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.
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.
“The Episcopal Church has prevailed…” Perhaps, but at what cost?
Given the state of California’s descent into insanity in every other sphere, why would it surprise us to learn that its courts cannot arrive at a just verdict in this case?
Leave the dead to bury the dead.
I’m sure this is a long way from over. At some point it may well end up before the US Supreme Court.
The Living Church has got it wrong. This is a tentative decision, not the final one. In any case, even if the court does not change, this is only the trial court decision. I would guess that this case will be appealed, perhaps all the way up to the USSC. Personally, I find large parts of this tentative decision extremely troubling from a constitutional (i.e. US Constitution) perspective. A few thoughts:
1) the judge repeatedly says that it doesn’t matter what the canons say or that it doesn’t matter if “TEC” followed its own procedure, all that matters is that “TEC” declared that Lamb was the bishop and all other consideration is closed off. This means that $4 and TEC’s constitution and canons will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
2) the judge never actually justifies how he knows that “TEC” declared something. Who has the right to speak for TEC? How does the judge justify this? He simply doesn’t address this.
There are many other very troubling part of this tentative decision, but it seems to me that some courts are simply declaring – absent any evidence or analysis – that TEC is “hierarchical”, then do not bother to inquire into what “hierarchical” actually means, and then assuming that it must mean that the PB must have unassailable powers which have never been granted her under TEC’s polity.
I have been assured that this decision will be appealed.
Jamesw, are you a lawyer? Because having read the order, I find much of what you say to be inaccurate.
Also as far as appeals go, yes there will be an appeal up the State Court ladder; but while his case is no doubt of great importance to Archbishop Duncan and his followers, it is in the grand scheme of US Jurisprudence a small property dispute case and unlikely to be heard by the US Supreme Court.
Jim K –
Justice, as beauty, is oft in the eye of the beholder. That is why we do not allow biased laymen to make legal decisions. If you take my house I will feel myself wronged, regardless of your reason for doing so. This should not engender such hatred for the entirety of Christ’s children in California.
I feel sympathy for those who feel TEC is leaving them and want to leave TEC first. However, having made an admittedly limited study of the legal issues, I feel this is not the last defeat, those seeking to take property with them will suffer.
Mitchell, are you a lawyer? I’m not, but I find Jamesw’s concerns to be reasonable ones.
Chris,
I am a lawyer. But I never said jamesw did not have ligitimate concerns. What I said was I believe his analysis of the Judge’s order was inaccurate. I asked if he was a lawyer, because often legal decisions are unclear to laymen. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree legally with the judge in this case. I have not read the briefs the lawyers submitted and I do not know California law. But I believe the Judge did explain his decision, and a number of issues jamesw said were not addressed were in fact addressed in the order.