BREAKING: Virginia Judge Rules Division Statute is Constitutional

YEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!

Woot!  Not only did he make the right ruling, but he did so during a civilized time of the day.  I was afraid this was going to be another midnight release.

Very nice.

Very very nice.

Truly, truly, THANKS BE TO GOD!!!!!

-this Court finds their arguments unpersuasive, not least because their arguments are predicated in no small measure on a characterization of this Court’s April 3rd opinion that bears only a passing resemblance to the opinion itself.

This is almost as good as “blinks at reality”.

Woohoo!  George and Martha Washington may return to peaceful rest.

Yea!!!

Does this mean that the Virginia churches are free unless an appeal should overturn one or both of these findings?

I am sitting at the computer singing “Our God reigns, our God reigns, our God reeeeiiiiigggggnnnns!”

Thank you Lord Jesus for listening to the prayers of your faithful servants and for giving wisdom and discrenment to the judicial servant who has been given authority to judge and rule in this most important matter. We your humble servants give you thanks & praise.
In your Name AMEN!

Sweet.

WooooooooooHooooooooooo!

AMEN!

& Thanks be to God!

In fact, ECUSAjDiocese could have, at any time within the past 140 years since 57-9 (or the predecessor thereto) was originally passed, re-titled their properties in the name of a Bishop or other ecclesiastical officer.35 If they had done so, they could have permanently avoided any potential application of 57-9(A). ECUSAjDiocese protest that this Ire-titling’ argument dismisses as ‘minimal’ what would be a significant practical burden on the Episcopal Church and the Diocese.” (Diocese Br. at 21.) They in fact argue that to place their Virginia properties in the name of an ecclesiastical officer, or to incorporate, would place a substantial burden upon their religious exercise. ECUSAjDiocese’s argument becomes much less persuasive in light of the fact
35 Other religious entities in Virginia, by this means, have entirely put themselves beyond the reach of 57-9(A). See Stipulations of Fact, ~~ 5-8, which state as follows:
5.
Title to the real property of parishes (local congregations) in Virginia attached to the Roman Catholic Church is held in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese in which the parishes are located.
6.
Title to the real property of parishes (local congregations) in Virginia attached to the Greek Orthodox Church in the Metropolis of New Jersey, which includes Greek Orthodox parishes in Virginia, is held in the corporate names of the parishes and no other, except as otherwise required by any applicable civil law.
7.
Title to the real property of congregations in Virginia attached to the Foursquare Church is held in the name of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, a California religious corporation.
8.
Title to the real property of congregations in Virginia attached to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (sometimes known as the Mormons) is held in the name of Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Utah corporation sole, authorized to do business in Virginia.

They had 140 years to fix this.  Now they pay the price.

This, combined with the hopeful news out of Jerusalem, truly makes the heart sing.

Mono:  I think that there will be at least one more trial-level decision as to whether the requirements of the Division Statute have been met vis a vis the departing parishes.  Bellows has said that the churches were correct in applying the Division Statute and that the statute was constitutional, so the next question is did they correctly follow the provisions of the statute?  I would guess that that would be a pretty easy win for the parishes.

Then it will be up to appeal for all the decisions.  Remember that Judge Randy Bellows is pretty low on the judicial food chain, so while these decisions are great news, they are most certainly not the last word on the subject.  Let’s hope this might cause Peter Lee to regret his kowtowing to KJS’s rash litigation policy, and perhaps return to the negotiating table.

Let’s hope this might cause Peter Lee to regret his kowtowing to KJS’s rash litigation policy, and perhaps return to the negotiating table.

I think it is pretty sad that bishops are being tied up with litigation matters instead of Gospel matters and attending to legal briefs & negotiations instead of church building and soul saving!

So how much of TEC’s scarce MDG money went down this rathole? They could have settled long ago. Fiduciary duty anyone?

Praise the Lord!

I think someone said before that the next step in appeals would be the VA Supreme Court, and then the US Supreme Court after that, but I could be wrong.  I find it unlikely that the US Supreme Court will take it if the VA Supreme Court upholds the decisions of the trial judge.  I think it is safe to say, however, the the San Joaquin case will end up in the US Supreme Court.

Yes, HeartAfire, what a good day this is!  This is great news that will go down well with what I expect will be a very strong Communique from our GAFCON leaders in Jerusalem.

Judge Bellows may be low on the judicial food chain, but he is a very thorough and scholarly judge.  I expect Kate will soon be crying in her Beer(s).

Amen and amen!

Our God is an awesome God! I am overcome with gratitude and praise of his glorious Name.

I’m having trouble opening the PDF of the ruling. Error message says the document may be damaged. Any help??

Let’s hope this might cause Peter Lee to regret his kowtowing to KJS’s rash litigation policy, and perhaps return to the negotiating table.

If the parishes return to the table now, they are either fools or have a really, really little number in their offer…kinda like a nickle under an inverted glass of water left as a tip.

