Proposed Resolutions for Rescheduled DioSC Convention

This resolution will be before the Diocese of South Carolina Convention. The Episcopal Church can't hire a lawyer in South Carolina to protect TEC's interests there? WOW!!

Proposed Resolution R-2 2010 Convention

Offered by: The Standing Committee

Subject: Response to Ecclesiastical Intrusions by the Presiding Bishop

RESOLVED, That this 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina affirms its legal and ecclesiastical authority as a sovereign diocese within the Episcopal Church, and be it further

RESOLVED, That this Convention declares the Presiding Bishop has no authority to retain attorneys in this Diocese that present themselves as the legal counsel for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the Diocese of South Carolina demands that the Presiding Bishop drop the retainer of all such legal counsel in South Carolina as has been obtained contrary to the express will of this Diocese, which is The Episcopal Church within its borders.

Response to Dissidents

I wrote about the Dissident report that alleged orthodox Anglicans in the US have sent to the synod in England here . The point is an attempt to get the synod to recognize the Alphabet Soup as a member of the Anglican communion. As I said here, it would be filled with falsehoods and half truths. A response has not be written and sent to the synod so they might have a better picture of who is asking for recognition. It also appears the The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church will be there clarify any misunderstanding. The Report sites some classic oldies like the Chapman Memo and Following the Money. It is easy for those of us who have struggled with these people for so long to forget how truly evil some of their actions have been. This memo is a good synopsis of who the dissidents are.

The purpose of this note is to rebut factual inaccuracies relating to The Episcopal Church in General Synod paper GS 1764A, a briefing paper for a Private Members’ Motion dealing with the relationship between the Church of England and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). A separate note refers to The Anglican Church of Canada.

Acknowledgements:

In compiling this note I have consulted David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop and Mary E. Kostel, Special Counsel to the Presiding Bishop for property litigation and discipline. I have also been assisted by: the Revd Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG, the Revd Scott Gunn, and Ms Susan Erdey of the Church Pension Group.

Simon Sarmiento

Valuable background reading:

Professor Bruce Mullin’s Affidavit in the case of the Diocese of Ohio
http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/mullin01.pdf

Professor Bruce Mullin’s Affidavit in the case of the Diocese of Fort Worth
http://tinyurl.com/mullin03

Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2009)
http://extranet.generalconvention.org/staff/files/download/648

The “Chapman report”
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ss/archives/000405.html

The “Barfoot memo”
www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/overseasAEO.pdf

Following the Money
http://www.edow.org/follow

The paper GS 1764A makes allegations concerning two main topics: clergy and property. Quotations from the paper are in italics.

Clergy

In relation to “the use of Canons in the depositions of bishops and clergy” the paper suggests that 12 ACNA bishops and 404 clergy have been deposed from TEC, and that

“bishops and priests who have not left [TEC] are deposed without due canonical process because of what they might do, or that they should be formally advised that they have abandoned their ministry when they have done nothing of the kind”

The numbers quoted in the paper and much else comes directly from a document referenced there:http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Resources/TEC-Canonical-Abuses.pdf produced by the American Anglican Council, a group that has campaigned relentlessly against the leadership of The Episcopal Church since at least February 2001 (although its antecedents are even older). A refutation of all its claims is beyond the scope of this note.

The numbers are incorrect. Only 3 bishops have been deposed recently (see details below) and the total of ACNA-related clergy depositions to date is 170. The number of former TEC bishops associated with ACNA is eleven.

Two key principles underlie the TEC approach to the issue of clergy movements:

• The Episcopal Church requires all clergy to subscribe to a declaration which reads: “ … I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church.”

• The Episcopal Church takes extremely seriously the issue of provincial and diocesan geographic boundaries and, like the Church of England, does not permit any of its own bishops to perform Episcopal acts within the boundaries of any of its dioceses without the express approval of the relevant diocesan bishop.

It is important to note that the declaration, commonly known as the Declaration of Conformity, refers specifically to the Episcopal Church and not to any wider body, such as the Anglican Communion. Its use is mandated by Article VIII of the TEC Constitution and by the Ordinal of the American Book of Common Prayer.

The same Declaration is required of all clergy – including bishops – who come from other provinces of the Anglican Communion to minister in TEC. Canon III.10.2 reads in part (emphasis added):

Before receiving the Member of the Clergy the Bishop shall require a promise in writing to submit in all things to the Discipline of this Church, without recourse to any foreign jurisdiction, civil or ecclesiastical; and shall further require the person to subscribe and make in the Bishop's presence, and in the presence of two or more Presbyters, the declaration required in Article VIII of the Constitution.

All clergy – including bishops – who leave TEC for another province of the Anglican Communion, or for any other church, are required to complete a corresponding exit process under the Renunciation canons (III.9.8 priests and deacons, III.12.7 bishops). The Renunciation canons are explicit that the subject matter is “renunciation of the ordained Ministry of this Church” (emphasis added).

The American Anglican Council and others have repeatedly misrepresented the use of the Renunciation canons (III.9.8 priests and deacons, III.12.7 bishops) as being of similar effect to the Deposition canons (IV.9 bishops, IV.10 priests and deacons). This is wholly incorrect, and the use of the Renunciation canons has no implications with regard to the indelibility of orders. The process is purely juridical in nature, and is easily reversed if the individual changes their mind and wishes to return to TEC (as happened twice for example in the case of another former Bishop of Fort Worth, Clarence Pope). In a clear majority of cases of clergy leaving TEC for ACNA or one of its predecessors, TEC bishops have taken this pastoral approach in preference to Deposition.

TEC also has a separate canonical process for transfer of clergy between dioceses within TEC, known as Letters Dimissory (canon III.9.5 Section 4) but this process is not now used for transfers outside TEC.

Three TEC bishops were deposed recently under Canon IV.9 Of Abandonment of the Communion of This Church by a Bishop.

