The Virginia Episcopalian, the official publication of the Diocese of Virginia, is reporting in the current edition that the Executive Board has “authorized the treasurer to open a $1 million line of credit to cover anticipated legal expenses for the near-term. That line has since been increased to $2 million and about $1 million has been accessed.”
In addition, the Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia authorized diocesan staff to plan “the sale of non-strategic diocesan real property” to raise needed cash.
The Diocese also revealed that nine churches have not paid any of their pledges which Mike Kerr, Treasurer of the Diocese, estimated a loss to the diocese of $50,000. In addition, other churches have not paid their pledges in full causing the diocese is to run a deficit of expenses over income from those pledges.
I’ll beat a dead horse: If the PB and Mr. Beers had let Bp. Lee implement the plan which was prayerfully and carefully prepared by his committee, none of this would be necessary. The departing congregations would have paid a very handsome fee and there would be no litigation.
Not only that, but the Biblical mandate of not resorting to secular courts would have been fulfilled.
Even so, it’s still not too late to withdraw the case and negotiate a settlement.
Pay no attention to the lawyers – led by Lawyer Bishop Lee – who are behind the curtain. It’s all about “mission”..not property ;. Truth: They just want the property to gain money – which will gain mission funds – which will start new churches (or prop up dead ones) – preferably with lobotomized laity who ask no questions. Bishop Lee and his acolytes hope that the Northern Virginians will shrink back from asking why they should get down into more diocesan debt. I think that he is getting his answer in reduced income.
…and down into the mire of irrelevance continues to sink the Episcopal Church despite the Christmas ad campaign. The average Joe and Jane on the street can smell the stench of injustice and duplicity no matter how many clerical collars are worn around it. Red doors look even weirder to them today.
The Diocese has an excess of expenses over income (a loss to us business types), some parishes are not paying their pledges, and the Diocese is going $2 million into debt to pursue a lawsuit in which they have a 50/50 chance of winning the lawsuit. If they win, they will acquire properties that are expensive to maintain, but the congregation that has been paying the bills will depart, increasing the negative cash flow.
DVa was well on the way to a negotiated solution when Schori insisted that the Dogs of Legal Warfare be loosed.
Glad to see that the Diocese of Virginia and TEC is in such capable hands.
Everyone needs to read the actual newsletter. What a hoot! (In a very pathetic way.)
My favorite (from page 22):
[blockquote]Bishop Suffragan David Jones was present for the proceedings of the first three days of trial. “When I visit Episcopal churches around Virginia,†said Bishop Jones, “One of the things I tell Episcopalians I meet is that the property is held in trust for all 86,000 Episcopalians who worship in Virginia[/blockquote]
Doesn’t it just warm the heart that the (new) gospel is being preached!
They are placing a big bet on the outcome of the litigation. I rather doubt the national church will help them out much if they lose, though it could if it wanted to, of course. I wonder if they would sell Shrine Mont. There are developers who have wanted to get their hands on that property for years.
By the way,
it looks as though I am the only person in Virginia NOT on the payroll of the Diocese of Virginia. When the distressed church properties can’t be sold for roller rinks and steakhouses perhaps they should consolidate staff.
I too with William Sulik pray that a negotiated settlement is possible.
For those not in Dio Va, there is far more orthodoxy in the diocese than was in evidence by those of our brothers and sisters in Christ who felt led to depart. That side of the broad tent is not nearly as empty as some believe.
Peace to ALL,
I wonder when TEC will finally answer the retired bishops who have asked for an accounting of 815’s legal expenses. If DioVa has already spent $1M, the amount of TEC expenditures must be astronomical. What TEC needs is to start using mediation and get out of the lawsuit business.
TEC will never mediate because dissent cannot be tolerated or accommodated, only crushed. Like tyrants everywhere, to mediate is seen by Schori and her apparatchiks as admitting that there may be validity to the views of the other side, and this can never be tolerated.
Further, to allow anyone to escape the gulag will only encourage others. Once the exodus starts, the trickle may become a flood, and Schori will not risk the loss in secular power, money, and perceived prestige that would result.
