Texas Supreme Court notified of witness harassment in Fort Worth case
“I simply want to bring to your attention actions on the part of the Appellees that I believe ought to be of concern to you.
I write as one of the authors and signers of an Amicus Brief in this case, presented by the Anglican Communion Institute, and signed as well by several bishops of the Episcopal Church. I have no interest in this case or in its disposition other than with regard to the matters in the Brief, as they touch disputes over the Episcopal Church’s constitution. That was ever my interest, and it remains so. I do not care who gets the property.”
I do not like being punished for this”
Read it all on Anglican Ink and there is a larger copy of Dr Radner’s letter here
Well, I don’t think anyone at all can complain about Dr Radner’s actions at this point – he has simply informed the court in Texas of what occurred.
I agree with MichaelA – however, it will have no effect on the court or its decision.
I hate to be jaded, as there is gross hypocrisy and intimidation going on here, but, frankly, I’ve just had it with the Episcopal Church and its drama. It’s like everyone is stuck in this nasty 7th grade drama. I’m over it. I know I should care, but I really don’t.
I am slow this morning, but where is the part about “Presiding Bishop Attacks Dr Ephraim Radner”?
#2, it might have an effect, since what Dr. Radner has done is notify the Court that people asking for a property ruling in their favor have engaged in intimidation of witnesses who filed a brief in the case.
As A.S. Haley explains, while the presiding bishop may be behind it all, in reality:
And that, Branford, is huge! Ones who are suing are engaging in trying to silence those being sued is not what a court smiles upon.
You need to remember that this is not witness intimidation or tampering. An amicus brief is not testimony and Dr. Radner is not a witness.
RE: “You need to remember that this is not witness intimidation or tampering. An amicus brief is not testimony and Dr. Radner is not a witness.”
Right — it’s attempted *intimidation of witnesses* rather than the legal term of “witness intimidation.”
#7 — that’s an interesting conclusion. Bishop Ohl, a principal in the FT case before the Supreme Court of TX, devises to bring disciplinary charges against Bishops for filing an amicus brief in a case whose outcome he has an interest in. And you think this is irrelevant?
All right, an attempt to intimidate people who filed an amicus brief. Laypeople, like me, are not using the strict legal definition. As Dr. Seitz says, it appears to me, and may appear to the Court, to be inappropriate.
Of course, the conciliation outcome being sought by Bishop Ohl and others exposed yet further double-standard and convenient amnesia, viz., the Presiding Bishop and her colleagues in the +Dixon v Accoceek case. They filed an amicus brief in the case and one that argued Bishop Dixon was the ‘highest ecclesastical authority.’
#9 Not irrelevant, simply irrelevant to the proceeding. Dr. Radner is not a party to the case nor a witness. Even if he were, there are no “whistleblower” statutes that cover this. I think Dr. Radner is trying to demonstrate the character of +Ohl or TEC and that is irrelevant to the issue before the Texas SC.
#8 Dr. Radner is not a witness so he can not be intimidated nor has there been an attempt. There indeed has been an attempt to intimidate those who have filed an amicus brief and that is unethical but has no legal consequence in this case.
[blockquote] “I agree with MichaelA – however, it will have no effect on the court or its decision.” [/blockquote]
It actually might, although its too difficult to tell without detailed knowledge of the pleadings and depositions.
If this does result in any court action it is more likely to be directed personally at the people involved, as to whether they have attempted to intimidate those who filed the amicus brief.
Most of all though, it was important that these actions of TEC be put on public record. They may yet prove relevant in other legal proceedings as well.
Brian at #12, I wouldn’t try to get too cute with your legal hair-splitting. Courts have a wide array of weapons at their disposal to deal with any attempt to dissuade the public from being involved in their process.
We have established previously that you have no relevant trial experience, so let’s just leave it to the court to make a determination, shall we?
Hi Michael,
When did we establish that I have no relevant trial experience?
Anyway, I agree that it may be relevant elsewhere
There is no such thing as legal hair-splitting here. Is there anyone who can demonstrate that Dr. Radner is a legal witness in this case? If not then there is absolutely no witness tampering or intimidation. It is an important distinction because as you correctly point out ” it was important that these actions of TEC be put on public record.” Why would you want to insist that a falsehood be put on public record? Accuse TEC of what it IS doing, not a fabrication.
