discipline.  The ethos and composition of these Conventions, however constitutional and democratic in character, are homogeneous with the heritage and organic structure of Catholic Christendom.  The Episcopal Church speaks as a Catholic Church implanted by God for His purposes in the United States, and these purposes of God cannot be divorced from His will from the rest of Catholic Christendom.  The Episcopal Church speaks through its deliberative and legislative assemblies as a Regional *Forum Externum* whose strength is derived from its membership in the Universal *Forum Externum*, and not from its peculiar national and political situation.  The Church is bound thereby, not merely legally by the canon and universal common law of the Catholic Church, but morally to that doctrinal and disciplinary heritage which it claims for itself through its Episcopal orders, creeds, law, and traditions that it has never rejected.
    There rests, therefore, a moral and legal oblication upon the General Convention of the Protestant Episocopal Church in the United States of America.  That moral obligation is resposibility for the souls over whom the General Convention exercises legislative jurisdiction in this American branch of the Catholic Church.  Legislative action which removes souls from the organic and spiritual stream of Catholic Christendom must be considered as exceeding the powers of a Regional Council of the Catholic Church.  Such legislative action, should it ever occur, must be considered *ultra vires*; it could hardly be imposed without the dire reesults upon the consciences of Episcopal churchmen.  Morally, therefore, as well as canonically the sovereignty of a Regional Church like the Episcopal Church is limited in that it cannot without committing sin separate souls under its care from the Catholic order and life.  It is not a privilege extended to the Universal Church, or to any Regional Church, to deprive souls of the means by which they arrive at their supernatural end, which is union with God thorugh the grace and Sacraments of the Catholic Church, as the Anglican Communion understands it.

It has been suggested that Bp Schori face a presentment.  Technically speaking, one might find the requisite number of bishops and priests to initiate a presentment.  But then once that procedure began, it would have to move through the judiciary committee of the HoB and the HoB itself—and we can well imagine what its fate would be.  There are many clergy and bishops for whom Bp Schori can do no wrong.

We must remember that spiritual blindness, which is rampant amongst the leadership of ECUSA, not only produces ignorance, but it also produces a farm of spiritual insanity, in which everything goes haywire and nothing works as it should.  If you have ever read Lewis’ That Hideous Strength you recall the banquet at the end when the leaders of NICE are rendered incapable of rational speech, and in some cases, of rational action.  That was fiction—but it was a parable telling a spiritual truth.

#59 Thanks for that - all quite understandable if Mr Beers of Goodwin Procter considers that he acts solely for the PB and then if he declines to answer a question from the HOB on the canons or answer ‘no comment’ or ‘I am not in a position to answer that’.

However the reports suggest that he went further than this:-

1. An Episcopal Life article which I linked in #55 reports Mr Beers’ own words:

Chancellor David Booth Beers said votes consenting to the deposition of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox conformed to the canons. 

“In consultation with the House of Bishops’ parliamentarian prior to the vote,” Beers said, “we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail. Therefore, it is our position that the vote was in order”

2. Bishop Price the secretary of the HOB was reported in the Living Church as having endorsed this:

The Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, Bishop Suffragan of Southern Ohio and secretary of the House of Bishops, said it is his understanding, “based on private conversations held prior to the meeting,” that the number of votes necessary to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox was determined by David Booth Beers, chancellor for the Presiding Bishop, and the Rt. Rev. John Clark Buchanan, House of Bishops’ parliamentarian before the start of the house’s March 12 business session

Based on his own words and those of Bishop Price, Mr Beers of Goodwin Procter would appear to have either wilfully misled the House of Bishops or was negligent in his advise to the parliamentarian and HOB?

Hypothetical question:  what would it take to inhibit the PB?

ANSWER: A lot more cojones than anyone in the HOB has shown heretofore, specifically including the so-called Windsor/Camp Allen Bishops.

But do any of them WANT to stand up to her?

