The [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/brace-yourselves-in-san-joaquin.html]Anglican Curmudgeon[/url] has a different opinion:
[/blockquote]”The reason why the ruling is not bad news for the defendants any longer is quite simple: the case itself has moved on. The parties are no longer concerned with the second amended complaint, which was the subject of the court’s ruling. The plaintiffs have now filed, and the Schofield defendants have now answered, their fourth amended complaint in this case.”[/blockquote]
Is it any wonder these cases are costly and drag on and on and on? I tend to think the primary motivation is to discourage further departures rather than reclaim lost empty church buildings.
[blockquote] It sounds like it was crafted by an attorney. [/blockquote] “A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns.” Don Corleone, from The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Shame on her Most Reverendship.
Of course … the judge writes … “The diocese of San Joaquin (plaintiffs),†i.e. the Episcopal Church, “is not a new organization that ‘split off’ from the defendant’s older organization. It is the older organization from which defendants removed themselves.â€
Remember, ITS ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY. Don’t get overwhelmed by all the lawyering. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY. The hubris of the Presiding Bishop not withstanding, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY! I hope she agreed to cover the legal fees and not leave the remnent to cover the costs of this fight. Remember the first precept. ITS ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
#9. whtheus,
[blockquote]I hope she agreed to cover the legal fees and not leave the remnent remnant to cover the costs of this fight.[/blockquote]
Actually, I believe in the case here in the DSJ, the litigation funds are a loan to Bishop Lamb’s Diocese. If TEC loses, guess who is stuck with the bill?
Is this really the statement of “The Presiding Bishop”? It sounds like it was crafted by an attorney.
The [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/07/brace-yourselves-in-san-joaquin.html]Anglican Curmudgeon[/url] has a different opinion:
[/blockquote]”The reason why the ruling is not bad news for the defendants any longer is quite simple: the case itself has moved on. The parties are no longer concerned with the second amended complaint, which was the subject of the court’s ruling. The plaintiffs have now filed, and the Schofield defendants have now answered, their fourth amended complaint in this case.”[/blockquote]
Is it any wonder these cases are costly and drag on and on and on? I tend to think the primary motivation is to discourage further departures rather than reclaim lost empty church buildings.
[blockquote] It sounds like it was crafted by an attorney. [/blockquote] “A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns.” Don Corleone, from The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Shame on her Most Reverendship.
The real test of TEC’s claim will come when this case is presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, because that’s where I think it will eventually end up.
I’m not an attorney but it seems to me that by the time you get to the fourth amended complaint, it questions the worthiness of the complaint itself.
This seems scripted as a subtle threat to any diocese considering leaving TEC as a result of the convention (i.e. SC).
An implied threat could be viewed with disdain by the SCOTUS as an act of totalitarianism.
Of course … the judge writes … “The diocese of San Joaquin (plaintiffs),†i.e. the Episcopal Church, “is not a new organization that ‘split off’ from the defendant’s older organization. It is the older organization from which defendants removed themselves.â€
Remember, ITS ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY. Don’t get overwhelmed by all the lawyering. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY. The hubris of the Presiding Bishop not withstanding, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY! I hope she agreed to cover the legal fees and not leave the remnent to cover the costs of this fight. Remember the first precept. ITS ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
#9. whtheus,
[blockquote]I hope she agreed to cover the legal fees and not leave the remnent remnant to cover the costs of this fight.[/blockquote]
Actually, I believe in the case here in the DSJ, the litigation funds are a loan to Bishop Lamb’s Diocese. If TEC loses, guess who is stuck with the bill?
One poster writes: Remember, ITS ALL ABOUT THE PROPERTY
That property was certainly important to those who tried to take it.
Another poster writes: If TEC loses So far … that’s not the case.