• Bishop William Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, resident in the Diocese of Kansas: performed Episcopal acts, including ordinations, on behalf of the Church of Uganda without permission of the local TEC diocesan bishop, since June 2005, deposed in March 2008.
• Bishop John-David Schofield, formerly Bishop of San Joaquin: purported to remove that diocese from TEC to affiliate with the Province of the Southern Cone, deposed in March 2008.
• Bishop Robert Duncan, formerly Bishop of Pittsburgh: purported to remove that diocese from TEC to affiliate with the Province of the Southern Cone, deposed in September 2008.

Nine other bishops now associated with ACNA were treated under Canon III.12.7 Renunciation of the Ordained Ministry. One was Bishop Jack Iker, formerly Bishop of Fort Worth, who also purported to remove his diocese from TEC and affiliate it with the Province of the Southern Cone, in November 2008,but then announced that he had voluntarily left TEC, before the abandonment process could take its course.

Seven others were retired or resigned American bishops who voluntarily decided to leave TEC, associate with other provinces of the Anglican Communion while remaining resident in various TEC dioceses, and continuing to perform Episcopal acts without the consent of the local diocesan bishop.

Also, a former Church of England bishop, Henry Scriven, who had served as Assistant Bishop in Pittsburgh, returned to the Church of England. When Bishop Scriven became an Assistant Bishop in Pittsburgh, he was required, in accordance with normal practice, to make the Declaration of Conformity described above.

As an Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, his office ceased upon Bishop Duncan’s deposition, in September 2008, by virtue of Canon III.12.5 although he conducted an Ordination after that date without the consent of the Ecclesiastical Authority of the TEC diocese. He notified the Presiding Bishop that he was returning to England and placing himself under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. He was thus expected to make a Renunciation in accordance with Canon III.12.7 as described above. It is untrue that he was deposed.

The American Anglican Council document claims a total of 161 clergy depositions over several years – apart from bishops . This is in error. There were 9 additional ones in Quincy in November 2009 that have been omitted, so the correct number is 170. The use of depositions varies from diocese to diocese, for example in Pittsburgh there have been none apart from Bishop Duncan. To put the AAC claim in perspective the total numbers of clergy removals of all types, including depositions, for all reasons, for each of the last four years, ending December 2008 were: 70, 71, 101, and 109. The current total number of clergy in good standing in The Episcopal Church is c. 18,000.

Property

The paper misleadingly claims as follows:

Lawsuits Concerning Property

At the General Convention in 1979, the Committee on Canons of the House of Bishops proposed the following Canon, which was adopted: “All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or congregation is held in trust for this Church [i. e. the Episcopal Church in the United States, my insert] and the Diocese thereof………”. It is often known as the Dennis Canon from the name of its drafter, though more strictly it is now Title I. 7. 4 of the Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

At a stroke, all parish property was transferred to the ownership of the national church. (In legal terms however, this transfer of property may not be beyond challenge as, unlike Measures of General Synod, the “laws” of TEC are not laws of the land. ) In English terms, the equivalent would be the transference of all parish, parish trust and benefice property to the Archbishops’ Council together with the assets of the Church Commissioners.

In the United States, a particularly unpleasant aspect of litigation has been the willingness of TEC and some dioceses such as San Diego and Los Angeles to sue individual vestry (the American equivalent of PCC) members of departing congregations, in addition to the parish corporations of which they were trustee members. Litigation of this kind has the consequence of putting at risk of forfeiture the personal bank accounts, savings and homes of lay church officers. Some have had difficulty in refinancing their mortgages (as defendants in a personal financial lawsuit) and have had their credit ratings put in jeopardy.

And at the end of the paper, it also says (emphasis added):

In asking Synod to express a desire to be in communion with ACNA, there is therefore no suggestion that we should not remain in communion with TEC or ACoC, nor am I suggesting that everyone in ACNA is a paragon of perfection. Rather, it is a recognition that there is a considerable and growing body of faithful Anglicans representing a wide range of church traditions, many of whom have been hurt, who are now members of ACNA. They would be grateful to be in communion with the Church of England as the Windsor/Covenant process works through. In some cases it might also help parishes to retain the property they have built and paid for.

While the lack of establishment necessitates some real differences, for all practical and canonical purposes, Episcopal parishes are substantially similar to those in England. For example, the canons regulate the definition of parish boundaries, formation of new congregations within the bounds of an existing parish (and requiring its permission) and deferring to civil divisions where church authority has not [yet] defined parish boundaries. (Canon I.13) Clergy are not to exercise ministry in another’s cure without permission. (Canon III.9.6.b) The “geographical” nature of the church is well laid out in Episcopal canon law.

Getting into the details of property, the paper completely misunderstands the question of ownership versus trusteeship. It attempts to draw a contrast between the situation in England and the United States while they are in fact very similar if not identical. The “Dennis Canon” (about which more below) did not “transfer ownership” of parish property, but clarified the trustee relationship that parish leaders have in relation to the larger church, just as in England.

This trustee relationship has only ever meant that the national church has an enforceable interest to ensure that the property should be used only for the mission of the church. A helpful comparison may be made with the provisions of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 and The Incumbents and Churchwardens (Trusts) Measure 1964.

This clarification came at the recommendation of the Supreme Court of the United States, which reaffirmed that civil courts were not to become entangled in settling religious disputes. An 1872 case (Watson v. Jones) clarified that either implied trust or being part of (and answerable to) a general church (both of which applied to Episcopal parishes) were sufficient to decide in favour of the diocese or national church, and under civil law this is how the vast bulk of property dispute cases were settled for over a century. In a 1979 case (Jones v. Wolf) the Supreme Court ruled that “neutral principles” might also be considered. Recognizing that this was a shift in the application of civil law, the Court noted (emphasis added):

At any time before the dispute erupts, the parties can ensure, if they so desire, that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church will retain the church property. They can modify the deeds or the corporate charter to include a right of reversion or trust in favor of the general church. Alternatively, the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church.

The Episcopal Church chose to accept this invitation, and adopted the “Dennis Canon” — named for Bishop Walter D. Dennis, Suffragan of New York — as a declaration of what the church had always held to be the case, and which had been the almost universal understanding under the civil law up to that time, that is, rendering the implied consent or trust explicit. As the Court had stated in 1872, in defining the nature of a hierarchical church such as The Episcopal Church (which they named explicitly as an example):

All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if anyone aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.