#8–Two members of the TEC Executive Standing Committee gave a non-answer answer to the bishops’ question on litigation expenditures (see here). Their response noted that they have no idea how much has been spent individually by diocese directly on litigation. It is apparent that 815’s alacrity for litigation, overriding local preferences to settle cases (witness +Lee’s volte-face on the Virginia Protocol after being called on the rug before ++Schori), is in effect an unfunded mandate imposed on individual diocese, and is in Virginia’s case requiring the diocese to burden itself with substantial debt and to liquidate properties. (And I thought TEC was a good steward of its property.)
Yes, it looks like the lawyers are taking the spoils. If you take the $2m line of credit from the diocese of Virginia, and assume TEC and the departing congregations are spending at similar levels, thats $6m and the first stage of the suit has hardly begun. The properties are only worth $30m , so that means the lawyers are well on their way to 20% of the prize. Once the appeals start they are going to all be buying Ferraris.
Maybe its time to get back around the negotiating table?
They can ring up a similar bill for San Joaquin. And Christ Church, where a congregation of south Georgia’s most influential lawyers and judges are not about to back down from a fight. And on and on…
For all the tut-tutting about tiny minorities and overwhelming support, the hierarchy is responding as cornered rats.
Pathetic.
William S, You are not beating a dead horse, you are hitting the bull’s eye.
Pray, brothers & sisters, for Bp. Lee. It is still not too late for him to reverse course.
It is sad. The Diocese gets some small props for transparency about their legal expenses (unlike the CANA congregations), but there’s no way to conclude that religious organizations putting this much money into legal fights is a good thing.
Bad lending decision unless the home office co-signed.
Man, everybody could use a banker who’s willing to loan money when they know the loan proceeds are going to pay legal fees. Talk about throwing money down a [i]blank[/i] hole….
Yes, shame on DioVA. They could have negotiated in good faith with the departing church vestries and used any monies made through those negotiations, plus the monies now wasted on litigation, to support the vaunted Millenium Development Goals!
The vestrymembers of Chirst Church, Savannah are being sued for spending money on expenditures which are not carrying out the mission of TEC. I assume that suing folks is carrying out the mission of TEC.
Nothing like losing a civil action; particulary if you are fighting it using borrowed money. Sounds like 815 is just greasing the skids that seem to be pointing downward and downward. Paraprhasing a well-known civil war quote “..D**n the litigations, full speed ahe—BOOM!!”
I wonder whether the litigation is driven by an unconscious assumption that dioceses, headed by constitutional-monarch bishops, are still the best way for us to organize ourselves for bringing people to God. Perhaps we should rethink being an ‘episcopal’ church.
Perhaps the litigation is driven by TEC desire for secular political power and influence, rather than a focus on helping each of us find and follow Christ.
David H: Whom FROM WITHIN the CANA congregations is asking the question about transparency? BTW, CANA has far more congregations than those being sued….
Remember Brothers and Sisters, PRIDE is the root of all sin. Kate won’t back down. IMHO, TEC is dead, its just no one has covered it with a sheet …….. yet.
This comment is totally irrelevant to the thread and has been deleted. — elfgirl
“The Executive Board of the Diocese of Virginia authorized diocesan staff to plan ‘the sale of non-strategic diocesan real property’ to raise needed cash”
Perhaps the diocese could sell its Shrinemont conference center to Buddhists, who (once they had closed the purchase) could rent it to orthodox Anglicans.
[i]Note: We’ve deleted the original comment that this refers to, so this comment [which was perfectly reasonable] needed to be deleted too to avoid taking the thread off-topic.[/i]
# 9:
Yea and verily. KJS will not want to lose prestige or secular power since she is an occupant of Manhattan. The New York Times ran a well-circulated picture of her (regularly posted by Susan Russell) standing in a business suit – arms crossed – looking slightly downward on us. A professor used to tell me about such: “I can’t hear what you’re saying because your actions are too loud”. That about says it all.
