Also interesting that the Plaintiff in Intervention is the Episcopal Church, as defined as “an unincorporated association,” whereas in the definitions on page two, the Episcopal Church is defined as a “hierarchical religious denomination”
I was more interested in the pairing of association and hierarchical, but that’s an interesting question. I have no idea what the corporation laws in Pennsylvania are, but generally to invoke a corporate argument, which they seem to be doing, you have to have be a corporation.
Page five perpetuates the myth with a claim that a diocese cannot leave without permission of convention whereas the canons/constitution state only that GC approves the incorporation of a Diocese into the Episcopal Church. The appeal is to constitution, canon and polity. This is rubbish – this is what Quincy seeks a declaratory judgement on and this suit should do the same.
Beers will try anything as he showed with the suit against vestry members in CA which was thrown out super-fast. At what point can he be sued for frivolity? Not a good idea actually as we would then descend to the same depths as he lives at (bad English construction – sorry!)
Kendall’s title is actually a misnomer. The isn’t another lawsuit per se but a joining in with a separate complaint on the existing Calvary lawsuit in which +Henry Scriven was named as a defendant in 2003 when it was filed. Interestingly when Calvary filed the case they were very selective in suing only some of the Board of Trustees and some of the Standing Cmte. Conveniently the more liberal members of either body were not named in the suit. And now some of the defendants i.e. Rev Scott Quinn is both a leader in the new Diocese that has also entered the suit and is also being sued! And none of the defendants in the real Diocese are even members of the BOT or Standing Committee anymore.
It is a very complex case!
#7: I would tend to agree. TEC’s successes in CA appear to have established (at least for the moment) his right to sue. This would suggest to me, that even if TEC and the Diocese lose the actual property cases, he is probably safe from a countersuit of “frivolity”.
Under those circumstances, however, there may be other countersuits that might succeed, were the churches interested in pursuing them.
Interesting that the Rt. Rev. Henry Scriven was made a co-defendant. He’s not even an American citizen, is he?
Also interesting that the Plaintiff in Intervention is the Episcopal Church, as defined as “an unincorporated association,” whereas in the definitions on page two, the Episcopal Church is defined as a “hierarchical religious denomination”
Does one have to incorporate to be hierarchical? That would surprise me.
I was more interested in the pairing of association and hierarchical, but that’s an interesting question. I have no idea what the corporation laws in Pennsylvania are, but generally to invoke a corporate argument, which they seem to be doing, you have to have be a corporation.
Correction, you have to have been a corporation. Pardon my atrocious grammar…I still have no finished my first cup of coffee.
Page five perpetuates the myth with a claim that a diocese cannot leave without permission of convention whereas the canons/constitution state only that GC approves the incorporation of a Diocese into the Episcopal Church. The appeal is to constitution, canon and polity. This is rubbish – this is what Quincy seeks a declaratory judgement on and this suit should do the same.
Beers will try anything as he showed with the suit against vestry members in CA which was thrown out super-fast. At what point can he be sued for frivolity? Not a good idea actually as we would then descend to the same depths as he lives at (bad English construction – sorry!)
At what point can he be sued for frivolity?
Perhaps when he actually loses? Because the courts have been agreeing with TEC, he can make this correct argument.
Kendall’s title is actually a misnomer. The isn’t another lawsuit per se but a joining in with a separate complaint on the existing Calvary lawsuit in which +Henry Scriven was named as a defendant in 2003 when it was filed. Interestingly when Calvary filed the case they were very selective in suing only some of the Board of Trustees and some of the Standing Cmte. Conveniently the more liberal members of either body were not named in the suit. And now some of the defendants i.e. Rev Scott Quinn is both a leader in the new Diocese that has also entered the suit and is also being sued! And none of the defendants in the real Diocese are even members of the BOT or Standing Committee anymore.
It is a very complex case!
#7: I would tend to agree. TEC’s successes in CA appear to have established (at least for the moment) his right to sue. This would suggest to me, that even if TEC and the Diocese lose the actual property cases, he is probably safe from a countersuit of “frivolity”.
Under those circumstances, however, there may be other countersuits that might succeed, were the churches interested in pursuing them.
Yes, Archer_of_the_Forest, he isn’t. Bishop Scriven is one of Her Majesty’s subjects.
Yes, Archer_of_the_Forest, he isn’t. Bishop Scriven is one of Her Majesty’s subjects.
His being a foreign national is irrelevant. While he lives and works in our country, he is subject to our laws.
Now if he has full diplomatic immunity … it might be different.