In its latest bid to delay the start of the trial scheduled for July 7, the rump group that calls itself “the Episcopal Church in South Carolina” (ECSC) has filed a Notice of Appeal from an interlocutory order of the trial court that denied its “motion to reconsider” for a fourth time a ruling that refused to allow it to add additional individual parties to the case. As such, the appeal is purely a stalling tactic, and is thus frivolous in the extreme
………………
..For all of these reasons, therefore, Judge Goodstein properly denied all of ECSC’s motions and motions to reconsider, and the attempt to appeal her rulings before the trial can be held is simply a delaying tactic. That realization, if the Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court) sees things the same way, should result in the imposition of sanctions against ECSC and its attorneys for taking a frivolous appeal
Hopefully, sanctions will be significant.
Unnamed sources say no delay – http://anglicanink.com/article/no-delay-south-carolina-trial
Branford that link brings up a page that doesn’t work
My information is that the story at Anglican Ink was based on an inaccurate report, and so it has been taken down for the time being. An appellate judge still has to rule on whether or not to accept the interlocutory appeal.
God bless and preserve the courageous bishop and people and their lawyers of the wonderful Diocese of South Carolina, an inspiration to us all and a gift to His Church. May they be aware of His presence alongside them as they approach this time, keeping theirs eyes fixed upon Him and trusting in Him and aware of the prayers for them of so many around the world of which I am but one.
Unfortunately courts are very reluctant to sanction lawyers for filing frivilous motions, appeals etc.
I recall with great pleasure a trial I was in. We had sued the owners of a Miami insurance company for about $16 million of premiums they had diverted to their own use. In an effort to stop the trial they filed for bankruptcy which triggered the bankruptcy stay. We all immediately repaired to the bankruptcy court.
The hearing was rather short. The Judge was Judge Crystol and he was so mad at the owners (two brothers) that you could almost see steam coming from his ears. He realized that the only purpose of the filing was to stop our trial and only after minutes of argument he cut off the owners lawyer, lifted the stay and told us to resume the trial. When their lawyer continued to argue he fined the brothers $1,000 each and then, when the opposing lawyer continued to argue, he fined the lawyer! We actually didn’t get to say much. It was the old addage, when the Court is arguing your case for you, shut up.
When we left the bankruptcy court the Judge and the owners’ bankruptcy lawyer were still going at it. In all my career I have never seen a judge so angry at such a blatent abuse of process.
Thanks for that update, Chancellor.
To someone who is a lawyer, this appears as a “frivolous†delaying tactic.
To someone who is not a lawyer, it additionally appears as an opportunity to drain more $$$ in legal fees from the TEC coffers, as well as to continue financial persecution of the diocese.
Hopefully, no delay. I suppose that whether or not there are sanctions, and whether or not the state bar has a chat with the TEC attorneys will depend on how seriously South Carolina considers the law to be a profession.
Sanctions are usually limited and of no real deterrence. I would be more interested in attorneys fees and expenses at the end of the litigation. These could be significant.
Here’s my take as a lawyer. They aren’t stupid so there has to be another reason. I think they want to get hit for big sanctions and then they can get into Federal Court to challenge the sanctions, probably as a 1st amendment issue. Either that or maybe they’re just stupid.
I think they are just foolishly blinded by what TEC has been telling them that they are not looking at the situation with realistic expectations. What I wonder is how Thomas Tisdale can in good conscience even serve as the rump diocese’s chancellor as he is a former chancellor of the Diocese of SC. Anyone care to explain that one? Would love to hear it!
David Keller, Is it correct that only the trial judge can make sanctions against the TEC lawyers? If so, when could Judge Goodstein give sanctions against them?
I once saw a study which indicated that conservatives think liberals are stupid and liberals think conservatives are evil. This is why when you suggest that there is waste in the SNAP program, you are accused of not caring for babies. TEC believes that it has the moral high ground by being inclusive. And if you do not agree……..
#4. The Diocese has already made a response to the court (i.e. TEC’s appeal). Perhaps this could get heard quickly by the SC of SC?
#13, Two things. I do think the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court can sanction, and they might. Under our court rules the SCt could also take direct control of any appeals and expedite it/them to any extent they wish. I’m pretty sure Beers et.al. used to think we are stupid uneducated rednecks. They made the mistake of thinking our CJ, Jean Toal was also stupid, which was not a god move or their part. She is actually brilliant and very political. If they keep messing with our courts they may see the inside of a local jail, which would be sanction they really couldn’t appeal. We can only hope.
Thanks, David for the information. Lets hope that the Court of Appeals sees a good reason for sanctions. I know the diocese has asked the Supreme Court to take control of appeals before and the justices have taken action on the diocese’s request.
David Keller, I hope you have had chance to read the three posts about this trial. I do believe you are right. The Courts are getting tired of their delay tactics. I hope the attorneys for TEC inSC ready come Tuesday. In the Diocese’s response (penned by Alan Runyan), sanctions are mentioned as a possibility. It will be interesting to hear the lamenting going by TECinSC…… No doubt Skardsie will have something to write about Judeg Goodstein….