Does this mean that in the case of other parishes who think they might want to leave in the future that these parishes had better do so now before there is a rash of enforced retitlings throughout the country??

I worry that this ruling may give the impetus for just such a re-titling type of wildfire to engulf the faithful parishes. Watch for the Imperial PBette to roar from on high to get the job done or else!

As I expected!  The parishes would have won without 57-9 since the only argument the Diocese and National Church has is the Dennis Canon, which is not a law on the books of the Commonwealth of Va.  The Diocese could hardly expect the Fairfax Circuit Court to enforce a church canon.  That would be a clear violation of the constitution. 

In any case, an appeal is possible on this ruling, but the odds of overturning this decision are very minimal. Diocesan litigants have to show a defect or oversight in Judge Bellows reasoning. What would that be?

This is a great day these congregations which have had great ministries historically and will continue to do so, unimpeded by the shenanigans that go on at the diocesan and national church level

This is wonderful news!  Thanks be to God.

I too can’t get the PDF file to open.  Is there another link?

You cannot see me, but I am doing a dance of joy!

See, sometimes there are very strong reasons to KTF!...mrb

MikeB - just be glad Matt K. is at GAFCON… you KNOW how he gets about liturgical dance.
But I’m dancin’ too.

This is very good news for KICKASS (Kirk of Independent Christian Klowns Associated for Sunday Services.  We have a “flying wedge” team of about 100 folks who are poised to attack.  We have targeted some small AMiA, CANA and TEC parished in the Blue Ridge.  We will follow EXACTLY the procedures followed but the Northern Virginia 11.  Nice way to acquire small stone Churches on the cheap - - -

A modest “heads up” to all of the political revisionists who want to (grossly mis)interpret what the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution signifies and who might be reading this thread: מנא ,מנא, תקל, ופרסין!.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Oops. Right message, wrong thread—although the Hebrew warning does apply equally well to the TEC litigators.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

AndrewA, what are the reasons for expecting the San Joaquin case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court?  The California Supreme Court hasn’t yet ruled on the parish cases already before it, has it?

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

James 5:15 KJV

  Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
  Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
  Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
  Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

Psalm 148:1-5 KJV

Jeffersonian:  Now actually would be the best time for the parishes to negotiate with the diocese - they would be arguing from a position of strength, they would be establishing a precedent in TEC (negotiate now bishop, before you lose in court), and they would be setting a great witness.

http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw/tec_to_nigeria.html

Great news for our CANA churches in our move from TEC to Nigeria

As we come before our Father with praise and thanksgiving for Judge Bellow’s ruling and as we continue to watch the unfolding of His plan and purpose for us, would you join with us in praying for the unity of Christ’s church, and for the responses to this ruling—ours, the Dioceses’, TEC’s—-knowing that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, let our responses bring glory to God, our Father.  Thank you, from Fairfax, VA :o )

The PDF is fine, but it’s big, and will take a while to load. It’s also getting hammered right now. Be patient and try again in a few minutes if you need to.

Jeffersonian:  Now actually would be the best time for the parishes to negotiate with the diocese - they would be arguing from a position of strength, they would be establishing a precedent in TEC (negotiate now bishop, before you lose in court), and they would be setting a great witness.

I agree that, if the parishes are inclined to negotiate, this is the perfect position to be in.  I’m not sanguine that TEC would treat this as precedent in future cases as it’s under no obligation to do so…it would be willing to settle here only because the likely alternative would be to lose lock, stock and barrel.  It will likely not be behind the 8-ball to this degree in the future.

As a witness, yes, it would be a gracious move.  Yet I hope the parishes still apply a steep discount, then deduct the litigation costs foisted on them by this vindictive virago.

(#29),

Mene, mene, tekel, uparsin (?)

While others are trying to get access to the adobe file, thought I’d post the conclusion:

Conclusion
Today, this Court finds that 57-9(A), as applied, is constitutional. Specifically, this Court finds that the statute, as applied in the instant case, does not violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, nor does it violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor does it violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
For 141 years, the Commonwealth of Virginia has had a statute available to congregations experiencing divisions for the purpose of resolving church property disputes. 57-9(A) did not parachute into this dispute from a clear blue sky. Its existence cannot have been a surprise to any party to this litigation, each of whom is charged with knowledge of its contents and, more significantly, its import. That the Commonwealth of Virginia, in enacting and reenacting a “division” statute, may be unique among our fellow states is of no considerable moment, for in a federalist system each State is free to determine its own path for the resolution of church property disputes within constitutional boundaries. Whether 57-9(A) would be constitutional absent the ability of a church to hold property in forms that would place such property beyond the reach of 57-9(A) is a hypothetical question which this Court need not address; the Code of Virginia most certainly does provide for such alternative forms of church property ownership. That the Diocese availed itself of this alternative ownership in some cases but chose not to do so in others (and not in the instant cases) does not turn a constitutional statute into an unconstitutional one. Nor is the statute rendered unconstitutional because it requires this Court to make factual findings in a matter involving religious organizations. It is not mere semantics to observe that there is a difference-a constitutionally significant difference-between a finding involving a religious organization and a religious finding. While it is true of course that 57-9(A) requires the Court to make factual findings involving religious entities, each of
68 The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the statute against the Takings Clause challenge. Id. at 518.
48
those findings are secular in nature. Hence, for this and all the other reasons cited in this Opinion, 57-9(A) is constitutiona1.69
E~~
Circuit Court Judge
69 Whether it violates the Contracts Clause is a matter expressly reserved for a later date.

