ECUSA Irony:  +Andrew Smith To Sit on Bishop Cox Ecclesiatical Trial Court

Franz Kafka, call your office!

They didn’t find anything on the Obergruppenfuhrer and they’re letting him sit on the court.  Gee.  Wonder how this one will turn out.

Talk about show trials.

Considering they failed to report anything on this, makes one wonders if they have even opened the file - much more pressing matters, you know - like hunting down those Evil, Evil Orthodox.

I note that no charges have yet been made against +Fitzsimmons Alison.  Are they just picking a softer target?

Here come the show trials!

The problem is at 86 years old, poor Bishop Cox has just lived too long.  They have paid him too much in retirement and medical benefits and are looking for a way to cut their losses.

May the Lord note their arrogance and Bishop Cox be vindicated for His glory and honor.

Justice is imperfect in this life but not in the next.

Sad, sick, wrong, disgusting…..pick one.
Dad, we tried…......
MassPK

This one needs to be given tons of publicity, and very publicly compared to the inactivity regarding Bennison.

MassPK, I am sorry. 

You have always done your Dad proud. 

LIC,

J.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, they’re picking on the wrong Godly giant, in Bishop Cox.  Is lightning attracted to Tinfoil Hats?  If so, there will be the overpowering acrid odor of singed souls in that “court.”  May God have mercy on them.

Hmmm. The Primates ask TEC to be pastoral and just with orthodox dissenters. TEC tells the Primates to stuff it. Next they put on trial an old Godly man with a persecutor of the faithful on the jury.It is clear that there are only three choices:1. Convert. Renounce our faith and embrace the new uberfaith. 2. Submit and accept the status of dhimmi under the “tolerance” of the Episcofascists.3. Get out.Any other options? I’m open.

Here’s a solution, how bout Bishop Cox just transfers to CANA?

This is just plain vindictive - against a great man and a true senior bishop.

I troubled by Bp. Smith serving as a judge in one episcopal trial even as he is the defendant in another one. In most U.S. courts, you can’t serve as a juror while a prosecution is pending against you. This safeguard recognizes a two-edged potential for bias. Your resentment against prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials could bias you against the prosecution. Your hope to curry favor with prosecutors (and to avoid further antagonizing them) could bias you against the defense. In any event, Bp. Smith’s bias against the orthodox and their claims of conscience is well established.

You’re not getting it: The arrogance of TEC is revealed by the fact that Bp Smith and TEC obviously don’t consder his own “problem” to be a problem, because it is brought by those who apparently don’t believe as he and TEC do: Therefore, their suit is of no consequence.

While it is reprehensible that TEC would allow this, it is unethical and immoral for Bishop Smith to sit on this panel of judges.  If he had any integrity, he would recuse himself.

This stinks to high heaven,it really does.
Makes me wonder how PB Schori would feel if the Primates were to put her on trial for heresy(‘Mother Jesus’),Pelagianism, and antinomianism and loaded the jury with the AB’s of Uganda,Nigeria and the Southern Cone.

Where exactly are the charges against Smith?  If it is out of the hands of the Review Committee (Grand Jury), he should recuse himself as one under indictment.  If it’s still in the hands of the Review Committee (Grand Jury), then there is no presentment against him and therefore he is not under indictment and thus presumed innocent.  Anyone know the status of the situation?

Smuggs, I just thought they deep sixed Smith’s charges long ago.  I guess if someone knows the procedures, it would be good to know what the original procedures were.  TEC seems to make a travesty of canon law along with the church, but I wonder what they are suppose to do if they had any integrity.  The last I heard, at least a year ago, was that the charges had gone to the PB, I think.  Anyone know the procedures that should be followed when presentment charges are filed or where in the process Smith’s charges are?

Yes, Irenaeus, Smith’s persecution of and hatred for the orthodox is infamous and putting him on this the witch trial of Bishop Cox confirms TEC’s appetite for kangeroo courts.

