Schori Distributes Email on Deposing +Duncan

“The other one”.....Poor David.

Do we get to see this email in question?

Will failure to respond count as a voice vote in favor of deposition?

The responses to this query will be very interesting, especially in light of the concerns expressed regarding the canonical abuse.  If the bishops vote for a May meeting, it suggests that they all have enthusiastically drunk the koolaid.  If there is no May meeting, then it could be a sign of unease on the part of the bishops with the actions of the Glorious Schoricialist Leader and her Chief Minion Leon Booth Beersky.

UPDATE: The email reportedly is very brief, and simply asks for yes-or-no responses on whether the bishops would like to have a special meeting in May.

I’m suspicous of the timing.  It may actually be a surprise bridal shower for Gene!

I wonder if Bp+ Duncan will receive the email?
Intercessor

#4 - Well, the WHOLE House of Bishops must vote, no?

Dear Presiding Bishop Schori,

Thank you for asking whether we should have a special meeting in May.  After much prayerful discernment, we have decided that no meeting is necessary and you have our proxy to do whatever you feel like doing on our behalf.  If you receive any email responses to the contrary from any other bishops, please be assured that it is just some mischievous teenage hackers fooling around, and disregard their input.

Cheerful regards,

The Whole Episcopal House of Bishops
(Minus Bob Duncan—we didn’t tell him.)

I’ll wager that the Rev. Dr. Pennyfeather has the PB’s e-mail.

If true (and I have not a whit of a reason to think otherwise), SchoriaLaw can be the prime example of the effects of the ABC’s recommendations regarding such privileging in any society.  I trust the ABC is bright enough to know of the deep respect our PResiding Oceanographer is showing canons in our little enclave.  It bodes not well for the AC or his ideas for the BC.

Glorious Schoricialist Leader and her Chief Minion Leon Booth Beersky.

Brilliant.
Intercessor

If they say “no,” can she simply organize a separate House of Bishops to say “yes”?

I wonder what the canon says about what notice is required to call a meeting of the HoB. In corporate law directors and stockholders can waive notice requirements, if there is unanimous consent.

With the erosion in TEC’s observance of its own rules the HOB’s violation of such canons can be expected. If a civil court reviews the HoB action because Bp. Duncan has sustained a civil injury, TEC’s violations will not help TEC’s legal position.

But TEC’s legal position before a court in the distant future is not the point. The point is to have somebody besides Bp. Duncan claiming to be the Bishop of Pittsburgh before the Diocesan convention can meet this Autumn. The PB already asked the HoB to meet in May and was rebuffed. She clearly does not like that answer and is determined to have the HoB meeting.

Maybe Schori could take the money she proposes to blow on this boondoggle and give it to a pro-MDG cause?  Or to anti-hamburger activists?

Thanks for posting the email.

What would happen if we all sent a “No” to that email address?  That would be pretty funny.

(Greg, you should probably remove the email address…it’s a great temptation.)

SDO,

Yep - just noticed it. Now removed.

So who will bring presentment charges against the PB in a May meeting?

Doesn’t ANYONE at 815 know how to use message options/polling buttons in MS Outlook?  Sheesh!

The question is, do they need 148 bishops to say yes to the meeting (ie: 50% of the HoB plus one, the number canonically necessary to depose without trial), or do they need a majority of a quorum of 68, which is to say, 35?  My guess is that she can get 35 bishops together to vote for deposition, and 33 to stand around and raise no objection.  Which leaves the vast majority of the HoB with no need to trouble themselves with showing up. That sounds crazy, but it worked last month, why not next?

Of course there should be a meeting to discuss the lousy donuts the guy makes.  Good coffee, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for us to remain in communion with him!  What?  Hes not that Duncan?  Never mind!

The question is, do they need 148 bishops to say yes to the meeting (ie: 50% of the HoB plus one, the number canonically necessary to depose without trial), or do they need a majority of a quorum of 68, which is to say, 35?  My guess is that she can get 35 bishops together to vote for deposition, and 33 to stand around and raise no objection.  Which leaves the vast majority of the HoB with no need to trouble themselves with showing up. That sounds crazy, but it worked last month, why not next?

They’ll use whatever is at hand, TJ.  +Duncan will not even have been inhibited and the drooling, mouth-breathing kangaroo court will bellow its assent to the Presiding Plaintiff’s demand to defenestrate yet another who defies her absolute rule.

