Financial services firm Morgan Stanley has frozen the accounts of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh because it is unsure who should be allowed to access them.
In a letter Jan. 13, the firm said it would not allow any further distributions until it received a court order listing those authorized to use the accounts.
Taken directly from the Jerry Lamb playbook. Lamb not only got Merrill Lynch to freeze assets in San Joaquin but also froze assets of parishes that crossed over to the illegitmate Schori group.
Bp. Bob is going to need patience and prayers as compromise and negotiations have ended.
Intercessor
I’m not happy about this development, but some of us – on both sides of the divide – plan to go on trying. It might be better, Intercessor, to state that prayers are needed for a spirit of compromise to be found even in the midst of hostilities. The Lord does move in mysterious ways, after all.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Jeremy, I am sure the Irish monastics prayed for the Vikings, but it also made sense to lock the doors. This was predictable and Pittsburgh should have anticipated it.
And done what? (other than what they’re already doing).
I’m simply pointing out that any long-term resolution (not on property, but on more intangible things) will not be achieved through court action. For some – on both sides – that’s acceptable. Realignment defined who was with us and who against us (again, this holds for both groups). Others of us, wisely or unwisely, are not yet ready to concede the point.
This is the TEc game plan…..it’s like a war strategy! Cut off our life sustenance (like cutting off water to a village) and maybe you can get them to surrender!
Ft. Worth will soon follow…..and the sad thing is TEc has no clue that we conservatives look to our Father in Heaven to sustain us…not TEc. If they get the property and all that is in it…what have thy really won? Not souls that is for sure! No those who worship God and live by and in His word giving all to Him as it comes from Him anyway will prosper and I truly feel like they will be like Job….they will be blessed twofold! TEc on the other hand will have empty buildings and will whither and die but hey …………they are protecting the assests for future generations….they say! Sin is so blinding!
What this all does speak to is the importance of getting the legal status matters clarified by the Commonwealth sooner rather than later. The freezing of these accounts–and, frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see other similar actions–by third party fiduciary trustees is perfectly understandable. Morgan Stanley or PNC cannot evaluate the present dispute, with an Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-Realigned and an Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh-TEC each with a cogent legal argument before the courts about continuity with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh pre-October 4, 2008. Once the courts of the Commonwealth have settled this question, the third-party fiduciaries will have some basis on which to act, and our two communities can move forward into what I pray will be a gracious and charitable future, with a sense of generosity and mutual respect. We have deep friendships and shared ministry over years and generations, after all. There are significant numbers of clergy and laity in both groups who share that desire, but at present there really is no foundation for the resolution of our concerns. I am very sad that there may be real consequences to this stand-still: mission grants unfunded, perhaps staff reductions. The sooner we can know what the legal situation is, the sooner we can move forward with realistic planning for our life and ministries.
Bruce Robison
Didn’t Mogan Stanley go bankrupt? If so, what do they have to freeze up?
Why not sue to freeze TEC assets, since it is a false church rejected by the majority of the Anglican Communion, who is fraudulently using trust funds to fund lawsuits against the faithful?
Those who live by the sword…
#8 Clueless, when Jesus comes back, I’m sure that’s the first thing he’ll do.
Financial institutions have no choice when this kind of situation develops, where there are competing claims to the same funds. At that point they must freeze the funds and file an interpleader action in court, asking the court to determine the rightful owner. Otherwise, the institution faces personal liability if it disburses to the wrong person.
#7, I think you must be thinking of Lehmann Brothers, but even for them the assets in trust accounts were intact. Morgan Stanley is lumbering along on its own, for the present, Merrill Lynch was purchased by Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs reorganized as a bank. In all these situations the stockholders of the firms themselves were of course at risk, but the trust accounts continue in the ownership of whatever underlying securities the trusts owned.
Bruce Robison
Jeremy, they should have moved the money and put it into a new account under a differant legal entity. Now, if they were locked into this position due to prior litigation, then there was most likely nothing they could have done.
Well, [url=http://www.episcopalpgh.org/info-on-recent-court-filings-by-sc-group/]here[/url] is the “explanation” from the “continuing” diocese on the court proceedings – note the condescending tone. This is what we are dealing with – language and attitude straight out of 815 – from people who were not interested in a “battle”, and who are people we love and once respected. I’ve said before, this feels like watching your favorite uncle sue your grandpa…
#8 Are there legal grounds for bringing a countersuit against TEC?