Belbury indeed!  The Episcopal Church in the United States seems to be floundering in a sea of confusion, engulfed by a lack of appreciation of its heritage in the General Canon Law of the Catholic Church, and a complete ignorance of, or indifference to, the rules and principles of that Canon Law.  The Episcopal Church is organically, functionally, and spiritually part of that Catholic Church which consists of a body of people, an *ecclesia*, living in the world but acknowledging their supernatural end.
  The Church is a voluntary society.  It exists in a world that is both temporal and spiritual.  The Catholic Church, comprises, in the words of St. Augustine’s *De Civitate Dei*, the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem.  No human society can exist without law, and the purpose of Canon Law is to guide and protect people whose purpose and end of living is ultimate union with God.
*** You are not antinomians.  That is, Episcopalians who live in the heritage of the Catholic Church do not believe that they are “saved” or “predestined for salvation,” and thus freed from all obligations of law, or free to treat the Canon Law as priest and bishop and layman individually chooses.  The present chaos in the law, and in the interpretation of the law, in the Anglican Communion in general and the Episcopal Church in particular, is due to ignorance of or indifference to the rules and principles of Canon Law with which they disagree.  They dislike the Marriage Laws which inhibit their desires; church ment flout the discipline which prohibits “denominational” ministers from participating in our Communion Service.  In the interests of so-called ecumenical fellowship churchmen would disregard or revise, the Rubrics in the Offices for the Ministration of Baptism and the Order of Confirmation concerning the necessity of receiving [Baptism] before receiving Holy Communion!

#51 & #52 . . . I deserved it!  I don’t know where my head was when I wrote that, except to stay that I obviously don’t function well when my anger gland is in overdrive:)

By the way, I am not speaking on my own authority but presenting the understanding of the Joint Committee on Discipline of the American Church Union and the Clerical Union ... articulated in 1952.

#61 AnglicanXn,

You may well be right.  It appears the Windsor Bishops are under the thrall of 815 to such an extent as to render the usefulness of presentment moot, so the prevalent attitude may well be one of futility.  Nonetheless, the Presiding Bishop’s actions are of sufficient egregious extent to merit pro forma presentment, even if no further action were to follow. Windsor Bishops, if any be attentive to this lowly post, either file the presentment charges or be silent and allow 815 to fully engage in its campaign of apostasy and scorched earth.  You have precious, precious, precious little time and capital to waste.  The orthodox remnant is watching, and I believe our memory will be quite long indeed.

[62] Pageantmaster,

It is now my turn to thank you for looking up and citing the statements I remembered reading, and on which I based my use of the stricken word in my response to your question about Beers’ associate. I stand by my pejorative comment, and by the use of the stricken word in the instance of Mr. Beers.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

As many schoolchildren take a spring break, I am happy to see the comment policy and Matthew 5:43-45 taking a holiday with them.  Reading the thread should make it obvious what I mean, but to save people the effort… there’s Irenaeus starting us off with the “tyrants” label, albeit in Latin; Festivus, 21 and 40, adding “jack booted thugs and heretics”; Houseownedbythedog, 27, declaring the PB a non-Christian; ACJ, 31, hitting the high notes with “the disgusting bunch of creeps” around the PB and wishing “Anathema” on “degenerates”; and MA, 45, using a clearly derogatory term.

Moving on…

“of counsel” (or just “counsel” at some firms) is a wonderfully ambiguous title that means different things between different law firms and sometimes even different things with respect to different people within a law firm.  It is a mistake to ascribe much of anything to this title without knowing more.

Publius, 59, and others, Beers is chancellor to the PB, not to the House of Bishops or to TEC generally.  He testified to that in Virginia, IIRC.  And his bio says so.

# Well, DavidH-if the shoe fits….

[69] DavidH,

First, presuming that you may have meant the last item in your critique to apply to me as well, I don’t believe that I so much as implied, let alone explicitly wrote, that Mr. Beers was the “Chancellor to the HoB.” My reference to the HoB was to the meeting at which the conduct in question is reported to have occurred.

Second, yes it is a derogatory term. I think by my use of the adjective pejorative in my post [68] I made it abundantly clear that I was disparaging him. Often times love is best expressed by naming things honestly. If the reported accounts are accurate, a conditional that I specified in the comment to which you refer, then Mr. Beers appears to have been engaging in an unethical or unscrupulous practice. As you will, I assume, have noted at the link to the definition of the stricken word from the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition fits my usage. I don’t believe that “sugar coating” one’s assessment of the apparent official conduct of a public figure is loving in any way. The only other explanation that suggests itself to me for such behavior on his part is rank incompetence, which charge I would seriously doubt. Inasmuch as I am not personally, let alone professionally, associated with the subject of my derogation, and having allowed on every occasion on which I have addressed the action in question for the possibility that the statements on which the assessment is based are inaccurate, I strongly believe that failure to name the act rightly would make me as dishonest as Mr. Beers appears to have been.