Questions for 815: When you are done, will we have only 3 dioceses of Pittsburgh (like San Joaquin) or are you trying for 4 this time.  Or maybe 5- the real one, the elected standing committee one, and then one each for KJS, DBB and Bonnie Anderson. That would avoid any jealousies arising among the triumvirate.  With apologies to triumvirates past.

Why not let the PB go out for a couple of cold ones with 3 or 4 ovenmitters and get the damn thing over with. It’s in the canons just ask DDB and EmilyH…
Intercessor

Why do people keep asking for presentment charges against KJS?  If she were removed, would that solve all the problems?  She would be replaced by another member of the HOB - how would that be an improvement???

I suppose the fact that she is proceeding at this time means that three bishops of jurisdiction have canonically certified that Bp. Duncan is currently in the midst of some enormous family emergency, and therefore is a pastorally appropriate subject for deposition.

As DBB might say, must follow the canonical precedents of Bp. MacBurney (dying son) and Bp. Cox (ailing wife)!

Very true, CarolynP.  Schori is the fruit of a tree whose roots have drawn the poison of faithlessness for decades.  The tree is corrupt and must be destroyed root and branch.

And no story on the inhibition of +MacBurney?

“exact date and loctation to be determined”
There is a ranch in West Texas near Eldorado that is open if they need a place to meet.

On reading your comment, tired #24, I think +Duncan’s going to be OK.  As far as I know (prayers it stays that way), he doesn’t have any badly ill or suffering close family members.  Doesn’t that disqualify him from Schori’s hit list?

[28] “Doesn’t that disqualify him…”

One would think!

I echo your prayers.

Well, I think it is pretty clear that there are 2 points to this campaign against orthodox bishops.  Point one is to get those few of us left in TEC who have any recollection of what this church once was to leave.
Point two is to make the Global South so angry that they break relations with Canterbury.
  On point one, it would have been better for them to have recognized the Network, divided the church along doctrinal lines, and perhaps both churches would co-exist and both maintain relationships with Canterbury.  Of course, that would have been possible with a church, but much more difficult in a real estate investment corporation.
  On point two, the last I knew, the Bishop of San Joaquin maintained his Lambeth invitation- which makes him, without question, at least for the time being, the legitimate Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin.
  I keep noting both the ferocity and the panic coming out of 815 in recent times.  Perhaps they know something about Lambeth invitations, or the Anglican Covenant process, or something else that we don’t know.  Something has them very frightened.  For some reason, they do not see themselves as having much time to get these things done.  Maybe its just that they don’t want to give any bishops time to actually read the canons before the meeting.

Oh, no no no no no! The PBess can’t have it both ways! If e-mails of approval wouldn’t suffice for the election of the Bishop for South Carolina, they can’t suffice for this!

I keep noting both the ferocity and the panic coming out of 815 in recent times.  Perhaps they know something about Lambeth invitations, or the Anglican Covenant process, or something else that we don’t know.  Something has them very frightened.  For some reason, they do not see themselves as having much time to get these things done.  Maybe its just that they don’t want to give any bishops time to actually read the canons before the meeting.

I opined this a few weeks ago…there seems to be a great frenzy now in TEO to get matters settled by the greatest possible violence, one that does not appear to have an overt cause.  Perhaps a Lambeth ambush in the offing?  Might GafCon be a coalescing of the forces that will once and for all deal with these heretics?

<blockquote>There is a ranch in West Texas near Eldorado that is open if they need a place to meet. </blockqquote> I don’t think they will meet in Texas, since the government there was so recently involved in disrupting the polity of that hierarchical church near Eldorado.

TJ:

Maybe its just that they
don’t want to give any bishops time to actually read the canons before the meeting.

TJ…I do not think that the world is in any danger from that happening.
Intercessor

The PBess can’t have it both ways!

  Of course she can, she is the poster child for pluriform truth.