Greg,

So is Stand Firm, at least through the network connections I’m using.

With regards to the question Katherine asked.  The California Supreme Court case is still very much open.  Briefs have been filed, including amicus briefs for both sides.  However, last I checked the oral argument has not be scheduled.  (If any of the lawyers actually involved here, have additional information, please correct me here). 

Stu

It ain’t Appomattox quite yet, but for Virginia this is definitely the end of beginning or the beginning of the end.  Given 815’s stance I assume it will end at the Federal Supremes.  (Due to its make up, I personally would give close to even odds that the Fed Supremes would come to a different conclusion)

That said, my quick read finds it to be a well crafted opionion. One should have expected no less from this judge.

And, AndrewA has identified the money quote.  Also, the Diocese/ECUSA lawyers have obviously tried this judge’s patience with their seeming sophistry.  If I were them I’d hate to go before this judge on another matter any time soon.

I pray +Virginia is now calling 815 for permission to call a truce and proceed with a negotiated settlement from a much weaker position than he had when the standstill agreement was allowed to expire.

Peace to ALL, prayers for ALL,

Thanks, Stu Howe, and I hope someone will give us the status.

How strange.  I’m in Cairo, Egypt, and this page is refreshing at normal speed.  By the way, I spoke with the assistant bishop of this diocese after services this morning, and he told me he and Bishop Mouneer are going to Lambeth, not to acquiesce, but to fight for the faith.  Very encouraging.

Regarding #5 by AndrewA

TEC’s characterization of the court’s opinion only bears a passing resemblance to the opinion itself.

Not surprising.  TEC’s characterization of scripture only bears a passing resemblance to scripture itself.

The right thing to do is for ECUSA to return to the table and work out a deal, in which their substantially diminished loss of negotiating leverage would be entirely its fault.  Still, the whole thing has been an outrageous waste of money - again, entirely ECUSA’s fault.

Dang, AngliCanDo beat me to it.

We should start a pool on how long it takes ENS to have a story out.  I’m guess 5:00 EST, and that the theme of the article will be that the ruling is no big deal and doesn’t actually mean anything.  Just a wild guess.

Is footnote #69 at the bottom of the last page of any concern? 

Would any attorneys here be kind enough to offer an opinion:
“69 Whether it violates the Contracts Clause is a matter expressly reserved for a later date.”

I pray that the Diocese of San Joaquin’s case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court will settle these intrusions into constitutional rights of the Diocesan Bishop’s right as the property holder, not TEC.  The diocese or the indivdual churches bought, built and payed for their churches.  Why would their property belong to TEC?
Tom of San Joaquin

This is a huge victory for the congregations and a major defeat for TEC and the Diocese. Jamesw (#16) is correct that this ruling does not end the case. There is still another test under Section 57-9, i.e.: did the congregations correctly vote to depart TEC, and record those votes with the Court. That test is easy to pass, so TEC has already almost certainly lost now at the trial court level. Having said that, note well that Judge Bellows expressly did not rule regarding TEC’s argument that Section 57-9 violates the “Contracts” clause, so that issue is still unresolved as well.

Nevertheless, having lost their constitutional challenge to 57-9, which was their best shot, TEC and the Diocese now face uphill battles regarding the two unresolved issues. Statistically, most cases are affirmed on appeal, and Judge Bellows has labored to make his opinion as solid as possible. TEC cannot count on the Virginia Supreme Court to reverse Judge Bellows’ holdings.

Note that the Diocese of Virginia has lost much more than TEC has. Assuming the judge decides the remainder of the case for the congregations, and that the Virginia Supreme Court does not reverse, the Presiding Bishop has lost some money. But Bp. Lee, and the bishops of the other two dioceses in Virginia, now face the reality that any Virginia congregation who wants to escape TEC can do so. Legally, the three Virginia dioceses will be unable to stop a congregation that wants out. To the Presiding Bishop, that result is a regrettable setback. To Bp. Lee, that result is a catastrophe. How ironic that the Presiding Bishop’s “get tough” tactics harms not her, but Bp. Lee who, but for her intervention, would have settled with the congregations.

For the court decision: Praise the Lord! 
Stayin’, in response to #23 where you said:

Does this mean that in the case of other parishes who think they might want to leave in the future that these parishes had better do so now before there is a rash of enforced retitlings throughout the country??