It takes two to tango. Seems like before folks get all self-righteous about DVA allocating funds for legal fees that the people fighting for said church buildings also point that bright light at themselves.
“Perhaps we should rethink being an ‘episcopal’ church'” —DC [#19]
Better to rethink (1) the heavy-handed episcopal monarchy many reappraising bishops have instituted in defiance of ECUSA’s longstanding practice; and (2) how we define “we”—i.e., by no longer yoking ourselves to those with who irreconcilably differ with us over fundamental doctrine.
how we define
How much should a battle between those who believe the 1st commandment is being violated (other gods/idols) and those who believe the 8th commandment (stealing) is being violated cost?
Sadly, its spiritual cost far exceeds this dollar amount.
I’ll vote for negotiated settlement/binding arbitration on the civil property suits and a non-suit/dismissal-w/o-prejudice on the commandment issue.
Sad? Yes. Surprising? No.
In defense of my fellow lawyers, if you want the best, you pay for the best. Is anyone in Boston arguing the size of NE Patriots payroll or Belichik’s salary?
Prayers for ALL,
#23 Of course it would, but that would require humility. None at 815.
There is also a story in the newsletter about a conference about improving stewardship campaigning. The sponsoring church? Trinity Wallstreet.
How about this for improving stewardship in DoVa? Brutal honesty: [b]Give so that we can sue Christians.[/b] I think that people in the diocese will find the honesty refreshing and will open up their pocketbooks.
I concur with Brother Sinner in #7, there are many, many people who have chosen to stay with the DioVa who are strong, deep, sincere Christians who live a life of faith, commitment and solid Biblical theology. I admire them greatly and miss their fellowship.
The ripping of the fabric of communion is more than a metaphor — it is a grievous thing — I do wish the leadership of the TEC had repented of its actions when given the multiple opportunities.
If ECUSA’s plan in thrusting law suits upon departing parishes was to intimidate those parishes by forcing them to face having to pay huge legal fees, then I think that the financial situation that the Diocese of Virginia ‘finds itself in’ is a strong indication that that plan will ‘backfire’ on ECUSA and its litigious dioceses.
It now appears that ‘the shoe is on the other foot.’ Many of ECUSA’S dioceses are already in financially tight straits. How many of those dioceses, witnessing the Dio of VA’s situation, will be willing to follow Bishop Lee’s example? How much financial support can ‘815’ provide to ‘cash strapped’ dioceses that are suing departing orthodox parishes?
And of course, money squandered on lawsuits won’t be available for the United Nations designed MDGs. TGhose MDGs that seem to be much more important to the progressive-revisionists than “the Faith once given”.
The real shame is that ECUSA’s vindictive pursuit of departing parishes will hinder the efforts of those parishes to carry out the Great Commission.
It would seem to me, that hindering the efforts of orthodox Anglicans to spread the Gospel constitutes a major sin.
Well, I went and did it, shame on me, I used that terrible terrible terrible ‘sin word’ and implied all of the accountability and Final Judgement that goes along with it.
[blockquote] It takes two to tango. Seems like before folks get all self-righteous about DVA allocating funds for legal fees that the people fighting for said church buildings also point that bright light at themselves. [/blockquote]
Those people had negotiated their departures with the DioVA in good faith before the Schori-Beers Axis ordered their diocesean sock puppet to renege on the agreement and initiate the lawsuits you decry.
Interestingly, this story is one of the big reasons why all orthodox bishops should attend Lambeth. Let me explain. We are fighting over the future of the Communion. At present, TEC has excess influence on the Communion due to its deep pockets. But TEC is playing a very dangerous game. Their “new religion” isn’t being bought the lay people that are giving the money. This means that large parts of TEC are not bringing in more money then they spend. Additionally, TEC has decided to pursue a very costly course regarding litigation.
We see now that one of the previously largest and most wealthy diocese in TEC is running out of money after being forced to play KJS’s litigation game.
As I said, TEC is playing a very dangerous game. I expect those parts of TEC that are flush with dead men’s money will begin to guard that money ever more carefully as they see other parts of TEC fall into financial crisis. TEC’s ability to buy the Communion will begin to decline – perhaps faster then we think.
