As noted, this decision would raise a counterclaim in estoppel or misrepresentation, the damages for which would be the value of St. James or the amounts invested.
It is also clear that this decision falls way outside the bounds of the neutral principles of law standard. Curiously, the judge enmeshes herself deeply in the reach of the Dennis Canon, yet declines to consider the validity of the Canon’s adoption. ECUSA should have the burden of proving that validity, but the judge just accepts the adoption without proof.
As noted, this decision would raise a counterclaim in estoppel or misrepresentation, the damages for which would be the value of St. James or the amounts invested.
It is also clear that this decision falls way outside the bounds of the neutral principles of law standard. Curiously, the judge enmeshes herself deeply in the reach of the Dennis Canon, yet declines to consider the validity of the Canon’s adoption. ECUSA should have the burden of proving that validity, but the judge just accepts the adoption without proof.