To TEC parishes thinking of leaving:  IMHO, you have until approximately June 2009 (GenCon - Disneyland) to act or your options will be removed.  I think it’s even possible over the next year for TEC to require parishes to turn over their deeds and other instruments of ownership to either the diocese or national church.  They have already done so for the parish we left recently!

Yes…thank you God for your direction

[38] Moot,

When one reads those words and recognizes their referent, the construct that most generally comes to mind is “the handwriting is on the wall.” And, inasmuch as this is generally taken as a discouraging omen, my comment was addressed to those who would take a judgment against TEC as a negative outcome.

Hopeful of me, no doubt, but were I on their (i.e., TEC’s) side of this argument, I would not be encouraged, to put it mildly. Parts of the judge’s Letter Opinion reminds me, as did parts of his earlier finding, of Judge Joseph Wapner (the original jurist on The People’s Court twice encountering attorney’s representing themselves who were less knowledgeable about what is required to have a case at law than am I, a non-lawyer, and finding it both necessary and appropriate to admonish them (no, actually, to lecture them) sternly in front of a national TV audience.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Publius #48 makes a great point in his/her last paragraph.  And so now, we’ll see something of the market at work, as the ability of parishes to freely depart might serve as some brake on the diocese’s path toward ECUSA’s unitarian universalist secularism.  Would that that penalty had been hanging over Peter Lee’s head before he betrayed his office and his flock at GC03.

If 815 drops this, the net result will therefore be good for CANA and DioVa.  For Bonnie Anderson, Katharine Jefferts Schori and their gang, not so much.

Thankful. And so well worth it and helpful for others. In every way.

BTW, star-ace #28, when you say, “We will follow EXACTLY the procedures followed but the Northern Virginia 11.” - do you mean you’ll somehow conspire to have CANA ordain a gay bishop and/or “marry” a few gay couples, after which you’ll work for several years to bring CANA back into the shared beliefs of the larger communion; and that you’ll patiently present your concerns to CANA for years, but, finally, reluctantly, negotiate an amicable way to split; that you’ll then again conspire to have CANA renege on your hard-fought agreement, after which you’ll have no choice but to hold a vote in accordance with 57-9?  Is that what you mean by following CANA’s path?

Well, then, good luck with that.

if you are having trouble opening the link here the documents are on the Anglican District of Virginia website (http://www.anglicandistrictofvirginia.org) under the News Tab in the News Release section of the website.

The diocese of VA’s response is here
http://thediocese.net/News_services/pressroom/newsrelease57.html

Wait! Where are the hordes of drive-by revisionists spinning this for us?? “It is NOT a defeat, merely a qualified victory” or better yet “the rights of gay persons everywhere have been dealt a serious blow by the insistent intransigence of the Va trial judge and the misapplication of this law into our religious beliefs, thus hopelessly compromising our ‘freedom of religion’ rights. Our fellow denominations, who had supported our objections to this outdated and intrusive law, will feel the tyrannical grasp of government upon their own systems of belief, and the rampant conservatism which is run amok in our country will serve to alienate all our rights and establish a police state where no freedoms will exist and the rights of ‘the other’ are trammelled with violence.”

Oooooo that was too easy. Propaganda is certainly seductive - isn’t it.

Requiring parishes to turn over their title deeds is possibly a two-edged sword.  Yes, many parishes will go ahead and do that, but those are not parishes who would be inclined to leave.  For those inclined to leave, it pretty much forces their vestries/clergy to make a decision that they may have been putting off. 

Fifty years from now, of course, the position of the national church and of the dioceses is strengthened if they were to require this now.  In the short run, though, asking wavering parishes to turn over their deeds could result in more defections. 

On top of that, such an action by the national church could be used by defendant parishes in other litigation as evidence that the national church actually recognizes that the Dennis (Denis?) canon has no legally binding effect. 

If I were an attorney for the national church, I would want to think long and hard before recommending that it exercise this option.  The best time to require a title change-over would be when things are quiet within the church.

From George Mason to the 1776 Virginia Convention:

    SIC SEMPER TYRANIS

And the word from here in lovely Belfast is, HALLELUJAH!!!

1. Regarding the California appeal arising from Southern California, I heard somewhere that oral arguments (followed up in 90 days??? by the decision) are not expected till sometime next year, and probably mid-year at that.

2. Actually, depending on how TEC’s lawyers guesstimate their odds on appeal, it might be very much in TEC’s interests to settle now.  If TEC terminates this case now via a “negotiated settlement”, they could claim that the legal issues have not yet been decided on the statewide level, and they could therefore, continue to threaten and intimidate other Virginia congregations.  If TEC’s attorneys think that they have little chance of success on appeal, then the higher they go and lose, the greater the precedents being set against them.  At this point, there is very little security for other parishes to up and leave under the Division Statute.  However, if the Virginia Supreme Court affirms, then there is a much greater security.  And, of course, if the US Supreme Court either declines to hear the appeal or affirms the decision, then there would be 100% security for departing parishes.

