(Via email and with permission–KSH).
The federal lawsuit filed against me by the Schori-led group for trademark infringement is both preposterous and vindictive.
It’s preposterous because a “minority faction” ”“ in the words of the mandamus opinion from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals ”“ is trying to get a different result in federal court from the state court ruling, which clearly stated that their lead counsel do not represent the diocese, and the minority faction does not have authority to act for the diocese.
Having been heavily out-voted at our diocesan conventions in November 2007 and again in 2008, the minority group left the diocese, yet is trying a hostile takeover of the diocese through the courts. They filed a lawsuit in state court in Tarrant County in April 2009 claiming to be the diocese. In June of this year the state appellate court found that the attorneys hired by this minority faction cannot represent the diocese. The state court lawsuit includes the two trademarks, namely the name and seal of the diocese.
Having struck out at the diocesan convention and struck out at the state court level, the minority faction filed this new lawsuit in federal court over the same trademarks as in the state court case. It looks like they are shopping for a new judge. As to whether this new case will be a “game changer,” we are confident that the minority faction will not be any more successful in federal court than they have been in state court.
The lawsuit is vindictive because it is aimed personally at me, as an individual. I do not use the trademarks personally ”“ the diocese uses them! Even the minority faction acknowledges this when they say the diocese has used the marks since 1983. I have used the marks ever since I was consecrated bishop of the diocese in 1993, and I continue to hold that office. This is only one more indication of how angry the minority faction is at having lost the convention votes and left the diocese.
The question still remains: Why would they not accept our offer to transfer title of their property to them and avoid all this costly litigation?
–(The Rt. Rev.) Jack Leo Iker is Bishop of Fort Worth
At first glance, it appears that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is filing against its own bishop.
On second glance, it appears that a newly-formed entity, with the same name, is filing the complaint.
From the complaint it looks like the second entity registered the service marks (at the Federal level) on July 20, 2010 and August 3, 2010.
Would this be seen as intentionally hijacking? Would that be a Federal offense?
If the second entity really doesn’t exist, but is filing a complaint in federal court, is that a Federal offense?
What about the attorneys for the second entity? What will the Texas bar association say about all that?
I’m getting a headache. Call in the Curmudgeon!
And, follow the money trail! The only winners are the attorneys!
I like Iker. ” Don’t Mess With Texas “
Do the “revisionists” in Fort Worth realize how unseemly and counterproductive this lawsuit is?
People seeking a spiritual home will shun those pursuing lawsuits because of the temporal and non-spiritual essence of what is prompting the “revisionists” to sue in the first place.
However, these “revisionists” will be very attractive to other secular/political activists of their ilk. Together they the may form a church of the ‘here and now’ as opposed to a church of the undeserved and free gift of Salvation.
According to the estimable Curmudgeon Mrs Schori and her friends will be spending roughly $67,000,000 in their quest for….what? “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned….” as William Congreve wrote.
Has the bishop considered excommunicating them? I know it’s a pretty rare thing do do. If nothing else it would surprise THE HE** out of them and make the head organization scramble for someone who could remember what that meant and what they could possibly do about it. Keep them tied up at least two years.
Perhaps becuase the “Shori Led” diocese views Jack Iker as the second coming of Jim Jones, and refuse to follow Bishop Iker’s other sheep to the kool-aid trough, and view anything he does as dishonest and a fraud. There is zero trust on either side, and, notwithstanding the “generous” offer of property, my guess is that they view Bishop Iker’s actions as illigitimate ab initio, and the runaway diocese’s actions as theft. Just a guess.
Dallasite: It sounds like you might feel that Bp Iker is somehow not sincere in his effort to allow those churches who remained in TEC to maintain their property if they so desire. This offier is certainly preferable to the continued and persistent litigation by those who chose to remain in TEC. It you demonize those with whom you disagree, it is easy to point fingers and call names. You are correct- the trust level is gone on both sides of this matter, and is there any reason why not? Those folks I know personally who have remained with TEC are shameless in their arrogance that they have the true answer and behave accordingly. Many of those who remain with EDFW and Iker are left with the wreckage of their anger and spiteful behavior. It is not a pretty sight and certainly would not draw any one new into the church family. A sad sad state of affairs. This last action by TEC just smacks of one more effort to run EDFW out of money by sueing them at every turn. What a Christian example!
MhMC, I believe that Bishop Iker is sincere, but I don’t believe that those who oppose him believe it. I don’t live in Fort Worth and don’t have a dog in this fight, and believe that the Bishop has every right to lead his flock whereever he wants. He is free to exercise his own “arrogance” that he has the true answer as he pleases. I don’t think that he has standing to complain about anything the Episcopal Church (the one the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth/Iker is no longer a part of) does, outside of the property disputes (such as when the Presiding Bishop visited Fort Worth-I recall that Iker complained about her incursion onto “his” turf). I do have a problem with his continued use of the Episcopal Church name and “brand”. Whatever the legal name is, I think that use is misleading and the arguments that have been thrown at me are disingenuous. I think his lawyers (who are very good) will use that to confuse the jury. Whenever I’ve raised thatissue, someone always tells me all about the legal name, that “Episcopal” is a perfectly good adjective, and that they ahve every right to use it, etc. etc.. I hear those comments, but they miss the point.
I will admit that I am not a fan of Bishop Iker. From my perspective, I don’t believe his leadership has been good for the Diocese of Fort Worth (either one), and I think his deliberate efforts to isolate the diocese from the Episcopal Church and withdraw himself from his responsibilities as a Bishop of the Episcopal Church (when he was one) denied his diocese and the Episcopal Church at large the benefit of his viewpoint and his input. I think is choice to withdraw from the affairs of the church betrayed his own brand of arrogance, and served only to fuel distrust and dysfunction within his see. For their part, his more vocal opponents, most notably Katie Sherrod, have not been much better.
MhMac mentions the arrogance of those in Fort Worth remaining in TEC; I think there’s arrogance on both sides. Both sides think they’re right and that the other guys are not only wrong, but dead wrong about everything. I guess it’s arrogance when the other guys do it, but passion or the courage of your convictions or whatever you want to call it when you or your side do it.
I like Fort Worth a lot, and considered moving there at one point; with respect to the Episcopal Church, at least, I’m glad I stayed put.
so, Dallasite, why do you claim to be what you are not? You do not live in Dallas. How disingenuous, my friend,
+JLI
?? Bishop, I don’t understand your comment. I do indeed live in Dallas.
How would a commenter not know where he lives? How would another commenter know better? Why, at least in the context of this post, would a commenter have any incentive to dissemble about where he lives? The content of the comment would be equally persuasive (or un-) regardless of location.