#12, since the Stipulations settling the lawsuit brought by Calvary Church, Shadyside, in 2005, the assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh have been subject to oversight by the Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There is currently a Special Master, and any action like the one you imagine would have been prevented by the Court.
Bruce Robison
15, I suspected that that might be the case. I do hope that Pittsburgh has opened new accounts and that no more money is going into this account.
Here’s a novel idea. Instead of resorting to non-Christian lawsuits over assets, in a drive to get everything , why not negotiate an equitable divisions of the assets between the parties? What would St. Paul suggest in this situation? All this sad talk about the necessity of “clarifying” the legal situation is just trying to put lipstick on a pig. There is a legal battle going on here with unfortunate consequences- way too much money invested in lawyers, more terrible headlines for the newspapers to broadcast an ugodly witness about those litigious Christians, hard feelings generated from this “civil” combat. And furthermore the judge in this case wants there to be an equitable division of assets in this case. He has practically begged the two sides to negotiate this without resort to trial. He also stated, and I quote, “We don’t want a gridlock where there are injunctions and bank accounts frozen.” Now the Calvary/Simons litigants have successfully defied the judge on this issue (although they farcically claim they had no prior knowledge of the frozen bank accounts and their lawyers had nothing to do with it). One side and the judge want negotiation and an equitable division. The other side has a lawyer who told the court in horror when the judge suggested an equitable division: “This isn’t an equitable division case”. Why? I would like to hear someone explain why it is so wrong to not sue for everything .
#13… I know of no legal grounds for the traditionalists suing TEC. I think #8 indicated “fraud” but he’d need to explain that further. If TEC is truly guilty of fraud in a legal sense, then the police should be involved and there should be a criminal trial.
I do know of Christian grounds for traditionalists not suing TEC. Which is that the Bible says not to do it. We take the Bible seriously. So we shouldn’t do it.
There’s probably a legitimate argument to justify Pittsburgh, Truro, etc. defending themselves in court (though I must admit that the Dominical model is to be silent and not answer back when arraigned before the civil magistrates) — but what seems certain is that we are not to INITIATE lawsuits as a means settling church disputes.
My understanding is that the matter at question is not directly about assets, but about identity. Each body believes in good faith that they are the successor institution to that entity that was, prior to October 4, 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. I don’t believe that [b]either[/b] entity is willing at this time to enter into any negotiation before that question is settled. Once that question is settled, the matter of appropriate distribution of assets could be addressed. Folks on both sides have occasionally used language which indicates an openness to some form of fair distribution, but neither side has indicated a willingness to do without the prior question of identity being settled. We won’t actually know who is “willing to share” until we know who’s who.
Bruce Robison
Gillian C,
Not too much different than us here in San Joaquin…..we all know how ya’ll feel! We may have been the guinea pig by going first but I haven’t seen much different in how things are playing out in Pittsburg and soon Ft. Worth. We stand with you all and pray for you all as we do for ourselves everyday. No worries God has already won and we will be blessed beyond our imaginations….I fear for those who have chosen to stay in TEc…..not a legacy I would want to be attached to.
The only reason it matters at all which diocese is found the legal successor is… the assets, the bank accounts, the property. You could divide it all right now and then it wouldn’t matter a hill of beans at that point what each side believed on that point. One would be TEC and one ACNA. No one would be confused.
Jon #18: I’m sure that Clueless, #8, is making a rhetorical argument that a very large amount of people in all North American Christendom would support across many denominations. Even if Christians don’t choose to sue, they can point out the hypocrisy.
#22. Hey Cole! I wasn’t primarily responding to #8. I was responding to #14 who was responding to #8. #14 said:
“#8.. Are there legal grounds for bringing a countersuit against TEC?”
I was responding to #14’s question, which struck me as an honest direct question which meant what it said. My response was to say, I don’t think there are good LEGAL grounds TO do it, but there are certainly good Christian grounds NOT to do it.
Of course, I screwed the whole thing up by saying “#13” when I meant to say #14.
Life in the blogosphere is way too difficult when you are bad at scrolling up and down.
