Isn’t this a play directly from the DBB play book of litigation. (1) Sue all the former clergy and vestry members (2) set up a shadow congregation (3) have them sue for the property. If I were a judge in California, I wouldn’t touch this case until the California Supreme Court made their ruling in the other cases. Then and only then would I make a decision in this case. It’s highly interesting that the diocese claims it owns the property then wants to negotiate for it. Says to me they don’t own it.
This diocese already faces a staggering deficit. So where’s the money coming from to pay the attorneys?
According to several sources on conservative blogs, St John’s TEC is now filled by carpetbaggers from nearby Incarnation, Santa Rosa. This includes the editor of North Cal’s diocesan newspaper, who is now on the Vestry of St John’s. His extremist and arrogant views reflect those of the Santa Rosa rector. The two of them are ‘golden boys’ of the diocesan staff, including Bishop Beisner.
Again I ask, where is this small, declining diocese getting the money to pay the outside attorneys for all this legal work? Protracted negotiations and a lengthy lawsuit filing are very, very expensive. I wonder if the Bishop will ever come straight out and let the folks in the pews know the true answers to this crucial question.
Re #1: The diocese negotiated because it didn’t want a lawsuit, which is (I presume) why the congregation negotiated, even though they claim to own the property. As a lawyer, I can tell you that we are the last people you want involved in a relationship breakdown like this; all that litigation can do is make the conflict worse. Any reasonable person will look for every possible alternative. It appears from the tone of the press release that the diocese did so, but finally concluded that it negotiations had broken down and it had no alternative.
Assume for a moment that the diocese honestly believes that the buildings belong to the parish in trust for the diocese and national church, and that the parish has an identity that should be determined in accordance with their Constitution and Canons, not by a secular court or even by a congregational vote. Given that assumption, what would you have them do? From their perspective, this is no more objectionable as “going to court before unbelievers” than suing to recover the assets embezzled by a church employee who had no right to them.
Assume for a moment that the diocese honestly believes that the buildings belong to the parish in trust for the diocese and national church, and that the parish has an identity that should be determined in accordance with their Constitution and Canons, not by a secular court or even by a congregational vote.
I’m not following you here. Th diocese just went to secular court asking that the full force of the law be brought to bear to decide this case. Clearly, in these cases it is the courts that will decide who owns the property. I suspect, however, that if the courts rule in favor of the parishes, we will still hear the parishes referred to as “thieves” in some quarters even though it will be the courts who will have determined at the instigation of the diocese who the lawful owner is.
In this case, moreover, it is hard to avoid a conclusion that vindictiveness is in play when a definitive ruling by the California Supreme Court is imminent, unless the parish rejected a proposed standstill or tolling agreement (which is not suggested in the diocese’s press release).
I think Dale Rye’s explanation makes sense, and I respectfully disagree with Matt’s response.
But the main reason for writing this note is to tell you all that Bob from Boone is giving up the Anglican blogs for Lent. All of them. My rector thinks I’ll find it tough going, but I’m determined. And perhaps in the joy of Easter Resurrection, I may decide to give them up for another forty days. And, who knows?
So, to all of you, a holy and blessed Lenten season, and a joyous Day of Resurrection.
It’s near time for a Welsh vs. McCarthy moment when the litigious senator was finally asked by the old attorney,
“Have you no shame? Is it not finally time to stop?”
DBB and his boss look like thugs the more that the media shines the light. Eventually people will get 815 Fatique and vomit this pair out. It’s time to start thinking 3rd careers for the 815 Duo.
For the sake of all of us unfamiliar with this case or the diocese, can anyone please explain where St. John’s Anglican is located and who they affiliated themselves with and so on? Inquiring minds want to know.
#9, SJ Anglican is in Petaluma, @35 mi. north of San Fran., affilaited with So. Cone (Abp. Venables).
#2 that is generally my understanding as a neighbor.
While Dale Rye’s analysis is reasonable as far as it goes, it ignores the elephant. The pending CA Supreme Court case could well decide the Petaluma case. So why waste money filing now? The signs for TEC are ominous as the CA Supremes so quickly agreed to hear the SoCal appellate case that overturned 30 years of settled law to rule in favor of TEC. Regardless of the handicapping, good stewardship would have dictated waiting, absent some statute of limitations problem
Thanks for providing the basic information I requested. I expected that since they are so close to San Joaquin, they’d also go with the Southern Cone, but I didn’t know.
But I’m also glad you added that juicy tidbit about how the diocese didn’t even bother to notify the departed parish about the lawsuit. Sad to say, but why am I not surprised?
Why is it that so many (all? most?) of those in the Continuing Church Movement left TEC for various matters of conscience and doctrine and did not attempt to take Episcopal Church buildings with them but present day reasserters do? I have read with interest some of the history and statements of the Anglican Province of America, which suffered into truth and now flourishes. They are proud (rightly so to my way of thinking) that when they left the Episcopal Church they walked away from all buildings, holy hardware, pensions, paychecks and financial security. They seem to have taken the moral high ground. Why such a vast difference between them and Network folk?
You don’t delay filing a lawsuit for months or years because you’re waiting for an appellate decision that could have any number of possible effects on church property law in California. (It is not certain it will decide this case for either side.) You file, then let the case proceed slowly.
When you have a dispute over property, you can settle it one of two ways — with force or in court. Although I would prefer no property dispute at all, if there must be one, in court is the better choice.
“I think Dale Rye’s explanation makes sense, and I respectfully disagree with Matt’s response.”
Dale and Bob can disagree, but they are not disagreeing with Seminarian or Matt+ but St. Paul. That would give me pause but not, apparently, Dale, Bob, or Beisner.