Thus, what the paper perceives as some sort of novel transfer of property rights was actually a continuation of what had been well understood practice, and canonical requirement, for over a century, and the underlying principle has been recognized by the appellate courts of all but one American state in which cases have been tried.

It is not that the courts are reluctant to address disputes involving churches, but that the rule of law, rather than debate over doctrine, should be the controlling factor. The paper seeks to introduce just such a doctrinal debate (as to who is more faithful to “Anglican belief and practice”). By gaining a form of approval for dissident congregations from the Church of England the motion is hoping to make use of the very legal principle its proposer holds to be inappropriate — but at the level of the Communion rather than of the Diocese or Province — in order for ACNA and its parishes to succeed in their litigation.

A motion by General Synod is unlikely to have such an effect, but will exacerbate the lawsuits by introducing additional confusion, and likely raise false hopes that parish property will be retained by those departing from the very church whose existence made their holding property in trust as a corporate parish possible. Such an action by General Synod will represent an interference not only in the polity of the Episcopal Church, but in the civil courts — and will increase both the extent and expense of litigation.

Which brings us to the issue of natural justice. First of all it must be noted that in many cases the vote of a vestry or congregation to secede from the Episcopal Church is not unanimous — the rights of the minority who wished to remain loyal to the Episcopal Church appears not to factor into consideration in this paper. Moreover, with the exception of those few parishes actually founded and constructed by the present generation, and however “faithful” the dissident members may be, they are in point of fact alienating property that had been dedicated to the use of the Episcopal Church and its worship. (In some recent instances, dissident parishes have come to a settlement with their respective dioceses, and been able to retain property on condition they do not re-affiliate — the situation is not as black and white as the paper portrays it.)

The paper complains about the liability vestry members may encounter when their congregation moves to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. While acknowledging that this is the law in Canada, the author appears not to understand that it is also the law in much of the United States (again, such matters vary from state to state but the liability of vestry members for their corporate acts is a matter of civil law not church law.) In those states where this is the case, vestry members are generally covered by Directors and Officers Liability Insurance, for that very reason. In fact, it is contrary to the policy of The Episcopal Church to seek financial remedies from laypersons, and it has never done so.

Natural justice requires that people take responsibility for their actions. No one has forced individual clergy or laity to leave the Episcopal Church — and they do have the right to do so if their consciences are wounded by the decisions of that church. It is, however, a matter of both church and civil law — and natural justice — that they do not have any right to retain property given in support of the church when they choose to leave it.

Simon Sarmiento
4 February 2010

Report by Dissidents

But don't bother. The alphabet soup that is dissident Anglicanism has released a report about how they were abused by the Episcopal Church. I was going to read it and then I read the article with its release. It contained this line.

This paper illustrates the lengths to which TEC leaders will go to silence the voices of orthodox Christians in the Anglican Communion - Anglicans whose only offense was to stand for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Anglican Communion teaching.

Wow. Only offense? How about taking property that doesn't belong to you? How about years of trying to undermine the Episcopal Church from within and when that wasn't going well leaving and trying to be members of both groups at the same time? How about "Seize the Day?" How about . . . I could go on and on. The idea that these are nice blameless people who have done nothing wrong is laughable. I decided not to read their rant. If they had some willingness to share some of the blame for these sad affairs I would have read it. But no. Not this group. Also missing I would guess (since I will not read it) is any mention of the lawsuits initiated by dissident groups.

If you want to read it, it is here.

http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Resources/TEC-Canonical-Abuses.pdf

But don't bother it will be exactly what you expect preening and posturing and a one sided description of activities that there were mostly to blame for.

Presbyterian churches have bad lawyers too

Once again if you belong to a hierarchical Church you can't leave and take the property. It is that simple!!

C.A. Reverses Ruling Giving Local Churches Control of Property

By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer

The Third District Court of Appeal on Friday reversed a ruling allowing two Sacramento-area Presbyterian churches to take their property with them as they left the national church.

The court held in an unpublished opinion that the trust in which the local churches held property for the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. could only be revoked by amending the national church’s constitution, not through amendments to the local churches’ articles of incorporation.

The First Presbyterian Church of Roseville and Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church sued the national church in March 2007 to quiet title in the property shortly before voting to leave and affiliate with the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

Placer Superior Court Commissioner Margaret Wells granted the local churches summary judgment, ruling that they revoked any trust in which property was held for the national church by amending their articles of incorporation.

Corporations Code

Justice Richard M. Sims wrote on appeal that reversal was compelled under Corporations Code Sec. 9142—which required the trust to be revoked in the same manner in which it was created—and the California Supreme Court’s decision last year in Episcopal Church Cases 45 Cal.4th 467, which was issued after Wells’ ruling.

There, the state’s high court ruled that three Southern California parishes which left the Episcopal Church over its ordination of an openly gay minister lost ownership of their church buildings and property by disaffiliating themselves from the parent church.

The Roseville church, which was founded in 1873, and the Fair Oaks church, which began in 1952, each acquired real property in their own name before and after a 1981 amendment to the constitution of the national church’s predecessor placing all property held by local churches in trust. The current incarnation of the national church was formed when separate entities representing the northern and southern parts of the country merged in 1983, ending a split that had existed since the Civil War.

Like the Episcopalians, the Presbyterian Church has been confronted with a split in recent years over issues including the ordination of gay clergy and same-sex marriage.

Deal Scuttled

Both the Roseville and Fair Oaks churches reportedly agreed to pay the national church to leave with their property, but the deal was scuttled when another local church said the national church had an obligation to obtain fair market value for the property.

The Roseville and Fair Oaks churches amended their articles of incorporation in 2006 to indicate they held their property free of any trust interest. Despite their argument that the trust provision was unenforceable, Wells assumed it was valid but agreed that they revoked it.

However, Sims said any attempt to show the local churches validly revoked the trust failed as a matter of law. Quoting theEpiscopal Church Cases opinion, he said that the language of Sec. 9142 meant that the trust clause in the national church’s constitution could only be revoked by amending the constitution.