Just to reiterate, Dr. Radner refers to intimidation against him as a “citizen” and never a witness. Anglican Ink, however, uses the term “witness” which, it seems to me, would be an attempt to make the actions of TEC seem illegal.
I’d have to have someone summarize for me again precisely the nature of the Ft. Worth case we’re talking about, in which the amicus brief was filed. TEC Ft. Worth claims the church is hierarchical, that dioceses cannot leave, and that it therefore owns all the marbles. If this intimidation of clergy who disagree with that convinces the Court that they’re not creditable people, it might have some effect on the ruling. On the other hand, perversely, maybe this demonstrates that the church is hierarchical, because the intimidation worked. Hierarchical, but very unpleasant.
#16, whether TEC’s actions were illegal is a matter for the court. Its not a matter of “seeming illegal” except to those who are more concerned with form than substance.
Anyone who gives evidence of fact, history, or in an expert capacity whether for a party, on behalf of themselves or another including those acting as friends of the Court are considered witnesses in ordinary English usage. Obviously it is a matter for these Courts what definitions they use and the view they take of all this but they also tend to give words their ordinary or usual meaning – perhaps the same will be true of this court.
Clearly Dr Radner says he believes he is being intimidated and I see no reason to disbelieve him.
It seems to me that is all part and parcel of the usual way in which Goodwin Proctor for the Presiding Bishop organises the litigation of the Episcopal Church kangaroo courts of deposition and it looks pretty much what is going on in these secular courts. All funds for the faux dioceses comes from money allocated by the central church and it doesn’t look as if anything is done by the puppets without the direction of the hand inserted in them and moving their hands and mouths about.
I have no idea what this means in US and state law – that is for the Courts, but it has been a revelation just how shockingly corrupt the American church is, morally and ethically.
What a pity – in its halcyon days it was a fine witness to Christ and an example to the rest of us – something we were proud to be associated with, as we were with the best of the United States for which we have great affection. How sad.
Brian,
Welcome back! It is nice to se that the elephant in the room still as it’s voice.
Regardless of what the court may think of this, it is still smelly and reeks of intimidation. I may not always agree with Dr Radner, but in this case, I do.
RE: “Dr. Radner is not a witness so he can not be intimidated nor has there been an attempt.”
Yes he is a “witness” — just not a “witness.” And yes there has been an attempt to intimidate a witness, namely Radner. I say attempt because he’s clearly not intimidated.
I’ve already granted it’s not “witness intimidation” because I was on to your legal game immediately and don’t wish to waste time.
They are attempting to intimidate a witness, just as they attempt to intimidate conservative clergy and bishops all throughout TEC. Nothing new — same old procedure.
Good to see it’s not working in this instance.
[blockquote] “When did we establish that I have no relevant trial experience?”[/blockquote]
On a previous thread where you wiggled and squirmed before eventually admitting it. No doubt we will go through the same thing again, as you assert or imply that you have some special knowledge of the law. Ho hum.
[blockquote] “Is there anyone who can demonstrate that Dr. Radner is a legal witness in this case?” [/blockquote]
No-one needs to demonstrate anything. Nobody, including you, is across the details of this case known only to the parties – the difference is that we acknowledge that fact. However that doesn’t stop some obvious conclusions from being made.
[blockquote] “If not then there is absolutely no witness tampering or intimidation.”[/blockquote]
Again, legal hair-splitting. Thanks for making my point.
[blockquote] “Accuse TEC of what it IS doing, not a fabrication.”
[/blockquote]
Precisely. I am glad to see you agree with the other posters on this thread.
I see why the Greek word for witness is martyr. In this sense he is a witness.
Perhaps this is more like buying off a witness rather than intimidating – since in some cases it was successful…though obviously not in the case of Dr Radner.
As someone who has often been rather critical of the ACI team on this blog for not going far enough in their opposition to the nefarious PB and her odious allies among the leadership of TEC, I’m happy to go on record here as commending Dr. Radner for this latest example of brave and faithful witness. As ++Bob Duncan has said so often, “[i]Courage breeds courage.[/i]”
Well done! I never cease to be amazed at how illiberal supposed “liberals” can be.
David Handy+