And when that happens, it should not be too difficult to take back the Communion for the orthodox. But in order for this to happen, the orthodox need to show up. Best strategy for the orthodox primates now is to show up to Lambeth, use their votes, and work towards the delegitimization of TEC as a full part of the Communion (and thereby undercutting TEC’s own constitutional identity). That will feed into more difficult litigation for TEC and its inevitable defeat.
The article on Page 22 of the diocesan newsletter cited in the posting has this real humdinger (emphasis mine):
Stating that the parishes “filed civil actions” is plainly untrue; the Diocese itself agreed in a legal document called the Standstill Agreement that the parishes’ 57-9 filings were not civil actions in violation of the Agreement. Specifically, under Paragraph 2.a of the Standstill Agreement (the Diocese subsequently elected not to renew the Agreement), the parishes agreed not to initiate civil actions against TEC or the Diocese but could make their 57-9 filings without violating the Agreement:
The repetition of the claim that the departing parishes filed suit or sued or whatever is a PR move intended cast TEC and the Diocese as victims and to justify their overpriced and risky legal strategy.
That should be Paragraph 2.b., not 2.a. Sorry.
Who holds the line of credit?
How ironic, Bishop Lee doesn’t have the fortitude to make decisions regarding matters in his own diocese (unlike Howe) he abrogates those decisions to the PB, who promptly sticks the diocese with the legal bill! My hats off to the PB and DBB, well played, indeed.
Certainly in the UK a banker would be ill-advised to lend to finance litigation. Traditionally the Courts also frowned on it and it was regarded as an illegal contract – the technical terms were Champerty and Maintenance which as common law concepts may also translate. Those financing the litigation of others can find themselves pursued for costs in the UK.
What a wicked waste of money.
Interesting that the diocese seems to be bearing the brunt of the cost of legal fees. Could requests for transparency of legal funding at 815 have had anything to do with this potential development?
Pageantmaster [#40], a loan to finance litigation expenses is not champerty, which consists in essence of “buying into” (e.g., investing in) a lawsuit in exchange for a promise of a share of the proceeds.
Nor is a loan “maintenance,” which one on-line dictionary defines as “the unauthorized interference in a legal action by a person having no interest in it (as by helping one party with money or otherwise to continue the action) so as to obstruct justice or promote unnecessary litigation or unsettle the peace of the community.” Indeed, I doubt a court would consider allegations of maintenance even against 815, KJS, DBB, etc., because TEC clearly has an interest in the litigation.
#34 – The standing committee of DVA would never have accepted said agreements. Just because +Lee offered to settle doesn’t make it so.
ebq90.
I think the tenor of the Diocese when the protocol was negotiated would have been acceptable to the Standing Committee since it was presented to and received by the Standing Committee. I think it fell apart when the PB got involved and told +Lee he had to litigate.
#43 – Under the canons of Virginia, the Bishop could agree to everything in the protocol but needed the Standing Committee to approval any actual transfer of real property. In fact, that is what the protocol said. Probably because the chancellor, then also a member of the national church executive committee, drafted it. Would the Standing Committee have approved a deal had the bishop worked one out and presented it like he’d agreed? I’ll admit that the way the Standing Committee members began to speak and act after the vestry and parish votes began makes it doubtful. Though, of course, they had known what the protocol provided for for something like six to nine months, already, hadn’t they? And not said a peep? I wonder what changed? Could it be the new sheriff in town?
#42 D.C. Thanks for your response. There is a discussion of the background to Maintenance and Champerty [url=http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1YXilILTxb0J:www.ntu.ac.uk/nls/centreforlegalresearch/nlj_recent_editions/8310.pdf+champerty+and+maintenance+lending&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk]here[/url] on page 11 which gives extracts from Halsbury’s Laws of England. I am interested to hear that these concepts apply in the US although I expect that the exceptions to them have been broadened over the years as they have here where they no longer constitute a criminal offence.