🙂
Attorney for Bishop Duncan: “…I have little doubt that Mr. Roman’s group (Roman is the newest attorney for the plaintiffs) will seek to litigate these issues, unfortunately. And I say unfortunately because it would be preferable to do it collaboratively, without litigation. But we fear that litigation is–”
Judge James: “Oh, I have expressed the same concerns… I’m on the same page. I would rather have this conciliated as an equitable distribution of church assets… I’d be more than happy to conciliate these matters… I have always said I wish there would be a sorting out of the assets.”
The judge thinks it can be done. It’s not impossible. He has essentially offered to arbitrate the process himself if asked. The idea that this is simply about “identity” and not assets is utter nonsense. No one has sued to stop someone from calling themselves the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, every bit of legal work so far has dealt only with property and assets. Bottom line is the Calvary/Lewis/Simons litigants want to stick it to Bishop Duncan and those who left and take everything for themselves. And should they emerge victorious in court “appropriate distribution of assets could be addressed”. And since TEC has established a fairly extensive track record with regard to departing parishes I think we all know exactly how that would work out…
[i] The freezing of these accounts . . . by third party fiduciary trustees is perfectly understandable [/i]
Is Morgan Stanley really a “fiduciary trustee” here?
Jim the Putitan
Spot on. What was done was right and good. These are business people who have no interest in our theological wars. What they have done is morally neutral.
Perhaps I am influenced by having actually heard fellow parishoners chortling with glee at the thought that Bishop Duncan is finally “getting what was coming to him”…
And yet, Nevin, I know a number of Trinity Cathedral members who don’t share +Bob’s theological perspective but respect him for his principles and who find the present situation unsatisfactory. One chapter member has told me that he has been invited to serve on the Episcopal Board of Trustees but has said he will do so only if an agreement to settle – regardless of the results of the present case – is made.
I must confess that the legal contortions on the ACNA side to continue to assert that we are the Diocese of Pittsburgh (not that we don’t have a claim to certain assets, but that we existentially “are” that body) don’t thrill me either. It feels too contrived. By the same token, the remaining Diocese of Pittsburgh isn’t really the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; that body has passed into the mists of history.
#32 — I’m a recovering English teacher myself, and so I understand completely, and with a smile of appreciation. The spinning of semi-colons through the logosphere is one of my favorite chilly-morning activitites . . . .
Following your note at #31, I would acknowledge that the emotional tone on both sides of the stream at the moment seems pretty unsettled. I heard a story yesterday about a realigned priest who, when greeted in a line at a coffee shop by a TEC cleric, declined the outstretched hand and turned his back to walk away. I also have heard both clergy and lay people in the TEC environment express the kinds of feelings about Bishop Duncan that you refer to, no question about it. We’ve been through the wringer, all of us. Emotions are raw, I guess.
I would say that I have always considered Bishop Duncan to be a godly leader and a friend, and I know there are many of us, clergy and laity, within the TEC EDoP, who regard him with affection and respect. I haven’t always agreed with his take on things, but even in those situations we’ve been able to work together in good ways. If I discerned as a matter of conscience that his direction could not be mine, I nonetheless continue to pray God’s blessing upon him. I know he and Nara, Louise and her family, remain on my daily list of prayers, morning and evening, as they have been for many years.
The decision of the majority of our diocese to separate from the Episcopal Church inevitably triggered a series of canonical and legal questions which will ultimately be answered not by those of us here in Pittsburgh but by the governing ecclesial bodies within the Anglican Communion and by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It’s easy enough I suppose to say that folks should “walk away from the table,” but I’m not sure that’s right. If my neighbor and I have a good-conscience disagreement about the placement of the property lines between our two homes, it makes sense to ask for the neutral party of the court to evaluate the relevant documents and render a defining decision. We might have thought, “Oh, let’s just split the difference,” but if we were to do that we might cause all kinds of problems for our heirs or subsequent purchasers of the properties. Better to figure out what the line is, then, if necessary, talking about “selling an easement” for a dollar.
My own hope is that once the legal questions are settled, and with perhaps some of the emotional wounds beginning to be healed, our two bodies will be able to sit down and figure out how generously and affectionately to continue ministry in this place together. This may take some time, and will require folks on both sides to step back a bit from the rhetoric that has fueled this season, but I believe it can happen.
