The Dio. of South Carolina's Response to TEC's Request for Continuance which was adjudicated today

The defendants’ conduct is sanctionable. They have willfully misused the judicial system to secure delay by casting blame on the Court and the Plaintiffs for the logical outcome of their ill devised strategy. If they lack time to prepare, it is not time they are due. By their own hand, they are where they are not by the hands of the Court nor those of the Plaintiffs. The Motion for a Continuance should be denied.

Read it all carefully.


Posted in * Admin, * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * South Carolina, Episcopal Church (TEC), Ethics / Moral Theology, Featured (Sticky), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: South Carolina, Theology

13 comments on “The Dio. of South Carolina's Response to TEC's Request for Continuance which was adjudicated today

  1. SC blu cat lady says:

    Very interesting reading even for a layperson like myself. I think Alan Runyan spells out quite clearly why the appeal should be denied. What say those with legal experience? …..

  2. Milton Finch says:

    Has the Diocese OF South Carolina already completed their depositions? If they have, they’ve honored the court. I seriously doubt TEC has. Is there an answer out there in cyber world?

  3. SC blu cat lady says:

    Milton, read the next post which is from the Court of appeals. I believe the Diocese had about 80% of their preparatory work done fairly early in the process once both sides were ordered to go ahead and commence preparations for the trial. For what I understand TECinSC has some 34 depositions that need to be done and possibly other legal preparation. From what I read, the Diocese is better prepared as they kept working and preparing while TECinSC’s attorney were busy filing multiple appeals. Also, the Courts are not amused with TECinSC’s delaying tactics.

  4. Milton Finch says:

    I glanced over the 80% section and didn’t realize that’s what it was talking about. Thanks for the clarification.

  5. SC blu cat lady says:

    I think Alan Runyan is the one who explains the various delays that TECinSC has tried. Read that section carefully. He explains the delay tactics really well. Even I could understand what they were trying to do with all appeals and other delay tactics. Our legal team was not fooled and neither are the courts! Especially Judge Goodstein who told TEcinSC … basically… you have one extra day to get those 34 depositions done! Not good. This is what happens when you plan but your plan fails…….

  6. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Well from a quick read, TEC had the opportunity and time to take depositions it had requested, but cancelled them. Then at the last moment tried to resurrect them and use this as an excuse to delay trial, a delay they had manufactured contrary to the instructions of the Court. As a section on page 7 puts it:

    the time period between the remand of this case from the District Court on June 10, 2013 and the Defendants’ appeal to the SC Court of Appeals on January 13, 2014, is seven months; the time between the remittitur of the case on May 7, 2014 and the trial date of July 7, 2014 is two months. Thus even with the Defendants’ excursion to federal court and their interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Defendants will have nevertheless had nine months to prepare the case. If they have failed to do so, they have no one to blame but themselves.

    They seem to have forgotten the 5 P’s – Perfect Preparation Prevents Poor Performance. There is a six P version, but that is for another time and place.

    There is no certainty with litigation so one should be cautious of drawing conclusions so early, but certainly TEC’s performance in this matter appears to be pretty underwhelming.

    Prayers for the wonderful diocese of South Carolina, its parishes and their legal teams but mostly thank God for them all and may he comfort, support and bless them richly and let right be done.

    He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
    He hath put down the mighty from their seats
    and exalted them of low degree [Luke 1]

  7. SC blu cat lady says:

    Thanks Pageant Master (and keep up the prayers- please!),
    It has been a slow journey thus far which could have been totally prevented if TECinSC had abided by the state injunction against them… which they have not. No one is concluding anything about the outcome of the trial but you mentioned (and I LOVE) the 5 P’s statement. (I am definitely borrowing this!). It seems they have forgotten to prepare for anything but their *expected* outcome. Given their overall litigious attitude and yet they find themselves unprepared for a trial due to their own tactics is just mind boggling! The courts have not been fooled by their *tactics*.

  8. tjmcmahon says:

    While all of this appears positive, let us not be assume lack of preparedness on the part of TEC. It appears that Mr. Tisdale, Esq. has committed several tactical errors on behalf of TECSC, but we need to remember that the TEC legal team is the same one that was able to overcome what appeared to be a legal guarantee in Virginia law to allow parishes to leave. David Booth Beers and the Goodwin Proctor legal team are no fools, and it may be that they are content to let Mr. Tisdale play a poor game, as part of a longer term strategy.
    This will not be over until TEC exhausts its last conceivable legal appeal at the federal level in the last case (or at least last diocesan case) to be decided- and that is years, and perhaps decades, away.

  9. SC blu cat lady says:

    It is difficult to predict what will happen in the courts. However, so far in SC, the courts are not pleased with TECinSC’s actions. That is not good and does not help their chances for victory.

    I think what makes this SC case different from the VA cases is that a similar situation/case has already been decided by the SC Supreme Court. That is a HUGE and IMPORTANT precedent for this case. There has already been another court case won in this state (a Baptist church left their denomination) where the All Saint Pawley’s ruling was influential as well. That is what makes our situation different from VA or any other state. JMHO.

  10. Sarah says:

    Many of us in the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina are rooting for the legal team in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, even though we don’t share the same national denomination.

  11. drjoan says:

    Gosh! This all sounds like the IRS hearings…

  12. SC blu cat lady says:

    We know Sarah. We appreciate support and prayers from anyone even those still in TEC. 😉

  13. rwkachur says:

    My favorite line,”To contend that it was the Defendants who were somehow trapped or tricked is an affront to the integrity of the judicial system.”