Rick’s post #58 might be another reason why TEC might want to engage in a negotiated settlement now.  Despite the Dio.VA’s whiney press release, I think it would very much be in the interest of the Diocese to settle this by negotiation now.  I think that KJS’s litigation strategy has actually proven to be counter to the interests of TEC, because it is a huge gamble which she stands a good chance of losing.  Far better for TEC to have a murky legal situation, together with quietly-breathed threats of legal intimidation to keep parishes in line.

jamesw, following up your thoughts at #61, then, it would be to the advantage of the ADV parishes, having gone this far successfully, to decline to negotiate.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8434
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/churchproperty/index?more=4961763
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/report_of_the_house_of_bishops.php
Three links on church property. For those who are thinking of leaving, now is the time to do so. As someone rightly pointed out, by GC2009 it will be too late.

What would be the advantage for the parishes to offer anything in negotiations?  They worked for a year with the Bishop, he completely flushed all his credibility down the toilet by doing an about face and dumping all efforts at negotiation to hold a gun to the parishes heads, with the desire of taking the properties by force, and then the gun blows up in his hand.

The diocese and the TEC have lost this battle, and not only come up with nothing, they are major net negative in terms of their legal costs.  As far as any income they would have received from the parishes, the parishes, by the diocese decisions, was forced to give that money to their lawyers.

At the same time, they have hardened the legal precedent against them, and this will send chills down the spine of any bishop that gets the call from 815 to go “attack dog”.  My guess is this should improve the opportunity for parishes who want to negotiate for their property.  Bishops want money in their coffers, not debt to legal organizations.

I think the deal is done.  The ADV parishes have their property.  TEC and DioVA have debt and major egg on face.

It turns out that this was a really, really dumb move by KJS and Bishop Lee.  They took their bet, and lost, big time.

I’m with Peppler - why would the parishes want to negotiate now? Sure it’s possible they’ll lose on appeal, but every time Bellows hands down one of these superbly-articulated, well-researched rulings, the odds shrink tremendously. They can take their chances with the diocese and 815, or they can take their chances with the courts. So far, I see no reason to leave the friendly confines of the commonwealth’s judicial system.

Precisely, Katherine.  The only hope TEC has now is that the eleven parishes will display infinitely more Christian charity and mercy that TEC has even hinted at.

I think, personally, they ought to continue the legal rout(e) and build a nice, sturdy bridge for other DioVA parishes that wish to leave.  That’s a good, Christian solution, too.

Katherine:  Well, there are advantages to CANA for settling also.  Appeals are always a gamble.  If the two sides negotiate a settlement now, then a precedent will have been set - not a legal precedent but a behavioral one.  The moral object lesson will be to TEC bishops and dioceses that it is best to negotiate settlements instead of pursue litigation.  Word has it that several TEC bishops have been “leaned on” by KJS to pursue litigation when they did not really want to do so.  If the Diocese of Virginia settles this now, it could effectively cut the feet out from under KJS’s litigation policy.

Again, it will require a very honest assessment of chances on appeal.  Rational decisionmaking doesn’t always govern, and it might be that TEC realizes that it is now in a bad spot no matter what it does, and so why not go out in a blaze of glory?

#57 Masternav, Loved your statement, I’m betting we’ll see it in a few press releases soon.  Except you forgot to work in “spiritual violence” and “inclusion” which I’m sure they will figure out a way to add.

Excellent work!...KTF!...mrb

Wow. ENS is really, really quiet on this right now. If you listen carefully you can hear the gyros spinning up as they try to put a good face on this.

I don’t see why the CANA parishes should negotiate a settlement. It’s too late for that now now. That could have been done at the outset, but the diocese (at the behest of 815) decided to litigate instead. The CANA parishes have all but won their independance, and owe the diocese nothing but a polite “goodbye.”

Could be, jamesw.  I certainly don’t favor a “fight them to the death” policy if a settlement would end this in an advantageous position.  I think I would favor continuing to the end of this series of judgments at the trial level, which would establish the facts in law.  The last segment, as I understand it, is whether they followed the statute, and I have read that they were extremely careful to do so, so not much risk there.

Why might we negotiate?
IF the Virginia State Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal (they might not, you know), then we have to pay our own attorneys (who are worth every penny) to prepare and present our defense. Though I dislike the appearance of settling, or paying 815 one slim dime for what we believe is rightfully the property of our congregation, if we paid them what we would have to pay in legal fees it might be worth it. Might.

I doubt very much, even if the CANA churches were willing, that the Presiding Bishop would give her minions any authority to negotiate anything. She is fighting a holding action until GC 2009 when the rules will all be changed. She will drag out the Virginia litigation until then so that any precedents that are set by it will no longer matter after GC 2009. Settling is not in her field of view because it means that TEC will be seen as weak, and is letting someone get away with something at TEC’s expense. Whereas if a court orders it, she can always use the excuse that “We didn’t want to do this, but the court made us do it.”

