But Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin also will be attending the conference. He has received his Lambeth study materials and has begun familiarizing himself with them, according to the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, canon to the ordinary of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.
“Bishop Schofield received and accepted his invitation to Lambeth shortly after the invitations were first issued,” Canon Gandenberger said. “Shortly thereafter he received the study material common to all the bishops.”
Canon Gandenberger said he had no knowledge of any further correspondence from either Archbishop Williams’ office or the Lambeth planning committee.
In a related development, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin amended its civil complaint against the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin on June 2, adding Merrill Lynch and the “Anglican Diocese Holding Corporation” as defendants.
TEC takes on Merrill Lynch – not sure I would stand in the way of the stampede from the thundering hooves.
Meanwhile, the Episcopal “Diocese” of San Joaquin has asked for more time to file its amicus curiae brief in the current California Supreme court case on “neutral principles” church property law. They have until June 18.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
This is all like Hitler starting wars on multiple fronts. The German generals were weaker than water then and should have been shed of that maniac and sued for peace with the Allies. When will our generals shed us of our own maniacs at 815?
Can anyone explain why William’s inviting both bishops conforms in any way to his earlier decision (criticised by his own predecessor) not to invite the American global south bishops or his previous remarks regarding which bishops would be invited?
“Bishop Schofield received and accepted his invitation to Lambeth shortly after the invitations were first issued.†If the attempted deposing by TEC
had been canonically sucessful, then there would be grounds for rescinding the invitation. But it was not.
I’ll bet it was Kate and Kearon that decided to invite Jerry Lamb.
Pendennis88: I’m not sure there’s anything intentional in what’s going on, at least from the Williams perspective. +Schofield already had his invitation in hand along with the rest of the TEC bishops, and Williams is going to do what he always has done: nothing. The “welcome” letter that +Lamb claims he has probably came from ACO, bought and paid for by TEC. There is no strategy, other than to avoid legislative action at Lambeth. They’re just stumbling around into whatever ditches they keep falling into.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Marie at Rez, I think you’re right! And I sure would hate to lock horns with the attorneys at Merrill Lynch! What on God’s green Earth are these fools thinking of? Those guys are in the Big Leagues, and they play for keeps!
Br_er Rabbit, if Rowan Cantuar had been so foolish as to disinvite +John-David, the repercussions would’ve been horrendous! Our bishop is one of the most highly-respected bishops in the Communion…..and beyond…..and for him to be disinvited might’ve resulted in the wholesale absence of the entire Southern Cone, in my opinion…..even though ++Venables would still be there. The absence of an entire province would not bode well for Canterbury, and would only add fuel to the fire.
I agree that Merrill Lynch has a lot of resources at its disposal, and would be a worthy opponent…one of the few that could stage a more vigorous defense than 815. However, I suspect that Merrill, Lynch’s actual position in this suit is not adverse to either the Diocese of San Joaquin, nor the 815-loyal rump diocese. Merrill Lynch is probably only involved as a “stakeholder”…they are the custodian of certain investment accounts, and really have no preference on the issue of who the Court determines is the owner/beneficiary, etc. of those accounts. Merrill Lynch just needs direction from the Court as to the identity of the “real” owner. So I believe that Merrill Lynch is not involved in this case as an advocate for either side…they will just say to the Court….”Judge, we have fiduciary control over these assets, over which the two parties are contending, and we don’t care…just tell us to whom we should disburse the funds/accounts/dividends, etc.” So I don’t think you can analyze this as a situation in which 815 is “suing” Merrill Lynch…Merrill Lynch just happens to be a pocket over whose contents the two ecclesiastical parties are fighting.
Actually, to the extent that Merrill Lynch has investment relationships with 815/dioceses/TEC endowment fund, etc., Merrill might actually have a preference for TEC, in that they would not want to jeopardize those other corporate relationships.
#8 Cennyd has a point Brer – any ‘action’ by the ABC on the invitations front is likely to be followed by one group or another throwing a complete wobbly and throwing their toys out of the pram.
FWIW, I think that Schofield apparently retains the official Episocopal invitation to Lambeth. Lamb seems to have received a “servant’s entrance invitation” from an ACO staffer/bureaucrat loyal to TEC.
Meaning Kearon or one of his weenies.
KevinBabb, your analysis of Merrill and the reasons for its actions sounds ‘right on’. As a fiduciary, they must comply with certain requirements, and seem to be doing so. No more and no less.
#9 and 13 – I would be interested to know a bit about the differences between our countries. Would a fiduciary in the US, if unsure of its position, not apply for direction from the Court of its own volition, rather than, as in this case, being joined as a defendant by the Church of Litigation?
Pageant: That would also be appropriate procedure for initiating an interpleader action. It’s really a function of which party–the stakeholder, or one of the claimants–feels most the exigencies of time such that it is willing to expend the resources involved in initiating the action. For the “rump” ECUSA-supported diocese to have standing to initiate the action, they must have already made demand on Merrill for control/disbursements of the funds, and been challenged by Merrill to show clear ownership.
I don’t think they have made a demand on Merrill Lynch, which probably prompted them to take this action. My wife and I are also their clients, and they’re rather “picky” in matters like this.
All the more reason why Merrill would want clear direction from the Court as to the “real” owner of the investment accounts and/or other property held by Merrill on behalf of “The Diocese of San Joaquin”–as one of our past presidents may have said, “That depends on what the meaning of ‘Diocese of San Joaquin’ is.”
But, again, I suspect that Merrill really doesn’t care which claimant the Court picks, and I am sure they do not want to get involved in ecclesiastical controversies…they just want to make sure that, when they do disuburse assets, they aren’t subject to a successful legal action by the disappointed claimant(s)