In a move an attorney for St. James Anglican Church called “threatening and bullying behavior,” the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles will try to recover attorneys fees and court costs from the church and some of its members who voted to break away from the Episcopal Church in 2004, resulting in a bitter legal battle over St. James’ Via Lido campus.
“They are doing this so no one ever dares leave the Episcopal hierarchy ever again,” said attorney Daniel Lula, who represents St. James.
…and they’ll know we are Christians by our … torts?!
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know just how much money has been spent by TEC in the past two years in lawsuits?
See how these heretical Christians show their love, and generosity. I suspect it’s not only for intimidation purposes, but also because 815 isn’t reimbursing them enough.
The idea of personally naming lay Vestry members and support clergy would be unbelievable if it were not the Diocese of Los Angeles. Whether this action is “legal” does not mean it is moral, much less Christian.
#4 –
like i’ve said before, it’s not only believable, it’s canonically required. the vestry and lay leaders are those who hold in trust diocesan assets, and so if they try to walk away with them, then they can be personally liable. fiduciary responsibility: it’s in the canons.
#5 If I thought the canons were biblically-based, legally based and drafted and approved by a majority of TEC members nationally, that would be one thing, but these “votes” on canonical matters are so heavily lobbied on site it is absolutely disgusting ( and legally questionable ), especially by people like the ironically-named “Integrity”. If David Booth Beers and his “defenders of the faith” have to answer to the Supreme Court on this, I would submit their days will be numbered.
This case has more complications than is known to the general public. Bishop John Bruno had his attorneys sue the individual members of the original vestry who made the decision to leave, as well as the corporation. He very cleverly did this to punish and intimidate the individual defendants and hopefully divide and conquer. Current vestry members have no “skin” in the game, so therefore may want to act in a way that is inherently harmful to the original defendants. I would estimate the Diocese and TEC have spent at least $6,000,000. If successful in their claim, each of the 12 defendants would owe $500,000. Where is the outrage?
#4 youngadult, the issue of whether the diocese or the parish owned the property was what was determined by the legal action. The Vestry members acted in good faith on their understanding that a property deed meant something and that “neutral principles” would apply. The ability to sue individual Vestry members, in a sane world, would apply to people who were grossly negligent or deliberately criminal. If you feel that the Bishop and Diocese may properly sue Vestry members whose opinions end up being judged wrong by the Diocese, let me recommend to you never to serve.
I’d like to see the opinion of some of the lawyers who post here as to whether recovery of costs from Vestry members is likely to be agreed to by the courts.
This case is a great example of why you should never, ever agree to serve on a vestry, church council, or non-profit board until you, and possibly your attorney, have taken a very close look at the director’s liability insurance policy and can assure yourself that there is appropriate protection from situations like this.
BTW, is there a CA attorney in the audience who can say if these scurrilous lawsuits against individuals rise to the level of an anti-SLAPP action? It would be even juicier if a RICO lawsuit could reasonably succeed. And yes, I know you are not supposed to sue a brother/sister Christian. That reasoning does not seem to apply here.
In the case of St James, the original defendants had D&O;insurance to the tune of $1,000,000. This policy was voided when the Vestry chose an attorney not offered by Church Mutual Insurance Company, on the recommendation of the attorney who now handles the case. Restoration of that coverage is highly unlikely. The current Vestry, five years later, has the same coverage, and continues the same policy of not using the Insurance company’s offer of free service. I would agree, signing on to the Vestry, may be dangerous to your financial future, especially with people like Bishop John Bruno and PB Katherine Schiori.(the great peacemaker)
#10 – It would seem the carrier, Church Mutual, had a duty to defend, no matter what, and could be liable for bad faith.
“Young Adult”, one of the so-called Canons is the Dennis Canon which imposes a Trust over a piece of property without the consent of the owner. That is neither legal nor moral. When the Government says that any institution can by simple vote place a Trust over privately owned proptery without that party’s consent, there is something seriously wrong with that Government.
In the case of St. James, not one dime ever came from the Diocese or TEC in the acquiring of the property or building of any buildings. The money has ALWAYS flowed from St. James to TEC and Diocese…NEVER the other way. The have absolutely no stake in our property or Church. Our people gave sacrificially to build its buildings, and when the old was torn down we got written assurances from the Diocese that they would never try to take them from us.
This is not a matter of winning a lawsuit or keeping the buildings that God has entrusted to us. As many as 40 other cases rely upon our case in order to keep their own property. AND most importantly, we do not want to give our property over to those who would preach a False Gospel that would lead people away from God’s Word and Jesus Christ as the only source of salvation.
Bruno’s favorite church in the diocese seems to be All Saints in Pasadena, 1200 of whose members signed a letter two days after Obama was elected extolling this person as if he represented the second coming. The letter was close to cult-like in its adoration of Obama and one cannot but wonder when this diocese itself will be relegated to such status.
#13….by both size and by definition TEC is already considered a “cult”, and was a topic of discussion here more than a year ago.
[i] Comments directed toward individual commenters deleted by elf. [/i]
#15 – All of Bruno’s issues so far have been in California state courts, if I understand correctly. Beers threw in every church property case he could find: Buddhist, big on Presbyterians – but I saw nothing concerning TEC cases or history. The federal courts could offer up some new challenges. Bruno uses our money just like Obama uses our money – tyranically.