It is interesting how everyone here assumes (rightly, I suspect) that KJS will follow the most malign self-interested path even to the ruin of the dioceses she seems to believe she is given to protect.

re: 68

jamesw, did you get a load of the dio’s statement? Sounds like they have no intention of giving up litigation. They are adamant that they are fighting in the cause of “all churches” and for “religious liberty”

It sounds like they are even now building a case to take it to the Supreme Court.

monologistos, I can’t imagine why anyone would think that.

Reading about GC2009 makes me more and more glad that my parish got out when it did. At the time I thought it was too hasty and that the cost was too high. Now, though, I am thanking God for the wisdom shown by our leadership.

I have to agree with many others around here when they say to those who are wavering “Get out now!”

The departing parishes, if they negotiate and settle, would be doing so for the same reason the vast majority of parties to lawsuits settle before trial, and for the same reason a signficant number of litigants who win at the trial court level nevetheless settle while the case is on appeal. 

This is the reason the departing parishes may consider settling: 

They may still lose.  They may lose before the Virginia Supreme Court.  They may lose before the U.S. Supreme Court.  If they were to lose, the effect would be devastating.  Their prospects are substantially brighter than they were six months ago, but that could all change with a single court ruling.

It may be helpful to think of this in economic terms—the classic willing seller and willing buyer. If A is the value of winning the case entirely discounted by the odds of losing the case, and B is the offer from the opposing side, the rational actor accepts any settlement offer where B exceeds A by any amount, subject to attempts to get the other side to sweeten the deal. 

The problem in this case of course is to put a numeric values on A and B.  The sides may and likely do disagree as to those values.  But this is precisely the calculus that one must undertake in considering a settlement offer in any kind of litigation, or in considering any offer to purchase something that belongs to you, for that matter.  Is what I have (a legal position in a lawsuit, a house, a car, an heirloom) more or less valuable to me than the offer I am being made?

The Diocese of Virginia’s news release is in fact in error, to wit:

reaches beyond the Episcopal Church to all hierarchical churches in the Commonwealth

The truth is the Commonwealth of Virginia uses property records to determine ownership. Golly, whizz, grasshoppers! Who woulda’ thunk? Not only can’t the Diocese of Virginia and TEC make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, they don’t even have a sow’s ear to begin with.

Interesting.  God is good, isn’t he.

So much for SennaSchorib’s host! I hope EmilyH isn’t too down. She seemed to think all religious freedom hinged on an outcome favorable to TEO.

On April 3, 2008, Judge Bellows issued a landmark ruling that acknowledged a division within TEC, the Diocese and the larger Anglican Communion.

Hmmm…GAFCON’s (at which CANA was present) continuous insistence that there is no schism, no split, in the AC might not help any future court case…

ENS has a story up!  Oh wait, sorry.  It’s about something else.  Here’s the lede. 

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has a new name: “Looks For The Needy.”

In one of the highest Native American honors that can be bestowed upon a person, Jefferts Schori was given a Lakota name, Ni-ce Olewin, which means, “Looks for the Needy.”

This honor was presented on the first day of the 2008 Niobrara Convocation in the Diocese of South Dakota June 19. The Niobrara Convocation is the annual gathering of the Episcopalians living on the Indian Reservations in the diocese.

On behalf of the Niobrara Episcopal Church Women (ECW), Christina Dunham announced the honor and presented Jefferts Schori with a handcrafted quilt and jewelry made by the time-honored method of porcupine quill.

Visibly moved, the Presiding Bishop bowed and said humbly, “I am abundantly honored.” Then, as tradition calls, all those assembled in the large tent greeted and shook hands with Looks For The Needy.

Isn’t it just beyond parody that this is what they have running as their lead item?  I think we should call her Looks for Someone to Pay Her Legal Bills

The diocese of Va claims to be “hierarchal” but, as anyone who is familiar with the VA diocese knows, it is one of the least hierarchal of dioceses in TEC, with its low church tradition. Congregations have a lot of autonomy in that diocese.  Had the (then) bishop in insisted on changing the titles of the properties following the passing of the Dennis Canon, to make the diocese the “title holder of last resort”, the rectors and vestries of these parishes would have politely told the bishop to “go jump in a lake.”

Another thing,...I don’t know why the diocese thinks that remaing in TEC is essential to safeguard these churches for future generations???  The current policies and theological leanings of TEC would surely destroy these congregations and everything they have built in the past years, had they taken no action. I am confident that the present leadership will continue to be good stewards and shepherds of the gospel and the people as the past leadership has been.  That would surely please George Washington! He would have wanted to see the Falls Church prosper.  After all, he was a vestryman and an Anglican.

The real sadness of this is that the Niobara Convocation (which I attended twice in the 1990’s, still wear my hat!) is a most sacred and celebratory convocation of the most conservative Native American Episcopalians you’ll ever meet.  We’ve brought youth groups to the Rosebud Lakota Compound there to do construction work several years running (90-93) and Sunday School Teaching for the kids there and it was a most delightful experience.  The Chapel at the Reservation is from about 1850, and I think we’ve painted it at least three times!