Bruce Robison
Quoting myself
[blockquote]Better to figure out what the line is, then, if necessary, talking about “selling an easement†for a dollar[/blockquote]
English teachers editing and re-editing, but fumbling the final proof-read. “. . . then, if necessary, [italic]to talk about[/italic] “selling an easement” for a dollar.”
Bruce Robison
Yes, I would myself much prefer one of the routes you suggest. Perhaps there will be some space for some of that down the line. The present reality is, of course, that [b]no new lawsuits[/b] have been filed. The only question right now before the court is whether the Stipulation settling the Calvary lawsuit is being complied with. The initiative of our TEC diocese to have a place at the table in that determination is simply not the same thing as “bringing a lawsuit,” though it does suggest a sense of interest in the result. Absent the Calvary suit I’m not sure what the majority feeling is on the TEC side of the table, as the question has not been presented. I can assure you that no one I’ve spoken to believes litigation to be congruent with our call to Christian ministry. If it is in fact a necessity in the future, then it will be an ugly necessity, and there will be much regret.
Bruce Robison
I am sorry to hear that a realigned priest would turn his back on a TEC priest. That’s not right. Some of the rhetoric coming from some realigners has been unfortunately intemperate as well. There are people on both sides that appear unable to take disagreement with their position as anything other than a personal affront.
While technically correct about no new lawsuit being filed, what is happening is an attempt to foist a new and novel interpretation of the Stipulation on the court. Judge James has clearly stated, and it is in the court transcripts, that he understood the Stipulation to be dealing only with the orderly separation of parishes from the diocese (at that time TEC) without alienating any diocesan assets. He has clearly stated that he did not think it was addressing the issue of the actual removal of the diocese from TEC, that was a separate issue. Now the Calvary/Lewis/Simons litigants are attempting to claim that the Stipulation was an agreement by Bishop Duncan that should the diocese leave TEC they would forfeit all property and assets, something patently absurd and not at all contemplated in the Stipulation. The Calvary/Lewis/Simons litigants used their interpretation of the Stipulation to coerce Stanley Morgan into freezing the bank accounts. It is dishonest to claim no prior knowledge and claim no involvement when it is obvious that this was the intent when the letters to Stanley Morgan ensued. What did they think was going to happen?
Is it possible to settle this without resort to lawsuits? Certainly, if the desire was there. But the longer this goes the uglier it will get and hearts will just get harder. My fear is this probably will go on for several more years.
I actually agree with BMR about the settlement of these issues in the secular courts which, I think, are far more just than TEC bodies. The issue of the legal identity of the various bodies is far more important to me than the property. And of course, since I believe that canonically, dioceses may leave TEC, that legal identity will be deeply important for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh [now residing in the Southern Cone.]
The thing I disagree with BMR about is that there’s something particularly or intrinsically wrong with an anonymous “realigned priest” in a coffee shop rejecting the handshake of a stayer, and walking away.
Sometimes, it’s the right thing to do to demonstrate one’s contempt for the actions of others by “the cut direct” which is a time-honored tradition in responding to those who have behaved abominably and with no honor.
Since we don’t know who the realigned clergyperson is or who the “stayer” is, we simply don’t know what actions that the “leaver” perceived in the stayer that deserved such a public repudiation. It may be any one of a number of things that are not related to “you stayed and I left and therefore I despise you.”
On my own part, for instance, there are people who have stayed and people who have left who have behaved dishonorably. When I meet a very few people in TEC, although I might shake their hand as a social ritual acted on with all, even criminals, I certainly do not pretend that “all is well” — which of course is the classic pretense of some revisionists in TEC whom one meets. The very last thing they want is a public pointing out that their actions are considered reprehensible and that therefore they will not be greeted as if they are somehow a brother, or a friend.
No.
All is not well.
I also would not engage in ministry or mission with such people as fellow Christian believers — and should I ever leave TEC and be in a different denomination or church I would continue to be very careful about what sorts of Episcopal clergy, bishops, or laity with whom I engaged in ecumenical or outreach work together.
Some are fellow ministers of the Gospel. Others are people of a different religion entirely, and the better course is engaging in the actions associated with multi-faith outreach, as long as it’s clear to the public that the parties do not share the same faith.