We lost. In human terms we lost. Bishop and Standing Committee, together with Board of Trustees, thought we understood the document that was signed on our behalf in 2005 that ended the first phase of the Calvary lawsuit. But yesterday, the judge found against us on the basis of that document.
The team that has provided extraordinary legal counsel to us, and to others in similar cases across the country, has issued the following statement: “We believe the opinion and order is contrary to applicable law, disregards the agreed assumption of valid withdrawal by the Diocese from TEC, violates the assurances given us that the issue of the ‘true diocese’ was not part of this proceeding and denies us due process of law.” Accordingly we reserve all of our rights to appeal.
It is good to see one of the breakaway bishops taking responsibility for the choices they were entrusted with. Good job ++Duncan.
Frankly, I really don’t see that the Archbishop and his colleagues and friends lost anything except relief from an unproductive and somewhat unseemly course. They are now liberated, if they choose to be so, to found their church and diocese afresh with funds that they otherwise would have sunk into law firms of polyglot religious backgrounds and orientations, and create new structures, new missions, revived existing missions and without the taint of seeming to be clinging to bricks and sticks. I wish them well if they have the wisdom and confidence to take that path. I have no doubt that they will be successful if they free themselves from this property morass.
Brian, I don’t see where they HAVEN’T taken responsibility for their choices. The decision to follow the Lord always has worldly consequences, and Bp. Duncan — indeed all the clergy and episcopate who have taken a stand for the Lord — have always been mindful of that.
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”.
Fifty empty churches for sale in Pittsburgh…cheap!
Orthodox need not inquire.
Intercessor
Brian: It seems that Bishop Duncan is indeed being open and honest instead of obfuscating which seems to be the norm for TEC bishops (I could show you some wonderful examples of how post-GC 09, our bishop told us that nothing had changed as far as SSB’s went, how our Cathedral dean told us that everything had changed, and just last week our bishop decided that things really had changed after all). But Duncan does hint at the possibility of an appeal.
I have read the decision and I am astonished at the lack of logic in it. The judge claims to assume the validity of the diocese’s withdrawal, then shortly later effectively declares that the withdrawal is not valid. It is a bizarre ruling. However, I am legally trained and familiar enough with the legal system to realize that judges are ordinary people and can be complete idiots just like everybody else, and so I have no faith in the legal system to provide justice or arrive at the truth.
I would expect an appeal to follow, although what would be really nice would be if the two sides could sit down and reach a fair, negotiated settlement.
Now let’s see the “winners” try to keep those parishes functioning.
The miserable failure of TEC’s liberal catastrophe is never the problem is it? It’s all the fault of the tens of thousands who have left and will keep leaving. Just so long as the churlish children get to play with empty churches left behind they are happy.
It might be time to reflect on the memorable words of Dickens’ Mr. Bumble in reference to the law’s marital status.
Maybe any “appeal” might keep some other Christians out of the clutches of such a klutz of a judge.
Grandmother
Although I am completely prejudiced in favor of Archbishop Duncan and his diocese, since the first time I read the document in question I must say, strict constructionist that I am, that the plain meaning of the text is clearly not in his favor.
See my comment on the other thread.
http://tinyurl.com/y8sapy7
Senior Priest: I would disagree with your view. The description of the diocese referenced by the judge was accurate at the time it was made, and it described the Diocese of Pittsburgh as it then was. There is nothing in the stipulation that prevented the named diocese from disaffiliating from TEC. Indeed, the judge “assumed” that such a withdrawal was “valid.”
So if I draw up a will and it identifies me, the testator, as “James W. of Sacramento, California” and that one month before my death, I move to Kansas City, does that make the will unenforceable? Certainly not. A description of a thing does not prevent the thing from subsequently “changing ownership”. Another example – Bob divorces his wife Sally. In the property division, which both sides stipulate to, there is the clause “the BMW will be owned by Bob Jackson of Phoenix, Arizona.” Suppose then that Bob moves to Los Angeles and sells the BMW to Tom. Meanwhile Sally meets a new boyfriend and convinces him to legally change his name to Bob Jackson. Sally and the new Bob then steal Tom’s BMW. In court, the new Bob points to the divorce settlement stipulation and claims that since he is now the only “Bob Jackson of Phoenix”, he therefore must be the real owner. Does this mean that Tom is out of luck? Certainly not. The earlier description described the situation at the time of the stipulation, it does not control any future VALID transfers of ownership. So the issue needs to be “was the later transfer VALID?”
Would I have signed the stipulation as written were I Duncan’s attorney two years ago? No. I would have expected shennanigans like this. But I find it absolutely beyond belief that a judge would have made the interpretation he did. I have little doubt that were I to hand this stipulation clause to 100 law students and give them the facts of the case, and tell them to assume that the diocese’s withdrawal was “valid” (as the judge claims he did), fewer then 10% would have come to the same conclusion as Judge James.
#12 I think the problem here is people are reading the stipulation signed by Duncan to be far more complicated than the Judge understood it to be. If the goal of Bishop Duncan’s lawyers was to lay a trap for the lawyers of TEC so that when Duncan and followers departed the’re would be no Diocese of Pittsburgh associated with TEC, and by default the departing Diocese would be given control of the assets; they were too sneaky by half. They should have been clear that was their position in the stipulation. It may have resulted in no stipulation, but so be it. Despite the belief of many that litigation is a game, courts do not like hidden agendas. They expect stipulations and agreements to be straight forward.
The Judge read the stipulation far more simply than you. His understanding can be boiled down to this. I understand the stipulation to provide the assets would remain under the control of a Diocese associated with TEC. The Southern Cone Diocese is clearly not associated with TEC, and therefore it cannot have control of the assets. The only organization that can possibly claim association with TEC is the organization the TEC says is its associated Diocese, therefore they get control of the assets.
One can argue that Duncan’s lawyer’s trap was well laid and should have worked, but the Judge’s order is not without logic.
Mitchell – Except that there were considerable negotiations that went into the resulting language of the stipulation. Earlier language proposed by Calvary was in line with what the judge is claiming the stipulation said, but this language was rejected by Duncan’s attorneys and the existing language was agreed upon. As I understand it, the language was NOT intended to limit future action, but instead was only intended to describe the reality at the time.
Also note Mitchell, that the stipulation was drawn up to RESOLVE the earlier dispute. The description of the Diocese was of the Diocese as it then was. There is no evidence nor language in the stipulation that prevented the diocese from validly realigning at a later date. The judge is reading this into the stipulation without there being any language to support it.
Jamesw, I understand your position, but I just can’t buy it. The stipulation goes out of its way to modify the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh with the phrase “of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.” This was unnecessary unless the intent was to exclude any other Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. As the judge said, Duncan’s group is clearly not “The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.” The best Duncan and his counsel can argue is that no such entity now exists. If the parties had intended what you propose, the stipulation could have been extremely simple. i.e. “The Property will continue to be held by the defendant’s until. . . . “