I’m praying that she is not corrupting them with her revisionist gospel at the same time I’m praying that her exposure to these amazing Christians will open her heart to the truth.

Hoping KJS can learn to KTF!....mrb

Regarding the update—

I wonder if those “Episcopal ancestors” who built the churches might be more interested in their actual (and spiritual) decendants worshiping God in spirit and in truth than in providing free facilities for the perpetuation of the heretical agenda of the PB and her little minions?

In my experience, ancestors tend to care more about thier decendants than usurpers.

Regarding “loyal Episcopalians,” that phrase begs the question, “Loyal to whom?”

The orginal story on South Dakota claimed they were expecting 3000 to hear +Schori. I wonder how many showed up?
Looks for the Needy has a different meaning in California. They are called therapists. As for splits, there is a definate split in TEC with the amount of churches that have left/split in the last 8 years - more so in the last 5. There has not been a split in the Communion so much as a breaking down.
Schori is not going to let +Lee negotiate. In Jnuary of this year she compared those who wished to keep their property to those who committ child abuse. Nice! How pastoral.

ENS has changed a lot lately. I guess big sister is watching that too!

Andrew A, Post 5, You speak to the heart of the matter. TEC should try to understand the English language instead of trying to invent a new language which no one can understand.

Note the DoV’s comment about ‘religious freedom’!  How ironic.

As far an appeals go, the odds are now 9 - 1 in favor of the parishes.  The only way an appeal can win, is by showing that Judge Bellows made an error in his reasoning, or omitted an important consideration in his argument.  That is not likely.  Appeals courts don’t like to overturn lower court rulings, unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do so.

If I were on vestry at Falls Church or Truro, or any of the others, I would vote to hold our position and wait to see what the diocese does, but NOT negotiate. The time has passed for that. If the diocese appeals the decision, and chooses to continue litigation, we should be prepared to respond since the odds are so much in our favor. 

This is the point where the diocese of VA has to ask the question whether it is worth continuing to litigate given the very low probability of winning. The Standing Committee of the Diocese and the Council will weigh in on this one, when they are presented with the crushing costs of litigation.

A good Friday to celebrate indeed.  However, remember that the game is about TEC winning if it can, but dragging individuals, parishes, groups, and dioceses through endless, costly litigation to financially break those it can’t, and intimidate the rest.  TEC’s resources are, compared with any single opponent, effectively unlimited.  Against all its opponents collectively, it is still overwhelming.

It is quite possible that there may really be no need to negotiate. It would seem that there is no certifiable record of the Dennis canon having been passed at General Convention, albeit it was proposed, discussed, and presented (post hoc) as having been accepted! That should certainly be explored in any further litigation.

If that be true, Little Bo Beep ake KJS would likely lose even more sheep.

Oh, To be a fly on the wall in the office of KJS at 815 !!!!  Perhaps she will begin to get the message that it is time for her to step aside and let the faithful return to TEC.  Praise God for this blessing to preserve the Church.

Bobolink2, the courts of other states that do not have comprable division statues have already ruled against parishes in large part because of the Dennis Canon.  If there was the SLIGHTEST evidence that the Dennis Canon was never passed, you can rest assured that the lawyers of the Anglican Network would make everyone perfectly aware of the fact.  Please stop spreading rumors and stick to facts.

While the minutes of the House of Deputies and other important papers from the 1979 General Convention have not survived, sufficient documentary evidence exists in the Archives of the Episcopal Church to cast doubt on published claims that the Dennis Canon was overlooked and not brought to a vote in the final hours of the 1979 General Convention.
However, the paper trail that would support a conclusive determination that the Dennis Canon did pass the House of Deputies on the 10th legislative day is incomplete, keeping open the door for further litigation.
Assertions and opinions about the legal sufficiency of Title I.7.4 (as the Dennis Canon is presently numbered) have circulated within traditionalist circles for three decades. The issue has taken on a heightened importance this past year with the blizzard of diocese/parish litigation, and threatened lawsuits by the national church offices against dioceses and bishops for “breach of fiduciary” duties in connection with the property canon.

Tom Dennis, the image of her using a Dark Side of the Force chock on the poor messanger comes to mind.  Darth Schori.

Thanks be to God for hearing the prayers of so many faithful people for the VA Anglican churches.
“I love the Lord because he hears my prayers and answers them.  Because he bends down and listens, I will pray as long as I breathe.”  Psalm 116:1-2 TLB

For all those in the VA Anglican Churches and for the pilgrims at GAFCON:

“Alleluia! Sing to Jesus!
His the scepter, his the throne;
Alleluia! his the triumph,
His the victory alone;
Hark: the songs of peaceful Zion
Thunder like a mighty flood;
Jesus out of every nation
Hath redeemed us by his blood.”