I didn’t wish Mr. Beers ill, nor express hatred of him. I simply identified an apparent behavior using unambiguous terminology. I am sorry if that sort of honesty somehow offends your delicate sensibilities.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

David H - I have not used the terms others have used but it is clear from his title that Mr Beers of Goodwin Procter is Chancellor to the PB.  It is also clear that Goodwin Procter are heavily involved to the extent that the PB refers any bishops who can be bother to contact 2 people at Goodwin Procter for the evidence.

I have seen it before, when acting for a client it is very easy to be drawn along into their activities.  You have to be very aware at all stages of your professional duties.

No one has dealt with [1] the disregard of the words of the deposition canon and [2] the evidence that Mr Beers of Goodwin Proctor mis-informed the House of Bishops.

It may need to await a change of regime for the conduct of Goodwin Procter to be looked at properly - but I have known that happen too.

BTW from what I can see this entire scorched earth policy will have been worked out by Goodwin Procter.  It is deliberate and systematic.  Each and every program opposing the will of the PB is to be belittled personally, litigated against and where possible removed.  It is a balance of course against negative reaction from the Communion but Dr Williams’ Christian attempts to keep TEC in are just regarded as weakness so he will be told what he wants to hear while the litigation program continues.  They consider him a patsy.

All that stuff in the HOB about prayer and the Holy Spirit was guff.  The program is that of Goodwin Proctor and the PB has supported their advice fully.

What drives it?  Fear probably - of what will happen if the floodgates open - hence the scorched earth policy.  But of course such policies often lead to the very events so feared.

I have felt for a while that TEC should go until they can start behaving like a real church rather than fly by night lawyers.

Look, it’s the Internet.  Things get said.  I’m not crying in my cornflakes, and I doubt anyone else is either.  But reality does not equal right, especially on a Christian website with a comment policy and a Bible verse that appears as you post.

MA, 71, I did note that you put the word in strike-through, linked to a definition, and gave a lengthy disclaimer.  Perhaps needing to do all that should have been a hint not to use it.  In any event, you then wrote:

If the reported accounts are accurate, a conditional that I specified in the comment to which you refer, then Mr. Beers appears to have been engaging in an unethical or unscrupulous practice.

How exactly?  None of the reported accounts I’ve seen suggest this.  I’ll assume that you’re referring to the Bp Schofield deposition.  Certainly Beers has received plenty of criticism for offering a misinterpretation of the Constitution & Canons.  We have no idea, however, whether his erroneous interpretation was a questionable position that he and his client chose to adopt, a mistake that he later felt unable to take back, a result of carelessness, or something more intentional and sinister.  Unless it’s the last of these, I think your shyster name-calling was inappropriate.

And I would argue that “shyster” is not a loving term, regardless of how accurate it is.

It may be that you were simply joining in anti-lawyer sentiments—in effect, applying the term you used to any lawyer who was wrong about something and whose client is seen as bad.  That’s a sad view, I think.  As Publius points out above, you have no idea who’s driving the car here.  Beers could be giving excellent advice and being ignored (something many many many lawyers are familiar with).  Even setting that aside, someone’s always wrong in every legal case (which the Bp Schofield deposition is not yet and may never be)—the court will agree with one side or the other each time.  Wrong does not equal unscrupulous, unprofessional, or unethical.

Finally, lawyers routinely take positions that are highly implausible.  Indeed, they have a professional duty to be a zealous advocate.  I am genuinely interested in you pointing to reported accounts or sources that show anything more than that with respect to Beers.

MA, nor is shyster a term that ought to be used simply by association, as you explicitly did with respect to Ms. Kostel.

David Booth Beers is a very experienced lawyer who has been involved with the Canons for decades and, according to a retired clergy friend who worked with him on the relevant ECUSA committee, “knows the Canons backwards and forwards.”  Thus, as an “expert” he has no excuse for the kind of mis-reading and mis-application that IMHO has occurred in the cases of both +Cox and +Schofield.

While it’s not helpful to toss out pejoratives, there are some clear guidelines we can properly consider.  As an attorney, he is bound by the standards of professional responsibility of the Bar.  While not wanting to start a debate about what they mean, I think the tenor of them is quite clear.  If you want to read them in full, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct can be found at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM

For purposes of this discussion, I would note that they include the following in the Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities:

[5] A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

The following paragraph from the Preamble is quite interesting when looked at in the situation where a bishop is being considered for the very drastic action of being deposed and is not entitled to any hearing or any representation. 