I take it from your response that the line of credit is from the central funds of the Episcopal Church which was not clear from reading the article.
21, RalphM, sadly, I don’t think anyone is.
Much of the rest of this thread is beating dead horses. For instance,
– #34 repeats the “we had negotiated deals in good faith” mantra, goes so far as to say that there was an agreement, and seems to say that the congregations are forced to be in court. ebq90 is right — it does take two to tango. Either side could and should end the litigation by walking away from the property. Stop the money drain and, more importantly, the awful witness that’s going on by both sides. And there was no agreement (or else, if nothing else, you’d see a breach of contract count by the congregations).
– Steven, 36 & 37, is back to arguing that when the congregations were the first to go to court, they weren’t really going to court. As I’ve said before, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… (The actions sought a declaration of ownership of the property — cutting off the rights and interests of the Diocese and TEC — just like the Diocese sought in its suits, filed later.) The Standstill Agreement is simply irrelevant — that was for a specific purpose, and it’s now dead / over. Also, you can agree to consider anything to be the case in an agreement; there’s no truth requirement so long as the terms are agreed.
Last point for the night: it’s interesting that all or most here assume that the congregations were willing to cough up significant payments. I doubt it — they said at trial they’d been talking to lawyers for a couple of years, they portrayed their property cases to their congregations as a slam dunk before their votes, and there’s zero evidence they were ready to pay anything more than a nuisance amount.
RE: “I doubt it—they said at trial they’d been talking to lawyers for a couple of years, they portrayed their property cases to their congregations as a slam dunk before their votes, and there’s zero evidence they were ready to pay anything more than a nuisance amount.”
Actually, the letters to the parishes that I read in Virginia indicated that the lawsuits were anything but a slam dunk and also indicated the need for a significant amount of money. The communications to the parishes that I read implied the need for a stockpile of money.
Of course . . . DavidH either knows this, having followed all of this so closely — or he is deeply ignorant of the two things that I mentioned.
Either way . . . a pity.
Sarah, 48, I don’t doubt the congregations wanted a stockpile of money. But I have yet to see anything at all that suggests that they planned to pay that pile to the Diocese rather than their lawyers.
And 44, seminarian, I sincerely hope that you’re not sounding the “received” = “accepted and approved” horn again. Talk about dead horses…
David H: I’m in one of the congregations that are being sued by DioVA and have been at meetings with leadership and clergy of the other churches. It was never, repeat NEVER, represented as a slam dunk. We all knew the property risks, but we also knew the risks to the souls of ourselves, our children and our grandchildren that accrued with staying part of TEC.
To the contrary, our rector stated in congregational meetings that regardless of how distasteful, a negotiated settlement that involved some monetary compensation to the diocese would be in our best interest.
The legal costs for the churches being sued are published in their financial statements and made available to their members.
The churches being sued have repeatedly and publically offered to return to the negotiations that the DioVA broke off, which is the same approach we have taken for over a year.
DavidH, I can’t let your comment #46 go without a response.
I did not state this. I said that the allegation that the parishes’ 57-9 petitions were “civil actions” is inaccurate because it ignores the fact that the Diocese itself consented to the 57-9 petitions in the Standstill Agreement and that the parties to the agreement did not consider the filing of the 57-9 petitions to be civil actions. This is not just a quibble over insubstantial terms of art in a now-expired agreement; by labeling the 57-9 petitions as civil actions in its newsletter, the Diocese gives the impression that the parishes filed lawsuits when in reality the Diocese consented to the 57-9 petitions, only later to allow the Standstill Agreement to expire with the subsequent filing of lawsuits against the parishes, their clergy, and the volunteer vestry.
Legal agreements retain their relevance after they are terminated. For example, if I rent my apartment to you for a year, and then after that year refuse to renew the lease, I cannot then turn around and allege that you were trespassing the entire time. Similarly, the Diocese cannot now label the 57-9 petitions civil actions when the petitions were specifically exempted from an agreement not to file civil actions.
