Stockton Record: Rift deepens for dioceses in San Joaquin County

The legal tangle between the dioceses of San Joaquin – one Episcopal, one Anglican – has brought an allegation of wrongdoing against the financial investment firm Merrill Lynch.

In its quest to regain control over millions of dollars’ worth of real estate and investments, the fractured Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has amended a lawsuit it filed in April against its former bishop, John-David Schofield, to include as defendants Merrill Lynch and the nonprofit Anglican Diocese Holding Corp., which is newly formed by Schofield.

Read the whole article.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Anglican Provinces, Cono Sur [formerly Southern Cone], Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: San Joaquin

15 comments on “Stockton Record: Rift deepens for dioceses in San Joaquin County

  1. Ricky Bobby says:

    KSJ can’t just gets the courts to address straight up questions…she has to go after everyone with a full frontal assault and be as nasty with impunity as any attorney I know has ever seen…815 at night must look like a scene out of Ghost Busters…all to rid the church of orthodoxy…genocide I think they call it.

  2. Cennydd says:

    I believe that Bishop Schofield would never have taken this action without first seeking some very good legal and financial advice, and I am quite sure that he did just exactly that.

  3. TLDillon says:

    Right you are Cennydd! Right you are! The Remain Episcopal’s are mad as H&#@ that they cannot just move right in and take over and kick us out. It sure sounds like they are moving on to do the work of God and building His Kingdom uh? NOT!!!!!!!

  4. TLDillon says:

    Also, it appears that those churches who want to stay in TEC like Lodi, who owe the diocese a huge amount of money would actually belong to the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin because of that debt and they don’t want that so the best way to get that property and all the property is go after the Holding Company and try to get the judge to rule in their favor. Problem!!!!! The majority of the diocese voted to secede and the names on transaction are not the ones trying to grab it…the numbers are far more in our favor than the rump diocese.

  5. Cennydd says:

    Not being an attorney, I can only guess at what a good attorney would have to say about this. My own take on this is that any lawsuit could be tossed out of court……like a similar case in the Diocese of Massachusetts last year.

  6. jamesw says:

    This amendment, while interesting and important to be aware of, is not really news. It would appear that the Diocese of San Joaquin was in the process of restructuring its property holding corporation (perhaps away from the Corporation Sole model). TEC’s new Diocese of Remain Episcopal simply attached that new structure into its lawsuit.

    I think that the only way that TEC can win this lawsuit is if the courts accept the “heirarchical church tyrant” legal theory (which has, by the way, been accepted by other courts in the past, so it’s not as ridiculous as it sounds). The HC tyrant theory holds that the court must defer to all decisions of the highest official in a heirarchical church even if those decisions are arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. In other words, when deciding what happened in the Diocese of San Joaquin, the courts would simply accept, without question, KJS’s version of things.

    I tend to doubt that the California courts will accept this legal theory, and so I expect Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin to succeed. I expect that Schofield will continue to act in a straightforward and Christian manner and will do what he said he would – including turning over properties to DRE parishes which are not in debt (that would seem to be Holy Family in Fresno, St. Anne’s in Stockton and the Turlock church). The really interesting thing to watch will be how St. John’s in Lodi (which is in deep debt to the Diocese, or so I have heard) will work things out with the Diocese of San Joaquin. I think that Schofield will act gracious, but how will that parish and TEC respond? Will TEC buy out the debt from Schofield (will require TEC to negotiate with the DSJ)?

  7. Undergroundpewster says:

    Remember, we are talking about California courts.

  8. them says:

    …in deep debt to the diocease… what is that all about? So we have churches that borrow from themselves to expand themselves. I don’t think that is part of tithing. Accountants tell us otherwise.

  9. Cennydd says:

    In connection with this, Bishop Schofield is accused of misappropriating $5 million, and NOTHING could be farther from the truth. I don’t like my bishop being called a thief!

  10. Cennydd says:

    Ms Key, are you listening?

  11. Cennydd says:

    It means that St John’s borrowed money from the Diocese, and they have to repay it.

  12. Cennydd says:

    And by the way, our bishop’s title is “BISHOP,” not MISTER Schofield.

  13. TLDillon says:

    The Remain Episcopal rump will stoop to every low level to try and and paint our Bishop in a very bad light but God is on his side and His light will shine through. Bishop Schofield has done nothing wrong, but the Remain Episcopals…… well there are a few stories that are very highly suspect to being on the side of honest and up front.
    As Cennydd has said, our Bishop is no thief and has not done anything that would bring shame upon him and his flock that he leads. Nor does he make a move without very good, quality, and sound legal advice with all the research that goes with it! His attorneys are not ego maniacs like DDB that rush in flying by the seat of their pants.

  14. TLDillon says:

    This should be helpful for you all…..From our Communications Officer Fr. Van McCalister
    Blog: Soundings
    Post: The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has fully complied with California State Law
    Link: [url=]Soundings[/url]

  15. Cennydd says:

    For what it’s worth, I was a delegate to our annual Diocesan Conventions in 2006 and 2007, when we voted to remove the Accession Clause from our constitution, and to leave TEC in January 2008. I voted “YES” both times.

    I can assure you that everything in this article is factual. I am completely familiar with all of the facts.