[8] A lawyer’s responsibilities as a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen are usually harmonious. Thus, when an opposing party is well represented, a lawyer can be a zealous advocate on behalf of a client and at the same time assume that justice is being done. So also, a lawyer can be sure that preserving client confidences ordinarily serves the public interest because people are more likely to seek legal advice, and thereby heed their legal obligations, when they know their communications will be private.

Were there opposing parties who were being “well represented” and thus allowing Beers to “assume that justice” was being done?

And then there is this specific rule which would also seem quite relevant in a situation where “the Chancellor” is the expert who is present at the meeting and is clearly involved in providing advice:

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

One can rightly ask, given what Beers’ reported role was (Bishop Curry stating that the HOB had relied on the advice of canonical experts, etc), whether he violated this rule.  Did he meet the standards of professional responsibility?

David H:

A word for calling a spade a spade, not a two handed earth trenching device utilizing a steel blade somewhat concave and pointed at the insertion locus.

In the history of spades, Mrs. Schori is clearly one, not to be mistaken for something else. I find it acceptable to use lables when there can be no doubt as to their being appropriate. Plain talk and the plain word of God is what is now needed, and would have possibly saved this ancient church from becoming the foul,hopeless wreck it now is.

David H, you say in #69 “Beers is chancellor to the PB.”  I assume that means he is not counsel to KJS personally, but to her as occupant of an office which has its own set of duties to the House as a whole as well as the duties of other bishops.  You say in #74, “Finally, lawyers routinely take positions that are highly implausible.  Indeed, they have a professional duty to be a zealous advocate.  I am genuinely interested in you pointing to reported accounts or sources that show anything more than that with respect to Beers.”

Is your implication then that it would be proper for him to zealously advocate a highly implausible position with respect to the required vote issue (assuming that’s what he did)?

We seem to have the Desert Fathers meet The Firm - interesting clash of cultures.

Pageantmaster, I’ll take a swing at your question in #72 about Mr. Beers’ “mis-informing” the House of Bishops.

We have established that Mr. beers views the Presiding Bishop, not the House of Bishops collectively, and not TEC as an institution, as his client. Now the Presiding Bishop has adopted the legal conclusion that the deposition canon requires the consent of only a majority of the bishops present when the vote is taken, rather than the majority of the whole number of bishops. Set aside for a moment whether her legal conclusion is objectively correct; what matters is that she has adopted that position.

Given his client’s legal position, Mr. Beers would be bound to support that position when questioned by persons who are not his client, including bishops in the House of Bishops, to whom Mr. Beers owes no duties individually or collectively. I analogize this situation to one in which two or more parties enter a contract negotiation and one elects not to hire a lawyer independently to analyze the draft contract. If the unrepresented party asks a lawyer for another party what the contract says, that lawyer can and will provide his client’s interpetation, regardless of whether that interpretation is objectively correct. In the hypothetical the lawyer could not advise the unrepresented party whether it is in his best interest to sign the contract or tell the unrepresented party not to engage his own counsel. That advice would create a conflict of interest. In the HoB, Mr. Beers could not ethically advise other bishops not to engage their own lawyers independently to analyze the Presiding Bishop’s legal conclusion. I am confident that he avoided that pitfall.

#80 Thank you Publius - that certainly is an astonishing conclusion.  So Goodwin Proctor through Mr Beers can be party to misleading, or themselves mislead, the HOB into believing that they have the numbers to depose a bishop when they don’t and lie about the meaning of the canons.  That is - just - staggering.

Two more thoughts. First, Hanks’ citation (#76)to the “fraud on the tribunal” ethics requirements are inapposite, because the House of Bishops is not a tribunal. It is like a party in the hypothetical business negotiation described above who chooses not to have his own lawyer analyze the contract. No one prevented him from engaging his own lawyer, so if he misunderstood what he was doing, he has only himself to blame.
    Second, this very secular concept of the duties of the various parties (such as the Presiding Bishop to her fellow bishops and to the HoB collectively) and her chancellor are entirely inappropriate in a church. Christians should be able to ask each questions without engaging lawyers to do this sort of analysis. So when a bishop asked the PB’s chancellor whether the majority requirements complied with the canon, he was justified in thinking that when the chancellor answered “yes”, he meant “yes” from the perspective of the HoB as an institution, not from the Presiding Bishop’s perspective of deposing the dissidents by hook or by crook. Several bishops have said that the HoB’s atmosphere is hostile and toxic. This sort of incident is evidence of that toxic environment. But responsibility for the poison rests with the Presiding Bishop and her backers, not the lawyers.