The justice rejected the local churches’ argument that there was no evidence they ever consented to their property being placed in trust.

“Fair Oaks [agreed] in its articles of incorporation to subordinate itself to the national church,” he wrote. “The record on appeal does not appear to contain similar evidence with respect to Roseville but, as we have said, the record on appeal is incomplete. Moreover, there is some evidence in the record that local churches were represented in the vote to amend the national church’s constitution.”

Justices Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Vance W. Raye joined Sims in his opinion.

The case is First Presbyterian Church of Roseville v. Presbytery of Sacramento, C060451.

PITTSBURGH: Judge orders property returned to Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh

Good News from Pittsburgh!!!

Once again the lawyers for dissidents lead them astray. They were never going to win and were mislead into thinking they were. Eventually the lawyers will stop advising the dissidents that they have any chance. That is long past due. It is approaching time when some of the dissidents should sue for malpractice for the horrible advice they are getting.

[Episcopal News Service] A judge has told the organization headed by former bishop Robert Duncan that claims to have withdrawn from the Episcopal Church in 2008 that it must turn over control of the Diocese of Pittsburgh's assets.

In a Jan. 29 order County Court of Common Pleas Judge Joseph M. James accepted as accurate an inventory of diocesan property submitted by a "special master" he had appointed earlier and told Duncan's organization it must transfer the assets.

The inventory includes $22 million in cash, cash equivalents, receivables, and investments including about $2.5 million in pooled parish investments and real estate and other real property.

"The diocese plans to quickly make arrangements so that all parishes may again have access to their investment funds that were frozen by financial institutions during the legal proceedings," according to a news release from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

On Oct. 4, 2008 a majority of the delegates to the diocese's 143rd annual convention approved a resolution by which the diocese purported to leave the Episcopal Church. The leaders who departed have said that they remain in charge of an entity they have been calling the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh that is now part of the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. And they say that in that capacity they control all the assets that were held by the diocese when they left.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Joseph M. James, however, ruled Oct. 6 that all diocesan assets must be held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that is recognized by the Episcopal Church. James' opinion and order are here.

The group led by Duncan said Oct. 29 that it would appeal the ruling once the court issues a final order directing it to transfer the property to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

In a Jan. 30 e-mail, Duncan told the diocese he leads that he wanted "to assure you that we will continue to work diligently for the protection of all our parishes and for the good of our mission and ministry."

James' order says that financial institutions and repositories, trustees and fiduciaries must only act on instructions from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, that no real property can be sold or its current occupants removed without a court order, that holders of "altar artifacts" are answerable to the diocese as to their use (and that they cannot be sold or transferred to another location without a court order) and that people or entities who have borrowed money from the diocese (close to $1 million) are answerable to the Episcopal diocese.

Duncan's diocese has 20 days from Jan. 29 to give the Episcopal diocese the financial records, documents and other electronically stored information it needs to hold and administer the property.

There are two versions of the order: a confidential version and a public version from which financial account information has been removed.

The suit arose out of a 2003 complaint by Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh after a special diocesan convention passed a resolution stating that all property in the diocese, which under Episcopal Church canons must held and used for the mission of the church, would be held free of that obligation.

The proceedings in the suit led to an October 2005 stipulated court order in which Duncan and the other then-leaders of the diocese agreed that the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America" would continue to hold or administer property "regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America."

After the 2008 diocesan convention vote, Calvary Episcopal Church asked James to enforce his 2005 order.

In his Oct. 6 opinion James said that "regardless of what name the defendants now call themselves, they are not the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America." He ruled that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh "did not cease to exist" after the 2008 convention vote because it was created by the Episcopal Church and the church now recognizes that those Episcopalians who did not follow Duncan now make up the Episcopal Church's continuing diocese.

The property held by or administered by the Pittsburgh diocese has been reviewed and evaluated by a "special master" James appointed two days before Duncan's removal as a bishop of the Episcopal Church. The special master, Pittsburgh attorney Stanley E. Levine and the Campbell & Levine law firm, gave James an inventory of the property involved in the suit on Jan. 27. James said in his order two days later that his acceptance of the inventory does not preclude other property being added to his order.

All of the public documents in the 2003 case including the Jan. 29 order are available here.

-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is Episcopal News Service national correspondent.

ACNA's Duncan says we lost.

Bishop Duncan writes to his people:

7th October, A.D. 2009

A pastoral letter to be read in all the churches on Sunday, October
11th, A.D. 2009 and in Saturday services preceding.

TO ALL THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE:

Beloved in the Lord,

We lost. In human terms we lost. Bishop and Standing Committee,
together with Board of Trustees, thought we understood the document that was
signed on our behalf in 2005 that ended the first phase of the Calvary lawsuit.
But yesterday, the judge found against us on the basis of that document.

The team that has provided extraordinary legal counsel to us, and to
others in similar cases across the country, has issued the following statement:
"We believe the opinion and order is contrary to applicable law, disregards the
agreed assumption of valid withdrawal by the Diocese from TEC, violates the
assurances given us that the issue of the 'true diocese' was not part of this
proceeding and denies us due process of law." Accordingly we reserve all of our
rights to appeal.

We will take a time for further counsel and prayer, seeking God's
guidance on whether to file an appeal. After that, we will, of course, fully
comply with the court's order to facilitate an orderly transfer of DIOCESAN
assets to the Episcopal Church Diocese. We have mostly lived without benefit of
these assets since January. We have demonstrated that we can live without them.
It will be sad not to have the resources left by previous generations to draw
on, but God will be faithful. Two hundred and fifty years ago the first
Anglicans at Fort Pitt had nothing. One hundred and forty five years ago the
Anglicans who first organized our diocese had nothing. God was faithful to them.
He will be faithful to us.

The court's decision has nothing to do with PARISH property, including
the funds held in trust for you. The stipulation of 2005 spelled out a mediated
process for parishes wishing to leave the "diocese." Your bishop, your standing
committee, your diocesan council and your board of trustees will all work with
your parish leadership toward this end. We invite the leadership of the
Episcopal Church Diocese into working with us for the good of all congregations,
both Episcopal Church and Anglican Church congregations.

