….in the current litigation in South Carolina, the drive by ECUSA’s team to move the ball into federal court has been blocked at every maneuver. They are stuck back on their own 10-yard line, with just a few dozen seconds left on the clock. (The case in South Carolina’s Court of Common Pleas for the County of Dorchester is due to go to trial early next summer; all discovery in the case has to be completed by February 7.)
And so what do they decide to do?
The defendant rump group (but not yet ECUSA itself) throws a “Hail Mary” pass — a motion to add, at this late date, four new defendants and eighteen new claims against those defendants, who are Bishop Mark Lawrence, James Lewis, Jeffrey Miller and Paul Fuener. The Rev. James Lewis serves as Bishop Lawrence’s Canon to the Ordinary and Executive Secretary to the Diocesan Convention; the Revs. Miller and Fuener have both served as President of the Standing Committee of Mark Lawrence’s Episcopal Diocese.
The very first claim the rump group seeks to assert demonstrates the flaw in the entire motion: it is a claim for alleged breach of “fiduciary duty.”
What could this be other than another attempt to run up costs for DioSC, and further resolution of what TEC/Rump fears?
They are angry and want to make this personal. This is an act of spite.
I just don’t understand. Are these people just stupid, arrogant or both? Perhaps they are so angry, they can’t think rationally? No matter, their actions demonstrate who they really are! Christians, they are not!
It’s called the invasion of the demons…
“That Hideous Strength” is a fairy tale for grown-ups completely above the heads of the complainants. They’re just being N.I.C.E.
Luke, You may be right. Whatever their behavior is ….. it is [b]not rational[/b]. So demonic possession should not be ruled out as a possibility.
Well, we all here know if you’re not for God, Satan has you…and they’ve shown they’re not for God’s word…QED.
[3] TEC and TECSC have lost, and they consistently refuse to recognize that fact. I predict that the judge will throw this suit down the sewer where it belongs, and she’ll stick them will all of the court costs, which I hope will end up in outer space.
Lets hope so, Cennydd! I expect Judge Goodstein will dismiss this additional motion about as quickly as she did the earlier attempt to add people to the lawsuit. The injunction remains in place so they could be racking up considerable costs every time they assume our identity like they have done.. ONCE AGAIN…. when they published [url=http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/223rd-annual-diocesan-convention-february-2014.html]this notice of their convention[/url] on their website. They will be having their second convention not 223rd! One more instance of them assuming our identity even though there is still an injunction against them!
Good catch, SC blue feline feminine!
Under “A Profile of the Bishop,” the rump diocese’s website spotlights this headline from the Post & Courier: ‘Bishop Charles vonRosenberg called to lead diocese left in crisis’. One wonders if the double entendre is intentional and if the irony has proven elusive.
I wouldn’t call this a “Hail Mary” play. It’s more along the lines of a visit from the minions of the Grand Inquisitor. (In point of fact, I feel it’s about as effective as being threatened with Monty Python’s “comfy chair”, but that’s a view from outside looking in…..)
There’s no way to know for sure what the motivations of TEC are without the individuals concerned making clear, open statements. I’d hazard a guess, however.
Very few of the lawsuits initiated by TEC have been directed solely against a parish corporation, or even the rector/vicar/priest in charge. The suits generally include the Vestry, wardens, parish officers, and delegates to GC. There’s a reason for this – it means that each named party in the suit must obtain legal counsel, and there’s an expectation on the part of the “plaintiffs” that if the laity (the vestry, wardens, and officers, who are usually not covered under parish insurance policies) have to fork over their own money for their defense, they’ll cave in quickly to the plaintiff’s demands.
At this point, it’s clear that the legal system in SC has been taking a tough line with TEC. Eleventh hour attempts to alter the lawsuit are generally badly received by courts; if you failed to make your point in your initial filing, you should have waited until you had all the facts at your command. I’d say there’s a significant chance of TEC facing sanctions for frivolously amending their suit.
Whilst we all choose our own words, I feel “Hail Mary” is very appropriate here in the sense Haley uses it – a last ditch desperation effort to be successful, against great odds.
The intent of ECUSA and its minions could scarcely be less plain. One can, again, use any words one chooses, but it is plainly, in the old words of the British Admiralty in its orders to Royal Navy captains, “to take, burn, and destroy” the enemy…and there is little doubt which enemy is ECUSA’s.
If you are not with me, you are against me. See the story on the C of E, above.
Now, this is a real roundup of metaphors!
Luke,
Indeed. Considering how TEC treats members of both the “reappraiser” and “reasserter” varieties, the term “impressment” can’t help but come to mind.
Uh Clint, There is much hope here that TECinSC will indeed have to face financial sanctions for their many violations of the injunction against them as well as for their frivolous *expansions* of the lawsuit. We certainly can hope!
They’ll most likely run to TEC for the bail money in any case, but I hope Judge Goodstein raises the bill so high that it’ll touch the stars.