[80] Publius,

Your cited comment poses an interesting hypothetical situation, i.e., a scenario that is purely speculative. Nothing available to us that has been cited, whether by direct quotation or paraphrase, of the statements of the principal participants (Beers, the parliamentarian, and the PB) supports the idea that such a scenario pertains.

Quite to the contrary, the accounts in Episcopal Life and on The Living Church, specifically the quotations in comment [59] above, with links to their source articles, suggest that Mr. Beers was one of the “canonical experts” referred to by Bishop Curry of North Carolina.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Publius (80) I am confident that, from the perspective of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the ABA, the House of Bishops is a “tribunal” in which an attorney is bound to follow the rules.  These rules apply in courts and administrative hearings of all sorts.  The point they make relates to the attorney’s duty of candor.

Pageantmaster, one more thought to your point in #81. The conclusion that the Presiding Bishop or her chancellor “lied” or “misled” the HoB is not really a legal determination as much as it is a political one between the Presiding Bishop as chairman of the HoB and the HoB. Think of it this way: who has power to decide that the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation is wrong; how would the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation of the deposition canon be challenged? I think that a bishop would have had to challenge her interpretation from the floor of the House of Bishops. The House would then vote to sustain or overturn the ruling of the chair. That never happened; more evidence of the poison and dysfunction in an ostensible Christian institution.

Now I think that if a deposed bishop suffers an injury cognizable by a civil court, such as loss of pension, the civil court can also examine the canon and independently evaluate whether TEC complied with it.

#85 Publius. 
I must say I was not looking at it from the point of the HOB and their rights against Goodwin Proctor.  I was looking at it solely from the point of view of the duty of Goodwin Proctor in relation to the House of Bishops and generally to third parties to speak truth.  But you tell me they are under no such obligation.

I should learn to spell Goodwin Procter with an ‘e’.

[74] DavidH,

I do not have sufficient time to lay it all out for you. However, if you examine the quotations in Pageantmaster‘s comment [59] above in light of the “our polity does not allow us” response to a wide variety of issues including the Dar es Salaam communique request, and a wide variety of other reported events and statements, and then pay particular attention to the actual wording of the canons, Mr. Beers reported speculative invention in collaboration with the parliamentarian supports the very assertion you question. If you are not satisfied, please feel perfectly free to do as much research as you like to show that I am somehow misreading the reported data.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist, Publius or others,
This is really just laziness on my part, but can anyone point to the canon that spells out the duties of the Chancellor.  Until this recent discussion, I had been under the impression that the chancellor was the “Chancellor of the Episcopal Church” as opposed to the PB’s chancellor.  Given the way the office has been carried on in the last few years, there have been moments when it appeared, in practice, to be part of a triumvirate with the PB and President of the House of Deputies.  Is it indeed spelled out that the Chancellor is actually the PB’s personal attorney, or does he work for the people who pay his salary, which is to say, the whole of the Episcopal Church?
Thanks,
TJ

TJ, 89, from Canon I.2.5:

The Presiding Bishop may appoint, as Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, a confirmed adult communicant of the Church in good standing who is learned in both ecclesiastical and secular law, to serve so long as the Presiding Bishop may desire, as counselor in matters relating to the office and the discharge of the responsibilities of that office.

There are other mentions elsewhere, but that’s the key one.

MA, 88, I won’t pick on you about the lack of time thing because I’ve had that problem myself.  Life before blogs, as it were.  But your response confirms the premise of my earlier post—you’re taking your conclusion that Beers was wrong, pairing it with an assumption about his expertise, and then taking a giant leap to the judgment that his behavior was unethical.  Nothing in the quotes in post 62, or in the articles that they came from, resolves the problem I mentioned earlier:

We have no idea, however, whether [Beers’] erroneous interpretation was a questionable position that he and his client chose to adopt, a mistake that he later felt unable to take back, a result of carelessness, or something more intentional and sinister.

I repeat that unless you can demonstrate it’s the last of these, the aspersions on Beers’ ethics are inappropriate.  (You would also do better just calling him unethical, rather than using “shyster”, given its origins and connotations.)

Mike Watson, 78, asked

Is your implication then that it would be proper for him to zealously advocate a highly implausible position with respect to the required vote issue (assuming that’s what he did)?