The gospel for this Sunday is Mark 10:17-31, the rich young man. In the
passage Jesus promises that those who are willing to leave everything to follow
him "will receive back a hundredfold." Jesus is speaking to us and to our
situation. Now is the moment we are called to trust Him at His word. I am
willing. Your leadership is willing. Are you?

Our future is so bright in the Anglican Church in North America:
Converted individuals, in multiplying congregations, fueled by the Holy Spirit.
Do not despair. "He who has called you is faithful, and He will do it." (I
Thessalonians 5:24)

On Friday night November 6th I invite as many of you as can to join
together, physically or by internet or in spirit, in St. Stephen's Church in
Sewickley (beginning at 6 p.m.) to thank God for his goodness to us, to offer up
the immense transition of this last year, and to celebrate the prospect of our
life in our new Anglican Province. The best is still ahead. Our God
reigns.

Duncan seems to have lost his interest in this fight. Notice once again he is ill served by his legal team. This is a team that believes that the law should be what it wants it to be. Much like Duncan believes the Bible should be want he wants it to be. The are still not stopping they suggest that they will appeal. Enough already.

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long
last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Judge rules against bishop who led break

Good News from California!!

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has prevailed in its first lawsuit against a deposed bishop who led a secession movement prompted by the church's ordination of women and gays.
National church leaders removed John-David Schofield as the head of the Fresno-based diocese in March of last year, after he led parishioners to break with the national church.
On Thursday, Fresno County Superior Court Judge Adolfo Corona ruled that Schofield improperly set up outside accounts to transfer up to $5 million in church money to a new holding company.
The ruling also established that Jerry Lamb, a bishop loyal to the U.S. Episcopal Church, officially heads the Fresno diocese.

Grand jury indicts former Episcopal pastor in Springs Don Armstrong

The dissidents have stated over and over that the complaints against Armstrong were a personality clash because of Armstrong's views. This makes it clear that a justice system which doesn't have a position in the goings on in the Episcopal Church has decided that there is enough there to charge him with a crime.

A theologically conservative pastor in Colorado Springs who led his congregation in a split from the Episcopal Church has been indicted by a grand jury on felony-theft charges.
Colorado Springs police recently wrapped up a two-year investigation into "financial mismanagement" of church funds by the Rev. Donald Armstrong, according to a department media release issued today.

The police investigation was turned over to the Pueblo district attorney's office to avoid possible conflicts of interest, and a Pueblo grand jury returned a 20-count indictment Wednesday against Armstrong, police announced.

Armstrong and his congregation split from the Episcopal Church based on theological differences, such as gay-marriage rights and the ordination of openly gay clergy and bishops. When the congregation left the diocese, Armstrong tried to hold on to the $17 million Grace Church and St. Stephen's Parish buildings in Colorado Springs.

In March, a judge ruled against Armstrong and in favor of the Episcopal Church, saying control of the buildings should be returned to the church by April 1.

Based on the grand-jury indictment, Armstrong turned himself in to authorities Thursday and is free on bond, police said.

Armstrong and his breakaway congregation are affiliated with the conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

ST. JAMES CHURCH’S LEGAL BATTLE OVER ITS PROPERTY

Enough already.  I hope the Supreme Court denies certiorari soon.

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 5, 2009 – St. James Anglican Church, at

the centerpiece of a nationally publicized church property dispute
with the Episcopal Church, announced today that it will file a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court
to resolve an important issue of religious freedom: Does the United
States Constitution, which both prohibits the establishment of
religion and protects the free exercise of religion, allow certain
religious denominations to disregard the normal rules of property
ownership that apply to everyone else?

Under longstanding law, no one can unilaterally impose a trust over
someone else’s property without their permission. Yet, in the St.
James case before the California Supreme Court, named Episcopal Church
Cases, the Court created a special perquisite for certain churches
claiming to be “hierarchical,” with a “superior religious body,” which
may allow them to unilaterally appropriate for themselves property
purchased and maintained by spiritually affiliated but separately
incorporated local churches. St. James will argue before the U.S.
Supreme Court that this preferential treatment for certain kinds of
religion violates the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional issues St. James will raise before the U.S. Supreme
Court go far beyond St. James or even the Episcopal Church. Every
local church, temple, synagogue, parish, spiritual center,
congregation or religious group which owns its property, and has some
affiliation with a larger religious group, is possibly at risk of
losing its property upon a change of religious affiliation. As a
result, religious freedom is suppressed, as those who have sacrificed
to build their local religious communities are now at risk of having
their properties taken based on some past, current or future spiritual
affiliation. A United States Supreme Court decision in favor of St.
James would benefit local churches and religious groups throughout the
country because it would allow congregations the ability to freely
exercise their religion without having to forfeit their property to a
larger religious body or denomination with which they are affiliated
in the event of a dispute over religious doctrine.

While petitions for review with the U.S. Supreme Court are never
assured, there are compelling arguments for the Justices to grant this
petition, including:

   * Dozens of church property cases are percolating in the court
system, lacking clear constitutional direction.
   * States are in conflict regarding the handling of church property cases.
   * These issues have garnered widespread national attention and
involve important questions of federal constitutional law.

The people of St. James Church have owned and sacrificed to build
their church property for many decades, and during that time they have
never agreed to relinquish their property to the Episcopal Church upon
a change of religious affiliation. St. James has consistently
maintained that it has the right to use and possess its own property.

John Eastman, a nationally recognized constitutional law scholar, has
joined the legal team to pursue the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A response from the Court regarding the St. James petition can be
expected as early as October 2009. A decision could be reached as
early as mid-2010.

Even as St. James prepares for a bid on the Supreme Court calendar,
the church’s legal battle has returned to the Orange County Superior
Court. “While we are surprised that the California Supreme Court would
prefer certain religions over others when it comes to property
ownership, the battle in this case is far from over,” said Eric C.
Sohlgren, lead attorney and spokesperson for St. James. “The case has
already returned to the Orange County Superior Court. Because St.
James had an early victory in 2005 by legally attacking the Episcopal
allegations, we now look forward to presenting evidence and additional
legal arguments on behalf of St. James. For example, St. James has
brought a complaint against the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles based
on a 1991 written promise that it would not claim a trust over the
property of St. James on 32nd Street in Newport Beach.”

