Citing “malicious prosecution and abuse of process” in bringing a suit which has “no factual or legal foundation,” a response filed Friday, Oct. 29, asks for sanctions on the lawyers who crafted litigation against Bishop Jack Iker on behalf of All Saints’ Episcopal Church on Crestline Road in Fort Worth.
Bishop Iker’s response denies the charges of harm to the Crestline Road congregation and notes that federal law provides “a remedy against counsel who unreasonably and vexatiously multiply the proceedings in a case.” The Oct. 15 complaint, filed in federal court, was intended to harass the Bishop and multiply the cost of litigation, the response explains. In addition, the federal suit multiplies the proceedings on an issue already under consideration in a Texas state court. The plaintiff and counsel are well aware of that suit, which covers the question of who owns certain church properties, including intellectual assets such as trademarks. That suit already represents the Crestline congregation’s interests.
Bishop Iker’s response asks the federal court to deny relief to the plaintiff church and to direct the plaintiff’s counsel to repay the Bishop’s legal costs.
+Leo the lion bites back!
Well done. Wise as serpents!
Legal language can be interesting. For example,
D. Prayer
WHEREFORE, Defendant The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker prays that the Court deny all relief sought against him and that he recover from…
Any feline which has been poked with a sharp stick long enough, will bare claws and start striking back.
The marvel is that it has taken so long for
Iker to bare those claws, but that is due to
his Christian ethics and normally civil demeanor. Both of which seem to be lacking in certain parties.
Do they look like they are hurting?
http://pr.dfms.org/study/exports/ParishRPT_20101101_050657.pdf
Governance by litigation is it? Crazy and stupid. A new and prophetic thing? I think not.
Great response, +Iker. You remain in our prayers!
This is silly. It is near impossible to get sanctions for malicious prosecution.
Good link, #5 – down in baptised members and avg attendance, but up in plate/pledge by ~$350K. Hard to make a case for how he has hurt them, I should think!
Procedurally, this doesn’t appear to be a proper invocation of Rule 11. Rule 11 requires that you first notify the other side that you believe there’s been a violation by serving a copy of your motion. The party alleged to have violated the rule then has 21 days to withdraw or correct the offending thing. +Iker’s Answer doesn’t say that they’ve done anything like that.
But I would not call this silly or near impossible.
Iker deserves special commendation for using the word “vexatiously”, which I had never before heard but which will keep me happy for a fortnight at least.