Yes.  (As others have pointed out above, what is proper is not necessarily all you would hope for from religious leaders, but that’s a separate question.)

To Hanks in 76, there are a number of problems with your post.  First and foremost, the HoB is not the legal system, so the Model Rules aren’t at issue.  Second, Bps Schofield and Cox opted not to show up or send an advocate.  They can hardly complain about not being represented.  Third, the HoB includes people who self-identify as lawyer bishops and a parliamentarian.  (Not to mention that one would hope every Bishop is diligent and smart enough to review the deposition canons before voting on them.)  Let’s not pretend that Beers hoodwinked a bunch of hicks with fancy lawyerin’.  Finally, Model Rule 3.3, which you emphasize, requires knowingly doing one of the listed things.  But at this point, you’re just assuming that, like MA.

‘shyster’ - Def: a person (especially a lawyer or politician) who uses unscrupulous or unethical methods
wordnet.princeton.net
Probably Yiddish I imagine as so many ‘sch’ words are and expressive; if not often onomatopoeic.

Given George Conger’s article above someone should have a jolly good look at what Goodwin Procter have been up to.

From the American Heritage Dictionary on dictionary.com:

  Word History: Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally “one who defecates,” from the verb scheissen, “to defecate,” with the English suffix -ster, “one who does,” substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a bitch. Sheisser is generally thought to have been borrowed directly into English as the word shicer, which, among other things, is an Australian English term for an unproductive mine or claim, a sense that is also recorded for the word shyster.

And although it appears questionable whether the word’s origins really mean this, Wikipedia captures the connotation problem: “A shyster is someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics, or a con artist. While now applied in a non-ethnic-specific sense, the term has anti-semitic connotations.”

David H., however anti-semitic the word’s origin may be, it is most commonly used in America today to describe lawyers - who may be of any ethnicity. Merriam-Webster says: “a person who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics : pettifogger.” I think the anonymous Wikipedia author is overreaching himself to claim that it has anti-semitic undertones now. I had never heard of such a connection until your post, nor, I imagine, have many who use the word.

Then again according to the Telegraph:
Shyster has no Jewish connection at all, despite sounding like it might be Yiddish slang. The dictionary definition is “an unscrupulous or disreputable practitioner in any profession or business”. The term actually derives from the word shy, in the sense of being short in payment or of doubtful repute

and then again the Concise Oxford English Dictionary online:
shyster

  • noun informal a person, especially a lawyer, who uses unscrupulous methods.

  — ORIGIN said to be from Scheuster, the name of a lawyer.

David H (90), the Model Rules apply to LAWYERS regardless of the forum in which they are practicing.  I have no doubt that these rules apply in this situation—and would apply whether a lawyer is appearing before a trial court, an appellate court, a hearing before an administrative board, a mediation session or a session of the House of Bishops.  All are “tribunals” and a lawyer’s duty of candor apply in every situation.

I would also note that there is NO right to a hearing or to be represented before the HOB pursuant to Canon IV.9 (the “abandonment of communion” canon).  It’s one of the outrages of the use of this Canon to accomplish the drastic action of deposing a bishop.  Due process does not exist in these cases—all the more reason for the PB and her lawyer to act with great responsibility.  That’s why I pointed out the language in paragraph 8 of the Preamble about the distinction between when an individual is “well represented” and when they are not.

You are trying far too hard to absolve Beers of his responsibility to abide by the standards of professional conduct that all lawyers have when we act as advocates on behalf of our clients.  We are obliged to live under these rules as lawyers—and, I would add, have an additional burden of following these rules as Christians.

I made no assumption about Beers’ conduct.  I simply pointed out the rules he is bound to follow.  Given what I believe are the clear violations of the requirements of Canon IV.9, it’s only fair to ask Beers to answer for his actions.

[90] DavidH,

Actually your analysis is, in some sense, overwrought. I was

(a) looking at what Mr. Beers is quoted as saying,

(b) taking the fact that Mr. Beers is a lawyer in an American law firm,

(c) assuming (in part based on the preceding fact) that he is literate in English,

(d) reading the plain words of the relevant canons,

(e) noting the strained or fanciful assumption he and the parliamentarian are alleged to have made in the following:

“we both agreed that the canon meant a majority of all those present and entitled to vote, because it is clear from the canon that the vote had to be taken at a meeting, unlike the situation where you poll the whole House of Bishops by mail”

and then, and only then,

(f) concluding that Mr. Beers was, most probably, acting unethically and/or unscrupulously in the practice of law on behalf of the PB.