For more information, please visit the website:www.steadfastinfaith.org

A Brief Recap: St. James Anglican Church’s Fight to Keep its Property

In August 2004 St. James Church ended its affiliation with the
Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the Episcopal Church over
theological differences involving the authority of Holy Scripture and
the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
brought lawsuits against St. James Church, All Saints Church, Long
Beach, CA, and St. David’s Church, No. Hollywood, CA, and their
volunteer board members in September of 2004. Subsequently, the
national Episcopal Church intervened into the lawsuits against the
three local church corporations and their volunteer board members.

In August 2005 the Honorable David C. Velasquez of the Orange County
Superior Court ruled in favor of St. James Church and struck the
complaint brought by the Diocese of Los Angeles. In October 2005 Judge
Velasquez issued a similar ruling in favor of All Saints and St.
David’s Churches. These early victories arose from early challenges to
the two complaints filed by the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, and
as a result, no trial ever occurred. The Episcopalians then appealed
to the California Court of Appeal sitting in Orange County on this
very limited court record, arguing that under neutral principles of
law they had a probability of prevailing and had alleged legally
viable claims.

In July 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected nearly thirty years of
California church property law by ruling that a secular court must
defer to the determinations of the highest level of the church
hierarchy regarding ownership of local church property, regardless of
any agreements between the parties, the corporate documents, who paid
for the property, or who held the deed. The Court of Appeal reversed
the trial court judgment in favor of St. James, and ordered the case
back to the trial court.

In August 2007 St. James filed a petition with the California Supreme
Court, which the Court unanimously and quickly accepted under the name
of Episcopal Church Cases. The Court heard oral argument in the case
in October 2008.

In January 2009 the California Supreme Court ruled in Episcopal Church
Cases that church property disputes in California must be resolved by
neutral or non-religious principles of law, not by civil courts merely
deferring to the decrees of church “hierarchies” or larger church
bodies. As a result, every church property dispute in California now
will be resolved based on non-religious factors that are unique to the
dispute. While adopting this non-religious method of resolving
property disputes between churches, however, the Court seemed to defer
to the Episcopal Church’s alleged “trust canon,” which purports to
create a trust interest in church property owned by local
congregations. The Court made its ruling despite the fact that St.
James purchased and maintained its property with its own funds and has
held clear record title to its property for over fifty years. St.
James believes that this ruling overlooked decades of trust law in
California that only allows the owner of property to create a trust in
favor of someone else, and will as a result have wide impact for local
church property owners throughout California that seek to change their
religious affiliation.

In late January 2009 St. James formally asked the California Supreme
Court to modify its January decision.

In February 2009 the California Supreme Court granted the St. James
request, and modified its decision to confirm both that the suit
against St. James is not over and that no decision on the merits of
the case has yet been made. Instead, the Court clarified that its
decision was only based on the limited record before it, which will
now be augmented through the normal discovery and trial process.

In late February 2009, the case against St. James Church corporation,
the volunteer board members, and clergy returned to the trial court in
Orange County where St. James can assert factual and legal arguments
that were not addressed on appeal through discovery, depositions,
motions, and trial. Using the legal standard set forth by the
California Supreme Court, the Orange County Superior Court will
eventually decide the merits of this dispute. For example, St. James
has brought a complaint against the Diocese of Los Angeles based on a
1991 written promise that it would not claim a trust over the property
of St. James on 32nd Street in Newport Beach.

In May 2009, St. James will plan to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. A response from the
Court regarding its decision to hear St. James’s petition can be
expected by October 2009. The Justices could render by mid-2010.

California Court Rules Against Bishop Schofield

The Episcopal Church has prevailed on all issues in its dispute with the former leadership of the Diocese of San Joaquin, according to a tentative ruling for summary judgment issued May 4 by a Fresno County Superior Court judge.

 

Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow, but the summary judgment indicates that the judge intends to rule in favor of The Episcopal Church, barring unforeseen developments.

 

“The documents are clear,” according to the ruling. “Only the 'Bishop' of the Diocese of San Joaquin has the right to the incumbency of the corporation originally entitled 'The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole' and given the number C0066488 by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the Episcopal Church has spoken as to who holds the position of Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin – Reverend Lamb. Defendants challenge Lamb’s election as Bishop on procedural grounds such as notice and quorum, but this court has no power to rule on the validity of the Episcopal Church’s election of its Bishops.”

If anyone is still advising churches or dioceses that they can leave and take the property they are committing legal malpratice.  The legal precedent is crystal clear.  You can't take the property.  Lawyers who advise otherwise should be sued.

Quincy Dioceses files lawsuit against Episcopal Church

Quincy fires first but it won't matter.  They like the rest don't get it.

“It was clear,” Fr. Spencer said, “that a law suit was heading our way. From suits they have filed elsewhere, we know Episcopal Church leaders will start by trying to seize our funds, and eventually try to take our churches.”

Our Churches our funds?  Ask the churches in Colorado and California whose church it is.

"This time, this time, this time, this time . . .

Once again commentators and lawyers on the conservative side of the Episcopal Church are tearing apart the latest decision by a judge that found that you can not leave and take the property with you if you were once a member of the Episcopal Church.  For instance see this written by a A.S. Haley.  Not sure who he is but his profile lists him as a church attorney.  Again not sure what what that means but if he really makes a living as a church attorney more power to him.  He seems to have taken over for Brad Drell who is down to posting about once every two months.  I also link to Mr. Haley because he once posted that I wouldn't link to him.  So here you go Mr. Haley.

The problem with all this is that these people continue to mislead people into thinking that they will be able to leave the Episcopal Church and keep the property.  Every time a decision comes out Mr. Haley and others go on and on telling us how the bad news for the dissidents is really bad news for TEC.  They nitpick the opinion and show how it will never be applied anywhere but this specific fact pattern and this specific state and tell the dissidents to not fear the decision in other places.  