Re: Smith.  The charges went to the PB and were submitted to a Review Committee as required by canons.  The ecclesiastical charges remain “under investigation”  in the hands of Review Committee.  In other words, yes the charges have been deep sixed.

So, is there suppose to be a formal decision from the Review Committee, either exonerating him or recommending other action?  If they just sit on it forever, it will be a canon law procedure allowed to “die in committee”.  This lack of integrity in canon law procedures would be consistent with TEC’s lack of integrity in everything else.  Procedures they want to use for abuse they are positively obsessive about (witness the treatment of Mark Lawrence’s confirmation as bishop of SC);  but when they don’t like the possible outcome, they simply ignore procedures right and left.  Smith’s grand jury review seems to be an example of that.  Do you, this_day, or anyone else know what the review committee is suppose to do after receiving the case from the PB, with respect to formal, required procedures, if they were following them?

It would seem, of course, that unless and until Smith is formally cleared of the the charges, as long as he is “under investigation”, he should be prohibited from serving on the presentment trial of another bishop.  The fact that they violate this protection of Bishop Cox’s rights under canon law is simply more evidence of their inability/unwillingness to act ethically, even when it is spelled out for them in canon law.

This all disgusts me and makes me think Bishop Cox should sue them all for defamation of character or something else.  The state should protect individuals and churches from the tyrannical actions of TEC.  It has in CA and probably will elsewhere.

Do you, this_day, or anyone else know what the review committee is suppose to do after receiving the case from the PB, with respect to formal, required procedures, if they were following them?

Here’s what’s supposed to happen according to the Canons:

1.  Charge submitted to PB
2.  PB forwards charge to Review Committee
3.  Within 60 days of receiving charge, Review Committee meets to determine whether the allegations, if true, would constitute an offense under the Canons
4. Review Comittee prepares statement for Church Attorney
5.  Church Attorney “promptly” investigates and withing 120 days issues confidential report to Review Committee with recommendations.
6. Within 45 days of receiving Church Attorney report, Review Committee meets to determine whether or not to issue Presentment.
A decision not to issue a Presentment must be in writing from the Review Commitee.  Of course the Presentment has to be in writing & it’s prepared by the Church Attorney at the direction of the Review Committee.  The problem is there’s nothing in the Canons that says when the Review Committee must definitively determine whether or not to issue a Presentment - and it appears that’s where the Smith charges have stalled out.

The state should protect individuals and churches from the tyrannical actions of TEC.  It has in CA and probably will elsewhere.

As TEC behaves more and more flagrantly - and there is every indication that is picking up pace rather than abating - I think there will be more court involvement in enforcing Constitutional protections.  We’re starting to see really stunning violations of due process and civil rights, not to mention abject disregard for 1st and 14th Amendment protections.

Thank you, this_day.  At what stage in the 6 part procedure you outlined above did Smith’s presentment stall out?  It seems they got no further than 2 out of 6.  Is this correct?  If so, if a corporate entity violates is own legal rules of operation and conduct, and causes harm to innocent victims in the process, is there any way civil courts can reverse the harmful action?  Even allowing for church-state exceptions, individuals such as Bishop Cox could still be protected and any harm Smith has caused could still be pursued, couldn’t they?  It isn’t as simple as many think, that there is a complete laissez-faire attitude or indifference of the state when harm is being done.

I’m not certain at what stage the Smith case stalled out - mostly because of all the cloak and dagger non-communication from the powers that be.  It is my understanding that the Review Committee did meet intially and dispatched attorneys to conduct an investigation.  Beyond that, I really dont know.  In that instance, I really dont see any way for civil courts to get involved.  The state is not entirely indifferent but hands are tied to some degree because of reluctance to pierce the church/state veil.

Yes, it results in grossly unjust and inconsistent actions within the church and the courts are aware of that.

I’ve heard that tort actions may be possible in many instances.