Keep praying faithful friends, keep praying.

This is a MAJOR DEFEAT of historic signifigance for The Episcopal Church!  It has cost them millions of dollars, and that’s money that they’ll never see again.  It would’ve been far better spent helping the poor, but instead, they wasted it!

Re #97: Somehow the attribution seems to have been dropped from comment 97, the text of which appears to be word for word from George Conger’s piece here.

Re: Post 84:
Given the amount of money 815 is spending on (losing) legal battles, I suspect that there’s been a minor translation error from the Lakota… Ni-ce Olewin should actually be translated “Looks-<u>like</u>-the Needy”...

I’m not sure why folks are so worried about GC09. What can it do - reassert the Dennis Canon? I rather suspect even that might be hard in the HoB. After seeing the brutality of the PB and her chancellor toward their fellow bishops, the bishops might remember their fiduciary duty to protect the property of their respective dioceses against theft by 815. They might also be concerned to protect their own episcopal prerogatives against usurpation by the PB.

I don’t think we can presume that the individual dioceses will continue to side with 815. They might well come to see 815 as a threat greater than the factions that want to depart. Just at GAFCON unexpectedly clipped Abp. Akinola’s wings, GC09 might clip KJS’s.

Personally, I’d recommend agreeing to a 40 or 77 year stand still agreement.

Peace,

Spending millions of dollars in legal fees only to lose a clear-cut case in court.

Loon Left logic at its best.

Priceless, nonetheless.

-Jim+

I can’t see TEC ever requiring all churches to hand over the title.  They wanted the court to declare TEC to be the de facto owner of the property precisely because they don’t want to demand the titles.  Any remitted titles are likely to come with a mortgage coupon book stapled to the front. 

Instead, TEC wants congregations to feel like they own the property, but have the courts legally establish the opposite.  That way TEC only has to invoke ownership rights when it needs to fight a recalcitrant congregation.  It’s sleazy, I know.  But that is what lawyers do.

So I don’t think TEC will choose to die on the “Give us your Title” Hill.  Rather, it will pass church laws that allow the hierarchy to punish and remove unwanted congregational leadership.  Control is more important then ownership.  So long as the local leadership is bought and paid for, the fact that title belongs to the local congregation will not matter.

carl

One reason for the 11 parishes not to settle is that they have established the precedent for other parishes in the Dioceses of Virginia, Southern Virginia and Southwestern Virginia to depart with their property as well.

Well, Mr. Beers and his law firm are doing OK, even at the discount rate of, what, $515.00 an hour.  Any number of lawyers in Va. could have gotten TEC this result for a lot less!  I am thinking they got bad advice, but let’s see what happens on appeal.  I am betting the U.S. Supremes deny cert, if it ever gets that far.

Remember that these actions were brought by TEC/DioVA (even though they continue to misrepresent themselves as the defendants).  Since the 11 ADV churches have maintained an open offer to negotiate, it is up to TEC/DioVA to make the move.  Their track record in negotiations does not inspire much trust, however. 

As for seeing the litigation through to establish a way for other VA churches to leave - I doubt there are many.  Without inspired leadership, they will remain in TEC regardless of the outcome.

Carl makes a point worth noting.  TEC has two avenues to go after parishes: one is to ignore the leadership and go after the property; two is to concentrate on the leadership and the property will follow.  The first tactic has emerged in the CANA churches, the Diocese of San Joaquin, and Los Angeles.  The second tactic was used by Smith against St. John’s, Bristol.

Conservative parishes inclined to leave must beware of the bishop coming in and staging a blitzkrieg assault on the church leadership firing vestry and rector in one fell swoop.  Alternatively, note the disciplinary changes proposed for GS 09 - they are draconian and give the TEC heirarchy to go after laity for very little reason at all.

Another encumbrance that can come with title to church properties is liability for predations on youth or other parishioners by clergy or staff of the church.  I have read speculation (elsewhere, probably) that this is a primary reason why 815 has not insisted on (and in fact has avoided) retitling properties since the Dennis Canon appeared on the scene.

It is also important for those outside Virginia to remember that the VA statute is (I believe) unique in the country in providing a congregation-level solution.  In many, if not most, other states, courts are generally EXTREMELY reluctant to get into the middle of church property disputes, and TEND to simply throw up their hands and say, in effect, “whatever the Bishop says goes.”  So while this decision seems to be good news for traditional VA parishes, it won’t have a lot of LEGAL bearing on disputes elsewhere.

Still, some have suggested that, even in states where courts are not likely to support parish level revolt, it is better to spend parish resources on litigation (and hopefully make 815 spend at least as much if not more) than to let all of those resources end up in the hands of an organization which the parish views as apostate.

Traditional parishes in Southern VA and Southwestern VA—

SIT UP AND TAKE NOTE…

WOOT! PRAISE GOD!  Now we can tell Bishop Jerry Lamb to start packing and leave our diocese alone.