The problem with this beyond their bad legal advise is that people are mislead into thinking that they can leave the Episcopal Church and keep the property.  Now I am sure some will say that this is not a part of the decision for those leaving.  But it is fairly clear that some who leave don't feel as strongly as their leaders and go with the crowd.  This is especially the case when the leaders try to keep the church.  The other problem is that this is not the only place where they are mislead.  They are also fed a steady diet of misrepresent

ations about the Episcopal Church and its leaders.  This combined with the idolatry of scriptures leads to a mess for those in dissident Churches.  

All of this makes me sad.  It was very predicable the way the court decisions would come out and if the dissidents had better legal advice up front they might have taken some different paths that would have been less painful for all of us.

Meanwhile people like Mr. Haley still haven't stopped.  They remind me of a great scene in Bee Movie.  (If you haven't seen it you should it is more than just a kids movie.)  In the movie the main Bee, played by Jerry Seinfeld, is trying to fly through a window.  He tries several times each time thinking that this time he will be able to fly through the clear window and is each time met by a the window that keeps him from getting out.  He says

 "This time, this time, this time, 

this time . . ."  

This is what the conservative legal 

advisors are like each failure is 

met with renewed resolve to try 

again and again and again.  

And the saddest part of all is 

that it is a huge waste of time 

and money.

Diocese of Colorado wins lawsuit against renegade parish

March 24, 2009

For Immediate Release

Contact: Beckett Stokes, The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado

bstokes@coloradodiocese.org

303-837-1173

Lynn L. Olney, Esq., Senior Warden, Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church

719-636-3251

Statement Regarding March 24 El Paso County District Court Ruling

The Bishop and Diocese of Colorado, and the more than 500 members of Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church rejoice today that the members of the Episcopal parish will be returning to their church home as a result of a decision issued by District Court Judge Larry Schwartz. In that ruling, Judge Schwartz found that the historic property is held in trust for the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church and ordered the breakaway congregation that wrongfully took possession of the property two years ago to leave.

The Bishop of Colorado, the Rt. Rev. Robert J. O’Neill expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, saying, “This outcome honors the history of Grace and St. Stephen’s as an Episcopal parish, and of the Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs. We are extremely pleased that present and future generations of Episcopalians in the Colorado Springs community will continue to worship on Tejon Street.”

"We're coming home!” said Lynn L. Olney, senior warden of Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, "and we invite all our friends to come home with us. During the past two years of exile, our parish congregation has shown the meaning of a faith community. Now, we're coming home!”

“We are very pleased that the judge was persuaded by the significant legal precedent that, while individual members and even clergy may leave a church, they may not take church property with them,” said Larry Hitt. “Today’s ruling is consistent with the outcome of similar cases throughout the country, almost all of which have held that breakaway groups do not have the right to take away church property,” Hitt added.

Martin Nussbaum, lead attorney for the Episcopal Diocese and Parish said, "We are very pleased. The District Court's decision affirms the First Amendment freedom of churches to define their own governance and property relationships. It is difficult to imagine a much more important constitutional freedom for people of faith in this country.”

“These past two years have been a time of challenge for the people of Grace Episcopal, and we have grown in faith, in love and in service to the community. We are thankful that the court has returned our property to us, and we are eager to resume our worship and ministry at our historic facility,” said The Rev. Martin Pearsall, priest at Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church. “There are no winners here, just lots of wounded faithful people. It will be our task and responsibility in the months ahead to strive for healing and to reach out into the community.”

The 500 members of the Episcopal congregation have been worshipping at nearby First Christian Church for nearly two years, while the case has worked its way through the court. “We cannot express enough gratitude to our brothers and sisters at Faith Christian for their continued hospitality and genuine fellowship,” Olney said.

The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado comprises 115 congregations and diocesan institutions all over the state, and is part of The Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. Grace and St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church continues to be one of the largest congregations in the diocese.

Grace church trial is over, but decision won't come for 4 weeks

The latest trial for control of a building that belongs to the Episcopal Church has ended and a decision will be out soon.

After four weeks and dozens of witnesses, the trial to determine who owns a $17 million Gothic church and other property at 601 N. Tejon St. ended Wednesday as attorneys presented their closing arguments.

But Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Larry Schwartz is not expected to issue his decision for at least four weeks.

The trial, which started Feb. 10, pitted two entities that had once been united: the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado and Grace Church & St. Stephen's, which broke its affiliation with the Episcopal Church in 2007, but has continued to worship in the building. The group that stayed with the Episcopal Church, Grace & St. Stephen's Episcopal, has been worshiping in another downtown building.

The breakaway parish - the plaintiff in the case - maintains that it is a separate corporation from the diocese and therefore has legal rights to the property.

The diocese argues that Grace Church is subject to Episcopal law and legal precedent that gives title of the property to the diocese.

In closing remarks in a packed courtroom Wednesday Grace Church & St. Stephen's attorney Gregory Walta characterized the church as an independent corporation since 1973 that bought and sold property without approval from the diocese. Grace's Articles of Incorporation, moreover, make no mention of the diocese or the Episcopal Church, further evidence that it is an independent entity, Walta said.

Yet the diocese expects Grace parish to "give up the property it fought and bled for to some national corporation," Walta said.

Diocese attorney Martin Nussbaum, meanwhile, spoke of the "symphony of vows and affirmations" Grace Church has made to the diocese for decades, suggesting a deeper relationship between the entities than the breakaway congregation has acknowledged.

Nussbaum also spoke of the important precedent of a 1986 church property case, in which the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Episcopal diocese when one of its churches tried to keep its property after leaving the national church.

Walta, however, distinguished the cases, saying that the church in the high-court ruling was "like the kid who never leaves home" ?? firmly ensconced within the national body - while Grace Church was the "exact opposite." Independence "was part of the DNA of this parish," Walta said.