Getting rid of +Schori probably wouldn’t salvage TEC (somehow I can’t see the HOB replacing her with +Duncan or +Iker).  However, if she were replaced by someone who realized what a financial and PR disaster her scorched earth policy is becoming, the rest of the church might split in a more reasonable way.  Well, maybe I’m dreaming…

“Brief meeting…”??  If one bishop (Mark Lawrence? Jack Iker?) has the stomach to raise the issue of the number of bishops necessary to vote to depose a bishop, I doubt it will be a “brief” meeting.  Also, my own month of May is already jammed, and I am retired; hard to imagine that diocesan bishops can set aside other obligations and convene at an agreed time and place.  Please, someone remember to ask for a quorum.

Even though I’m a solid reasserter, most of the comments seem to violate either the letter or the spirit of the “no-whining zone” admonition. It’s always helpful to maintain a sense of humor but this is deadly serious business and these people are playing for keeps. We best maintain our vigilence at all times.

What’s with all the fuss Katie? Remember TEC is ruled by Shoria law. Just click your heels three times and tell that rascal Duncan…“I depose you,I depose you,I depose you” and it’s done!
Shalom,
Intercessor

Since only the recipient will see all the emails, can’t we assume that a May meeting of the HoB is a forgone conslusion?  The result of the poll will be positive by definition.  The question I have is: “Will they re-depose Bishop Schofield?”

carl

Intercessor,
I must admit you are correct.  The bishops had months to read up before last month’s charade, and not one did.

TEC and KJS appear bent on doing in the next 4 months what we have been completely unable to do in the last 5 years.  Force the Archbishop of Canterbury to make a decision.  If KJS is successful in forcing through a deposition of Robert Duncan, a bishop who is held in high esteem even by most in the Communion who do not agree with him, and by virtually all who do agree with him theologically, she will cause the Communion to rupture one way or the other.  +Rowan will have to choose whether to break with TEC and maintain recognition of Duncan, or break with most of the rest of the world, and all of us, by withdrawing his invitation.

Since only the recipient will see all the emails, can’t we assume that a May meeting of the HoB is a forgone conslusion?

  Tell you what….if you are a bishop voting “no” you can cc: me.  Or maybe better, cc: Stand Firm (after all, I am not really a reliable source).

It gets worse, much worse:
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_398.shtml
The inhibition letter for Bp. MacBurney arrived 2 days after his son died.  I just saw this, I don’t know if it has been posted earlier. I am going to sign off now and say some prayers for the good bishop, his son, and the Church.

God bless all
TJ

Well, I’m very glad for one thing: a number of letters will be reaching my bishop about just this issue in the next few days. All will state the same opinion: please vote “no” to any inhibiting action against the bishop of Pittsburgh. Prayers need to be numerous at this time, but so do letters, e-mails, phone calls. Please remember that someday we may be called to account for what we did or didn’t do.

[#32] Jeffersonian wrote:

There seems to be a great frenzy now in TEO to get matters settled by the greatest possible violence

I think this is right, but I don’t think the haste comes from a perception of weakness in TEC.  Quite the contrary, I think TEC perceives itself to occupy a position of strength.  TEC (correctly) perceives that it has RW in its pocket, and so it is moving with great dispatch to exploit the opportunity. 

I think TEC is trying to force its more determined opponents out of the Anglican Communion.  TEC has never had such a moment to seize control as it does right now.  RW will not move against TEC.  And conservatives will not compromise on principle.  So TEC has only to ‘re-inforce the contradictions’ by deposing conservative leaders.  If they can induce RW to pull some Lambeth invitations on technicalities, they will irretrievably sever the orthodox from Canterbury.

If TEC can pull this off, it will simultaneously recast the AC as a federation of national churches united only by history, remove its opponents from the Communion, isolate its domestic oppositon from Canterbury, and become the de facto leader of the AC yet with an emasculated RW as its front man.  It’s brilliant.

carl

Rev. 2:12 “Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe for the earth and for the sea: because the devil is gone down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.

The inhibition letter for Bp. MacBurney arrived 2 days after his son died

Bishop Schori could hardly believe her luck.  A chance to stick it to a reasserter with a freshly dead son.  How many times is an opportunity like that going to come around?  Carpe Diem.

And why not Carl?  TEC is ALREADY….for all intents and purposes….a “communion” of its own.  They’re certainly widespread enough! 

As for us in the Southern Cone:  Who cares about TEC?  I sure don’t!

[45] carl,
I am thinking that you are right. The frenzy is from the great opportunity presented right now before Lambeth.
So, could you expand on what you are seeing and add in the implications for the orthodox?