Okay … lets for a moment give consideration to an TEC case being appealed to the Supreme Court.
I note that the four conservatives, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, & Scalia … as well as the swing vote, Kennedy are members — one would assume in good standing — of the Roman Catholic Church. Now that’s a Church with hierarchy … so presumably these men understand and accept church hierarchy. Will that help or hurt TEC? … or will it play a role at all?
Just curious. Thoughts?
#15 … Glad to know there are young adults such as you among us!
To all: Oops … sorry about the “an TEC” in the previous post … just drop the “T” when reading.
Church hierarchy has usually been a good thing until now. I seriously doubt, and would happily surprised, the the U. S. Supreme Court took our case. In the past they have usually allowed individual states to determine property law, and they would be seriously upsetting tradition by hearing our case.
On the other hand, the concept of only in a Church can the greater body vote in convention, without written assent, create a Trust over a piece of property that whose Deed is held by someone else without that party’s written agreement allowing it. In this instance, we are uniquely being singled out and treated differently than any other group or organization.
#18 — first, i highly doubt that the supreme court would choose to get involved, but if they did, i don’t think that the justices catholic backgrounds would make much of a difference (such a difference, if any, would help tec, i should think).
To FFV ( from another FFV ) – The Catholic hierarchy thing is moot. This is about property law and who actually holds title. The Calif. state courts are overrated in this. Some TEC convention throws up a motion to take over all the US properties without bothering to ask any of the property owners and then uses RICO tactics ( directly or indirectly ) to enforce same, I think the Supremes might find that interesting.
#20 — please. “rico tactics”? the idea that the supreme court would a) take a case of the episcopal church and then b) find them guilty of racketeering under a rico charge? i’m going to call that one wishful thinking on your part.
I really have no idea if the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case. As the Virginia court pointed out, though, churches in which the local parish property actually belongs to the larger organization take care to place the deeds in the name of the organization. Thus, Catholic parishes’ deeds say the Diocese is the owner; Mormon stake deeds specify a Virginia corporation wholly owned by the church in Salt Lake City; and so on. The question would be whether such a trust can be imposed by the General Convention over and above state law and property deeds. California appears to be reading this as if the deeds had been changed, and they had not. In truth, the Dioceses do NOT accept full liability and responsibility for parish property. Wasn’t there an abuse case in or near San Francisco in which the Diocese tried to wash its hands of the matter, since it happened in a parish? Have it one way or the other.
#22 – First, It is conceivable that TEC, just as it likes to change the rules as it goes along ( ie, we will now ipso facto, by our own decree, be the owners of all Episcopal Church property in the USA ), could be declared ( do not laugh ) no longer a “church” ( as it was when all of these churches came into existence ), but a cult that likes the tax advantages associated with being called a “church” ( kind of like L. Ron Hubbard did ). If TEC can change the rules, why not the various individual “churches”? Just as the early KKK statutes were used to deprive the KKK of its ill-gotten gain ( they ended up having to deed their own property to some blacks they had hassled ) the KKK statutes have subsequently been used in other venues unrelated to the KKK. So, too, the concept of treble damage RICO-type statutes could ( I mean Bruno suing individual vestry members to make a point ) bring these jerks to their knees. I think it could be argued successfully that TEC is no longer a church established, as it was originally, on the principals of the Bible, but has been infiltrated by unlawful intercessors. None of the cases cited among the California appellant cases were really about a church leadership which unilaterally took over the leadership, changed the rules, sued to get rid of the competition and then attempts to bankrupt any individually who gets in their way. Yes, I think RICO is relevant. These are thugs masquerading as holy people. False pretenses. Read the cult-like letter signed by 1200 members of All Saints Pasadena ( see their web site ) two days after Obama got elected. These people were another manifestation of the Jim Jones Kool Aid drinkers in Guyana decades ago and this is Bruno’s favorite church in the diocese – where they charge upwards of $2500.00 to hear liberal political speakers “preach”. I do not think Catholic churches are set up the same way and I think the Catholic Church still follows the tenets of the Holy Bible. Big Distinction. By the way, Bruno was a Catholic, but left. He was nominated at a diocesan convention from the floor with no prior discussion of his qualities to be a bishop. His seminary-mate from Virginbia Theological Seminary recently with a church in Colorado Springs has stated on this blog that Bruno was a “fraud in seminary” and still is. I do not know. I wasn’t there.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
youngadult, would you be willing to look at the argument that California Dioceses, while insisting on ownership of the parishes, do not accept liability if a tort is committed at the parish? A genuinely hierarchical church, like the Roman Catholic Church, has the diocese assume all liability along with the ownership, hence the dioceses which are going bankrupt over the sex-abuse charges. TEC, in California and elsewhere, wants to have it both ways; it wants to keep the property, but the dioceses do not assume effective ownership, management and liability unless it’s a mission.
#24 – You refrain from engaging the subjectmatter under discussion; your tone suggests a pejorative opinion without much basis in fact. The Bruno fraud quote appeared on this blog from Rev. Don Armstrong of Colorado Springs, a classmate of Bruno. I might respectfully suggest a more careful reading of earlier comments.
I meant #25
Unconfirmed: Judge dismisses Bp. Bruno’s lawsuit against St James vestry as frivolous. Details forthcoming. Happy Friday.