Put in straightforward English, I did not start from a conclusion as you explicitly assumed in your comment. Further, to go from the basic assumptions that I have herein stated to a conclusion that Mr. Beers actions were most probably unethical and/or unscrupulous would not be considered a “giant leap” (as you phrased it) in the opinion of anyone with whom I am familiar. Rather, it is what I think would most honestly be referred to as a simple, reasonable and logical “considered” opinion. Based on the facts at hand the only other rational explanations are that Mr. Beers has suddenly become either incompetent or illiterate, both of which are substantially less probable than the opinion I expressed. Irrespective of anyone else’s opinion on the matter, the explanation that he was representing his uncooperative client’s goals and interests AND that such conduct is either ethical or scrupulous, beggars credibility.

This will be my last comment on what is, by now, essentially off-topic to this thread.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

DavidH (#90)  You neglect that the Chancellor is not representing KJS personally but as the occupant of an office within an organization in connection with the discharge of the duties of that office.  The position is provided for in the canons and the TEC pays the fees.  To say that it would be proper in such a position for him to zealously advocate a highly implausible position (your words), not in adversarial matter with an unrelated party but as to a matter concerning the internal affairs of the organization itself, is, using the words of Pageantmaster above, an astonishing conclusion.  I would recommend looking at the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, particularly the parts dealing with organizational clients.

Hanks, 96, I disagree.  All of the other tribunal examples you cite are places where the force of law, of the legal system, is at issue.  It is obvious if you read the Model Rules that they are written for such situations.  The HoB does not have the force of law.  Indeed, as Bps Schofield and Cox are showing, the most severe action that the HoB can take is essentially meaningless.

As to representation, weren’t Bps Schofield and Cox members of the HoB until deposed?  Therefore, wouldn’t they have the right to attend and argue on their own behalf?  Again, they chose not to.

MA, I don’t assume you’re starting from a conclusion.  I have argued that you’re taking leaps to get there, and I think your step-by-step analysis makes that clearer.  (On a side note, you plainly don’t believe it’s possible for Beers to have been mistaken, given his status as an experienced lawyer.  If only that were true…)

I am not trying to absolve Beers.  I hope that there is an investigation and that we get a persuasive / authoritative report on what the deposition canons mean and the effect (or lack thereof) of the Bps Schofield and Cox depositions.  If it’s found that the PB or Beers willfully ignored the canons or misled the HoB, there should be consequences.  What I have objected to in the recent posts in this thread is the rush to judgment without much evidence.

David, the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to all lawyers no matter in what setting they are functioning.  A meeting of the House of Bishops is a part of Canon Law, which is recognized as a component of the total legal system.  The real point I’m trying to make is that the Rules apply to lawyers no matter what they do in a professional capacity.  I spent several of my early years at the American Bar Foundation dealing with issues of professional misconduct and I can assure you that these Rules apply in the situation where DBB appears in a professional capacity before the House of Bishops (or at General Convention).

#99 & #100, Mr. Beers is bound by the relevant states’ codes of conduct in all of his actions as an attorney. Having just endured a batch of CLE on the subject, I can assure you that is the case.

However, Mr Beers is not acting as an arbiter. Rather, he is the Presiding Bishop’s counselor and advocate. His responsibility is not to the House of Bishops to tell it what the rules are, but rather to the Presiding Bishop. At least that is how I believe he sees his role.

I doubt that he sees himself as having any duty to impartiality in his representations. Especially when dealing with parties outisde of the attorney-client relationship. The proper way to evaluate anything Mr Beers or his colleagues say is to grant the statements the same credibility you would grant them if you were a mine worker suffering from black lung disease and he represented the mine company.

I fear His Justice. I pray for His Mercy.

As stated earlier, Beers attitude is clearly one of “Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.”

TEO will do what it wants because it can, and all of the wailing about canon violations etc will not change their behavior.

The positive in all of this is that the wider AC is recognizing TEO as the tyrants that they are.