TJMcMahon (#41) wrote

If KJS is successful in forcing through the deposition of Duncan…she will cause the communion to rupture one way or the other.

Sorry TJMcMahon.  Normally I agree with you on absolutely everything. Normally, actually, I read your posts and think, “Boy, that’s the conclusion that I would have come to had I had time to consider things so deeply…”

But I don’t agree with you this time.  It seems like, for the past year, EVERYTHING has thought to have been the proverbial straw to break this proverbial camel’s back. But nothing does. 

Or maybe the camel’s back is already broken, but the camel isn’t dead yet, and everyone is finding out that as long as the camel is lying in the dust and puffing away uselessly, they can go about business as usual.

OK here it is: if someone somehow removed the Presiding Hamburglar from office, am I the only one who sees that the next one would be G. Robinson??

Well, even if they were slowed down, helpmelord, the conservatives in the US who wanted to remain in the AC might have a better time through it.

But the main reason to bring presentment charges against the PB is because its the right thing to do.  It would be good to see how many recognize it and are willing to follow the action.  It might be good information for allies in the Anglican Communion to know who tries to do the right thing when the chips are down.

TEC lost in a State of VA court and may lose in others.  I’d like to know who really finds the lawlessness of 815 intolerable and who doesn’t.

Bishop Schori could hardly believe her luck.  A chance to stick it to a reasserter with a freshly dead son.  How many times is an opportunity like that going to come around?  Carpe Diem. 

To be fair, I’m sure that wasn’t deliberate.
It was, however, staggeringly callous or just insensitive. But, then again, she is the Presiding Bishop so she must have pastoral insight that “other ones” like me can’t plumb.

[#49] DejaVu

[C]ould you expand on what you are seeing and add in the implications for the orthodox?

I maintain the most important outcome of this crisis is that Truth be clearly separated from falsehood.  Therefore the worst possible outcome for conservatives would be stasis in the Anglican Communion.  That would simply mean a continuance of the current incoherence.  Division is necessary. In fact, if we declare that the most important outcome of this crisis is that Truth be clearly separated from falsehood, then division is imperative. 

There is an odd alignment of interests between conservatives and liberals.  Both have come to the conclusion that the problems of the AC can only be solved by the removal of the other.  And they are both right.  The AC cannot remain half-slave and half-free.  In the short run, it might be difficult.  It might even lead to a scattering of the Communion into national churches.  But ultimately it is the only chance for there to be any sort of Global Anglican Communion free of liberal corruption. 

So, ironically enough, I think this is all to the good of the orthodox.  The fact that TEC is now taking actions to deliberately divide the communion even as conservatives prepare for GAFCON means division is all but certain.  This division will implode the CoE, however.  The focus of the historic Communion will cease to exist.  We must accept that reality.  Yet since the CoE is also infected with the liberal virus, that outcome is also to the good of the orthodox.

Some conservatives might object that any AC without Canterbury is no AC.  They will find this reality catastrophic.  I personally believe that the actions of ACI can only be understood in these terms - that they have written off the orthodox in the US as beyond saving.  These look to preserve the global institution and will tolerate the doctrinal incoherence as a necessary cost.  So many will disagree with me.  How one answers this question of institution vs doctrine will greatly affect ones opinion of the impending division.

carl

#45 Carl. spot on!

I think this is right, but I don’t think the haste comes from a perception of weakness in TEC.  Quite the contrary, I think TEC perceives itself to occupy a position of strength.  TEC (correctly) perceives that it has RW in its pocket, and so it is moving with great dispatch to exploit the opportunity.

I think TEC is trying to force its more determined opponents out of the Anglican Communion.  TEC has never had such a moment to seize control as it does right now.  RW will not move against TEC.  And conservatives will not compromise on principle.  So TEC has only to ‘re-inforce the contradictions’ by deposing conservative leaders.  If they can induce RW to pull some Lambeth invitations on technicalities, they will irretrievably sever the orthodox from Canterbury.

If TEC can pull this off, it will simultaneously recast the AC as a federation of national churches united only by history, remove its opponents from the Communion, isolate its domestic oppositon from Canterbury, and become the de facto leader of the AC yet with an emasculated RW as its front man.  It’s brilliant.

carl

I don’t know the canons, but surely there should be some indication of the subject of the meeting?