Finally, I agree with #48 and #50. At my parish the leadership was pellucid about the possibility of lawsuits and the risks thereof. While the general consensus was (and still is) that the law favors the parish’s claim, we were constantly reminded that one can never be certain of the outcome of litigation. As they say, a bad settlement is always better than a great trial.
I think that bishop Lee should this money to feed the poor and the MDO instead of using it in judicial fight against Christians.
RE: “But I have yet to see anything at all that suggests that they planned to pay that pile to the Diocese rather than their lawyers.”
Right — after Bishop Lee decided not to negotiate for the property but instead decided to sue, “that pile” was to go to the lawyers.
I don’t need to remind someone as knowledgeable as DavidH that in fact one parish was able to BUY back their property prior to all the flying lawsuits from the diocese. And so “that pile” did indeed go to the diocese.
Of course, DavidH knows all of that — looks like he’s not deeply ignorant. Just striving hard to misinform those on this blog.
Remember folks, all this who sued who & who is captioned as plaintiff or defendant stuff is legally inconsequential. View it all as a very nasty “Action to Calm/Quiet Title” if it makes you feel better.
Peace,
50, RalphM, I’ll take your word for it. That’s not what I’ve heard, but I believe you.
51, Steven, either the 57-9 cases are civil actions, or they aren’t. The Diocese has nothing to do with that. And, although you did not quote the entire section of the Standstill Agreement, even the bit you quoted reveals that you’re not summarizing it correctly — it contains an agreement that the congregations can file the 57-9 cases without violating the agreement; it does not contain an agreement that they aren’t lawsuits. I repeat my “you can agree to anything, regardless of whether or not it’s true” point — something you neglected to respond to.
In the end, ms is right — it doesn’t matter who’s the plaintiff. But since I see a lot of people online who seem to find great value in channeling a grade-schooler and yelling “they started it,” I tend to want to correct.
DavidH,
If it does not matter who started it, why the desire to correct? And MS, it is a consequential matter legally who is captioned plaintiff and defendant. No plaintiff, no lawsuit, and no need for a defendant. When the plaintiff files, the defendant must respond.
And we all know the other side; had the parishes not filed the 57-9 documents, the Diocese would not have been “forced” to file as plaintiff to contest ownership of the property. But to say it does not matter is disingenuous. If it did not matter, we would not have a law suit.
BillS: Disingenuous? C’mon.
As long as the 1st party files in a timely manner, the rest is with little legal effect. Help me see otherwise.
BTW, & arguendo – if I believe you are claiming title to valuable property of mine, should I not gladly file first?
Peace & charity, lots of it, spread it around,
DavidH taunts,
[blockquote]But since I see a lot of people online who seem to find great value in channeling a grade-schooler and yelling “they started it,†I tend to want to correct.[/blockquote]
Of course you want to be correct – that’s why in your world a plaintiff is a defendant and a defendant is a plaintiff. :
Rather, I think what is best is the settlement that both Brother Sinner (#7 and 29) and Steven (#51) hope for. Come join us in praying for that, DavidH.
When one resorts to ad hominem, such as likening opponents to schoolkids, the argument has been conceded in my opinion. I stand on my comments above, which I think are reasonable. Peace and a Happy New Year to all.
[i] This elf suggests you end the he said;she said. [/i]
It doesn’t really matter what is considered a lawsuit, and who filed the first civil action. What matters is which side slammed the door on a negotiated settlement after initially agreeing to pursue such a non-litigious settlement.
It also matters which side is putting its larger organization into serious financial risk when had they would have avoided had they not slammed the door on a negotiated settlement.
DavidH – if Peter Lee had attempted to negotiate a settlement but the Anglican parishes did not negotiate in good faith, resulting in Lee withdrawing, that would be one thing. But that did not happen. Peter Lee refused to negotiate at all, and announced that he would ignore the Protocol which he had initially called for.
Peter Lee broke off the negotiations. Peter Lee declared that the resolution to the situation would be litigation and not a negotiated settlement. Those are the facts. Spin whatever way you want, but you can’t get around these facts.