Jack Iker "releases" 4 parishes

The Bishop of the renegade diocese of people in and around Fort Worth who are no longer Episcopalians has released 4 parishes to allow them to continue to be Episcopal Churches.  A press release points out what a kind thing this is and suggests that this is how disputes should be handled.  It of course is all nonsense.  This is exactly the same as a car thief stealing you car and then coming to you and saying I give you back your car.  We are expected to think kindly of the car thief because he gave back is ill gotten item.  No.  He is a thief and returning the property lessens the transgression some but it does not make it go away and we certainly aren't going to say he is being kind and generous.

But that is the upside down through the looking glass world that Jack Iker has created for himself.  

In addition, renegades point to this as how the Episcopal Church should deal with dissidents who take TEC property.  Don't buy it for a second.  Deep in his delusional heart Jack Iker knows he could never keep these properties.  He knows he was going to lose them in any court battle.  So he offers to give them up as a sign of how generous he is.  It is a sham. They weren't his to give back if he doesn't know that we have bigger problems that we thought.

California Losers Ask for Reconsideration - Enough Already Just GO!!

The dissidents and loser in the litigation over Episcopal Church Parish buildings have asked the California Supreme Court to reconsider the decision that said they have to leave their property to its rightful owner TEC.  The article states this:

The parish of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, Calif., filed a petition on Friday with the high court asking for a rehearing of its Jan. 5 decision that blocked the church from keeping its physical location since breaking with the denomination. 

The artilce in a claifrnia legal newspaper also has this great line:

But the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, said church buildings and other property rightfully belong to the national church as "the product of legacies of generations before us," according to published reports.

She has said this but that is not the reason they have to give up the property.  The reason they have to give up the property is that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church require it.  The Constitution and Canons are the rules we all agreed to live by, including those who have now left TEC.  We are not a papal church it is not so because Katharine said so it is true because the rules that govern us say so.

Stop this nonsense and get on with what ever it is you are about and we can get on with what we are about.  This distracts us and you and wastes everyone money.

Speaking Truth to Power

The vestry of the parish of All Saints Episcopal Church in Fort Worth Texas want to continue to be members of the Episcopal Church.  Jack Iker their former Bishop doesn't.  you would think this would be easy.  Jack you go do your thing and leave them alone.  But no that isn't good enough for Jack.  He wants it all and oddly in this big play because he is pushing for everything he may well end up with nothing.  

Anyway the vestry of All Saints wrote a letter to Jack about their plans and their annual meeting.  It very clearly says what I have been saying here, that if he sues them he will lose.  

They held their annual meeting this weekend and Jack didn't show up.  It will be interesting to see what happens next.

This is an excellent letter.

January 20, 2009

Jack Iker

Bishop of the Southern Cone

Dear Sir:

Your recent letter "inviting" Fr. Jambor, the Vestry, and our parishioners to a Canon 32 proceeding on January 22, 2009 makes clear that your ultimate motivation is to attempt to seize our Parish and its property. It could not be more clear that Canon 32 was designed merely to be a tool for you to try to gain control of the property of any Parish which does not travel with you to the Southern Cone. We all saw the result of your Canon 32 "invitation" at Christ the King -- you purported to fire the majority of the vestry and declared Christ the King to be a "Southern Cone" church.

As of now, it seems every remaining Episcopal parish in your former diocese has received notice of your intent to "settle their controversies" through Canon 32. No doubt you plan to "fire" any Vestry member from any Parish who does not agree to willingly leave the Episcopal Church of the United States with you, even though you have absolutely no authority to do so. 

Do you intend to "settle" your supposed controversy with All Saints' by trying to fire the Vestry and seize all of the Parish property? Will you tell our parishioners in writing that this is not your intention?

We will not recognize any actions you take against our Parish. The reason is simple - you abandoned the Episcopal Church of the United States and therefore have no authority over this Parish, its leadership, or its members.

Not only are you not our bishop, but your attempt to not only leave the Episcopal Church, but to also take property belonging to the Episcopal Church will be declared illegal, null and void for the following reasons: 

The Episcopal Church of the United States is a "hierarchical church."

You will fail first of all because the Episcopal Church of the United States is a "hierarchical" church. A "hierarchy" simply means levels of authority. The Episcopal Church of the United States is a hierarchical church because, like it or not, the Episcopal Church has authority over this Parish and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

This authority is reflected in our bylaws ("The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted in conformity to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America"). This authority is reflected in our articles of incorporation, which date back to 1953 ("to associate ourselves together ... according to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in conformity with the Constitution and Canons of its General Convention"). Both of these documents establish our Parish's place in the "hierarchy" of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

This authority is also reflected in the vows that you took and which you abandoned last November:

"I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word

of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly

engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal

Church."

For these reasons, as well as many others, the courts of Texas will recognize that All Saints' Episcopal Church is a part of a "hierarchical church" -- the Episcopal Church of the United States. We challenge you show us any authority from an actual Texas court that says otherwise.

Because the Episcopal Church of the United States is a hierarchical church, we are

bound by its Constitution and Canons, including the Canon establishing a trust in all

parish property. Canon I.7.4 (the "Dennis Canon") dictates that all property held by or for the benefit of a Parish is held in trust for the Episcopal Church of the United States. This canon has been upheld time and time again in courts across this nation. As late as this month it was upheld again by the California Supreme Court. There is little doubt that Texas will follow suit.

So our question to you is, will you nonetheless take such futile and selfish actions

against our Parish?

It bears repeating that we will fight for this Parish. Our parishioners only want to worship in peace. Do not claim on the one hand that it is un-Christian to file lawsuits and then on the other hand leave us with no choice.

If, on the other hand, we have misread your intentions and you actually have no intent whatsoever of interfering in the affairs of our Church, then rest assured that our parishioners would take great comfort in seeing that in writing.

Very truly yours,

The Vestry of All Saints' Episcopal Church

Kent Henning, Sr Warden Gilman Tracy, Jr Warden Stephanie Burk

Grace Forderhase Suzy Griffin Laura Fleming

Ramsay Slugg Tommy Miller Mollee Westfall

Amy Robinson Linda Christie

not joining: Gay Marquardt Fran McDonald Elaine Edwards

cc: The Members of All Saints' Episcopal Church

Good for them.