To paraphrase, if they do this before Lambeth what will they do afterwards?  Or after GC 2009?

I am thinking that the timing for this meeting is calculated to meet the Windsor Continuation Group Lambeth Invites deadlines.  Bob Duncan needs to be deposed in time to get his Lambeth Invite withdrawn by this group personally appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Is this Schori is in such a rush?  What do you think?

bb

Since TEC is not following any canons, is there any way that Pittsburgh could hold their diocesan convention early, vote some kind of amendment of the requirement that it meet in October, and vote to leave TEC before Schori can depose Duncan?  Without his leadership they won’t be able to escape TEC en masse, will they? Is there a way? 
It is very hard for people who aren’t willing to break the rules to contend with people who play so fast and loose with them.  I am not personally involved in this but find myself concerned; possibly because I heard Bishop Duncan speak to a small group locally and was so favorably impressed by him.  Also it is awful to think what will happen to all of those faithful parishes if Duncan is pushed out and some TEC minion is put in his place.  What a distressing story!
Susan Peterson

Yes, eulogos, there is!  Diocesan bishops have the right, I believe, to call a special convention with the concurrence of the Standing Committee of their diocese, for various purposes, and I don’t think that normally there is any rule which says there has to be one calendar year between conventions.

I can’t believe that many bishops would want to be on record of favoring so many depositions of their fellow bishops, they must realize that the ease with which bishops are deposed could affect their own future job security.

And that includes Katharine Jefferts Schori, Betty!

Regarding Dio Pitt and amended canons/constitution—if my memory serves me correctly, the canons/constitution of Pittsburgh requires a one-year interval between actions to approve changes.  If so, it requires this interval to keep changes being made with hot heads, and is a wise requirement, although rather inconvenient in our current circumstances.

#57, BabyBlue. You may be right about the timing. One other factor may be the need to get him out of Pittsburgh before they have their annual convention. Sumer is icumen en and while lhude sing cuccu, it’s also hard to get a group of people as large as the House of Bishops together.during vacation time.

I doth have a blog thingy

#57—Bishop Lillibridge is part of the Windsor Group.  Do we know how he voted on the +Schofield and +Cox depositions?

She could just lie and say that she got enough consents to hold a May meeting…who would know?

Betty (#60), I think part of the point of this little display of litigation is to cow the bishops. If the Presiding Persecutor (I forgot who came up with that one, but it’s the best one yet) tosses bishops out of the church with such abandon, who is safe? The ones who suck up to her most closely. Every new action she takes diminishes her more. People lose their taste for a witch hunt after awhile. Even revisionists, I bet.

Ya’ know, KJS could same a lot of bandwidth and reduce her Carbon Footprint if she’d just cut to the chase and resort to the “Knock on the door in the middle of the night.”
It’s clear that she expects total ascent to her agenda.  It’s a zero-sum game and disent will not be tolerated.

This is my comment on another blog.  I think we should do this on Pitt. FW. & Quincy.

I’m passing out little miniature courtrooms on Sunday to the kids which say: “I met Bishop Katherine and I’m ready to be sued.”

p.s. all email replies with the unacceptable ‘no’ will be modified by our mail server and the word ‘yes’ will be substituted in your email…

oops, forgot this

Carl (#54) - I’m glad there are people like you that are smart enough to lay it all out as clearly as you just did.  There’s nothing in your post that I could disagree with.  In the end we will all be better off, and the GCC sect will consume itself, as it can only thrive on hate, and its target will be gone.

“Every new action she takes diminishes her more. People lose their taste for a witch hunt after awhile. Even revisionists, I bet”—-Oscewicee [#66]

Yes, KJS is starting to pigeonhole herself as mean, vindictive, and destructive. But she needs our help to finish the job.

We don’t need to help her - just give her the publicity she richly deserves. She’ll do the rest herself. :-(

[#71]  CarolynP

I appreciate the compliment, but I am just a guy with opinions.  Now, when Sarah finally admits to being the voice behind the good Rev Dr Dr Pennyfeather III, DD, PhD, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC - well, then you can call me ‘smart.’ 

carl

I don’t disagree that this may be or is about deposing +Duncan. But… how do we know this? Could this meeting be about something else? I do not see clear evidence in the supplied email this is about deposing +Duncan.