Mousestalker, you are right that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply across the board to all lawyers.  When you suggest, however, that Beers owes a duty ONLY to KJS (because she is his client), you miss the point of the Rules.  There are duties that go beyond what an attorney owes to his client—for example, the rule regarding candor I cited above.  Thus he needs to exercise great care when he goes beyond advising KJS and steps into a role of advising the HOB or its Parliamentarian.  It’s worth reading the whole of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which you can find at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM

BillS, you also are right that Beers and KJS have a “we don’t need no stinkin’ rules” attitude.  Maybe they can get away with that in TEC because of their ability to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.  However, as an attorney, Beers owes a separate responsibility regarding his professional conduct—and violations can be brought to the attention of and acted on by the local Bar of which he is a member.  Remember what Arkansas did to Bill Clinton regarding his license to practice.

There is much discussion here of 1. Mr. Beer’s client and 2.  his advice.  On the second issue, many here are stating, as if fact, that Mr. Beer’s advice was poor or wrong.  Although Mr Conger and some others may have said Beer’s opinion that those eligible to vote meant those at the meeting eligible to vote was wrong, there is no ruling by the apprpriate judicatory that that is the case, and although Mr. Conger may report his judgment that it was wrong, and even report it as “news”, his judgment does not make it fact.  Second, our diocese recently discussed the question of who is the chancellor’s client?  Although the canons commitee discussing the issue was only doing so as a side concern to the issue at hand, all participants agreed that the “ecclesiastical authority” of the diocese was the client.  I served as a member of the committee and would be interested if the attorney s here present and canon lawyers have an opinion on our take on the matter and whether it is applicable to TEC?

Hey folks—it’s fine to debate about Beers and his actions.  Please cease on the rabbit trail of yesterday evening about the origins of words.  If the commenatrix had a problem with any of the words being used, she’d delete them and warn the commenter.  However, the random comments about the origins of words are off-topic and tedious to wade through.

Thanks.

63 & 67 - When a presentment was filed against +Smith of Connecticut, I believe they sat on it for a long time and finally acquitted him.  But they put him a trial board even BEFORE they found him innocent.  (Sorry, I couldn’t find a link.)

I do agree that something should be filed against the PB for the record (and the Google cache), no matter what the probable outcome.  Laying out the case clearly could also sway a few Beloved Moderates.

Also, all of this brings to mind BabyBlue’s Heckenstein’s (??) law (can’t remember the exact name and couldn’t find a link) which is something about not rushing to blame malignant intentions when the outcome can also be attributed to simple stupidity or incompetence

DavidH, I am not a lawyer or learned, but this came to mind: 

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
    And what does the LORD require of you?
    To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly with your God.

Where are all the Bishops and those in power who can put a stop to all this.  If this rampage continues something is going to have to give either through a communion split or more and more multi-million dollar lawsuits. 

If we have a President who does lousy job, we don’t leave the country, we impeach them and kick them out of office.  Instead of everyone leaving TEC, why not go to the root cause of the problem at 815 and fire her and those supporting this witch hunt.  Not only is she bankrupting TEC morally, she is doing it financially as well with all the lawsuits. 

And for those bishops who are sitting by watching this happen, shame on you. Martin Luther and his followers had the courage to set in motion the forces that created the first reformation.  Who will history record as being responsible for the second.  Will you be remembered for saving Christs Church or allowing it to be destroyed?  Either way,be prepared to answer because God is sure to ask you.

DJ, it’s one thing to want to fire KJS and her bunch….that’s fine, but who’s gonna do it?  Who’d be brave enough to bite the bullet and buck the crowd?  And what good would it do if they WERE fired?  We’d still have the mess created by forty years of “progressivity,” “inclusiveness,” and experimentation. 

And please don’t misunderstand me:  I do support inclusion of all believing Christians….except non-celibate gays (and I believe in ministering to them in an effort to try to get them to abandon what so many regard as a sinful lifestyle) and those who decry 2,000 years of Church teachings.

Unless and until that mess is cleaned up, nothing will change.  Is there any chance that a cleanup will ever happen? 

Can pigs fly?

Sarah, sorry, that wasn’t the main point for me.  Should have resisted heading down the rabbit trail.

Cathy Lou, I agree—the issue being debated about Beers and legal ethics rules is separate from what the issue of good Christian conduct, and I think that whatever one’s thoughts on the legal issues are, one would hope that people follow the higher Christian standard.

It’s interesting that the secular rules and standards (for example, those of the American Bar Association and local Bars) may offer a higher standard than what TEC perceives to be their duty as a “Christian” church.

If they were to follow God’s standard which Cathy Lou quoted above—“to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly” with God—we wouldn’t be in this TEC-created mess.  It seems that KJS and Beers want to follow neither God’s or society’s standard, but the desires of their own hearts.