#14 - let’s keep the temptation active, shall we? I just sent my response from the Diocese of San Litigus - NO. You can send yours as well: “crobertson@episcopalchurch.org”. Be kind, but have fun!

#45 Carl,
I agree with everything you say except for your describing the TEC scheme as “Brilliant”.  Nothing the Presiding Bishop and her followers do should be described as Brilliant. We need to call this scheme what it is, and it appears to be nothing less than mean spirited, unchristian, self interest evil acts. We are seeing a relentless persecution of the orthodox and taking of their parish property in an apparent attempt to cleanse the Episcopal Church of all conservatives, but she and her advisors have embarassed themselves and TEC with their cavalier, do it anyway readings and applications of canon law to remove priests and bishops standing committees and congregations who have left the church.  TEC may pull this off but it’s a long way from brilliant and a longer way from acting as a Christian.

I was not suggesting that Schori not be inhibited or deposed. Its just that it occurred to me that the next PB just might end up being Robinson, whether in 2015, or sooner.

Are we not sure that the Presiding Whatever just wants a progress report on Bp+ Bennison? After all she wants to carefully execute the canons so not to deprive the good bishop of due process since his October 28,2007 Inhibition.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91477_ENG_HTM.htm
Shalom,
Intercessor

Seen-Too-Much wrote: [16]

So who will bring presentment charges against the PB in a May meeting?

S-T-M, having done a little reading in the Canons to find out just what would be involved in presenting KJS, I submit the following for your consideration.

If you are serious about lodging a presentment, you first need to decide on a charge. I’m not a canon lawyer (or any other kind of lawyer for that matter), but it appears to me that one possibility would be Title IV, Canon 1 Sec. 1.(e) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention, for deposing Bps Schofield and Cox with less than the canonically required number of votes. Depending on the exact meaning of being “located temporarily” in a Diocese, Canon 1 Section 1(g) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of a Diocese of this
Church wherein the person may have been located temporarily might also have been violated by entering DSJ, holding a convention, and setting up the “Remain Episcopal” Diocese of San Joaquin, contrary to the Diocesan Canons. These, if I remember the various discussions of the matter and comments from people who (unlike me) are actually in that diocese, say that in the absence of the Bishop—supposing that he was absent, since the deposition vote was invalid—the Standing Committee takes the reins.

Having decided on a charge, the first step in the process is to bring the matter before the Review Committee. It takes three bishops, or 10 non-bishops including at least 2 priests; at least one of the priests and six of the others (who must all be adult communicants in good standing) have to be canonically resident in the same diocese as the bishop being charged.

Title IV.3.23.(a) says that for other offenses, (if I understand correctly this means other than heresy), this requires three bishops, or ten non-bishops including at least two priests, of which one of the priests and at least 6 of the others must be canonically resident in the same Diocese as the bishop being charged.

Once the matter has been brought before the Review Committee, they have to convene and consider the charge within 60 days ( Canon 3 Sec. 40), and if “after such consideration the Review Committee determines that an Offense may have occurred if the facts alleged be true, the Review Committee shall prepare a written general statement of the Charge and the facts alleged to support the Charge and transmit the same to the Church Attorney.” (David Booth Beers?) About here is where I started to skim, rather than reading thoroughly (I was reading this during my lunch break). The Church Attorney has to report back to the Review Committee, who then have to decide whether there is reasonable cause to believe that (1) an offense occurred, and (2) if it did, whether the Respondent committed it. If they answer “yes” to both questions, then the bishop is Presented. Once the bishop is presented, if the matter goes that far, there is a court that hears the charge. It takes a 2/3 vote to convict; if less than 2/3, the Presentment is dismissed. Even if the bishop is found guilty, the court decides the sentence. IOW, I think it would be possible to enter a charge, go through all the reviews and the trial, for the bishop to be convicted, and then have the court give the equivalent of a suspended sentence. Unless that part of the Canons is beyond where I ran out of lunch break, a guilty verdict is not a one-way ticket to deposition.

If you really believe presenting KJS is the right thing to do [52], that’s a rough outline of the process, but ISTM that it would require a vast expenditure of effort, and have very little likelihood of actually accomplishing anything useful. And as CarolynP asked, even if KJS were removed, would you expect her replacement to be any better? Twenty or thirty years ago, a presentment might have served some purpose, but today I think it would be an exercise in futility.