Re #15: Right. To see one alternative to lawsuits, take a look at the last few Sundays in Harare, Zimbabue, where rival factions (and the former bishop’s hired thugs) have physically battled over who gets to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the churches.
In the case of St. John’s, there are two different congregations, each of which has a plausible claim to be the legal continuation of the pre-schism parish. That leaves five alternatives: (1) The Southern Cone parish lets the Episcopal parish take the property they both claim; (2) The Episcopal parish lets the Southern Cone parish have it; (3) The party not in possession sues the other to get possession; (4) They both get clubs and pitchforks and fight over it; or (5) they act like Christians and reach a settlement. Obviously, I support (5) and regard (4) as off the table. Given the premise that both congregations honestly believe themselves to be the parish, choosing between (1) and (2) without negotiations, litigation, or armed struggle will come down to the question of who gets to the building first and changes the locks to exclude the other. In other words, (1) and (2) are really just a more refined variation on (4), deciding ownership by a physical contest. That leaves (3), a lawsuit, as the only remaining alternative to working out a compromise.
Speaking of conflict resolution, does anyone remember the Advent letter of RW? Heard any peeps about the “facilitated conversations”? What a joke. A sham. A smokescreen. More dithering.
Nice rationalization from Dale. This is not complicated. What part of [i]”Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?”[/i] can’t he understand? Dale, Beisner, Jefferts-Schori, Booth-Beers are utterly lost in the words of Paul.
robroy, the same logic applies to the breakaway congregations, each of whom provoke a lawsuit by ousting whatever remnant remains for TEC. The question of who files the lawsuit is irrelevant because it’s determined simply by physical presence. If you think otherwise, you’re adopting a “might makes right” or “possession is 10/10ths of the law” approach.
The fact is that both sides cause the lawsuit, both sides are responsible for it, and both sides decline to do the Christian thing, which would be giving up the property. I agree with you that Jesus wouldn’t sue people. But do you seriously think that Jesus, if he got sued, would call up his lawyer and prepare for lengthy litigation? What part of turn the other cheek isn’t registering?
It’s not just “turn the other cheek.” There’s no suffix on the Golden Rule that says “but feel free to respond in kind.” And I see nothing in the bit of Paul’s advice you quote that says all plaintiffs are bad but all defendants are good.
This is not a case where only one side can end the litigation. Either side can — by giving up the property. The tragedy is that neither side chooses to do so.
#10 – I am not, let me repeat, am not a member of the Virginia bar. I have been following the Virginia case extremely close, as well as some of the other litigation around the country. I think this scenario is indicative of the PB’s new strategy to intimidate congregations who don’t line up with her new shalom message and the MDGs. In the Virginia litigation she admitted she told Bishop Lee to file the litigation and followed with litigation of her own through DBB’s firm Goodwin Proctor. If you would like to see her testimony from the trial it is posted on Stand Firm’s website.
Robroy, I think it did give Beisner pause, but he reluctantly decided to proceed.
This is a sad day for many of us in the diocese. I for one am disappointed with the Bishop for filing suit. But I am equally frustrated at St. John’s Anglican for putting him in this position, by cutting off negotiations. This is a black day for us all.
I would only add a request, that you pray for us all in Northern California. Yes, pray for St. John’s, but also for Bishop Beisner and all members of the diocese, and particularly for us reasserters now placed between a rock and a hard place. At the moment we do not need advice to leave, we do not need recrimination of our Bishop, but we are in desperate need of prayer.
I’m disappointed no one (so far) addressed the central question of my post #2: where is this diocese, which is strapped and declining, getting the money to pay for the attorneys handling the negotiations and the lawsuit??? Anyone have an insight??? Thanks.
Hugh…while I appreciate your zeal, I don’t believe that I used the words “wickedness,” “monster,” and other characterization in my response to your e-mail inquiry besides scripture, prayer and to consider redirecting resources/tithes that would be used to sue St. John’s Anglican Church.
While St. John’s strongly disagrees with the theological position of TEC, it prays for the day that TEC will repent of its unorthodox actions and return to full fellowship.
Little Cabbage, Bp B made an appeal for donations to fund suit. Yes, finances are critical. And that does not factor in the 5-10 other congregations that are conservative. Two (SJP and one valley mission) have already left, and one is imploding.
DavidH, a favorable appeal will definitively resolve this case. As that decision will be out shortly, filing now is poor stewardship.
Isn’t this a play directly from the DBB play book of litigation. (1) Sue all the former clergy and vestry members (2) set up a shadow congregation (3) have them sue for the property. If I were a judge in California, I wouldn’t touch this case until the California Supreme Court made their ruling in the other cases. Then and only then would I make a decision in this case. It’s highly interesting that the diocese claims it owns the property then wants to negotiate for it. Says to me they don’t own it.
This diocese already faces a staggering deficit. So where’s the money coming from to pay the attorneys?
According to several sources on conservative blogs, St John’s TEC is now filled by carpetbaggers from nearby Incarnation, Santa Rosa. This includes the editor of North Cal’s diocesan newspaper, who is now on the Vestry of St John’s. His extremist and arrogant views reflect those of the Santa Rosa rector. The two of them are ‘golden boys’ of the diocesan staff, including Bishop Beisner.
Again I ask, where is this small, declining diocese getting the money to pay the outside attorneys for all this legal work? Protracted negotiations and a lengthy lawsuit filing are very, very expensive. I wonder if the Bishop will ever come straight out and let the folks in the pews know the true answers to this crucial question.
Re #1: The diocese negotiated because it didn’t want a lawsuit, which is (I presume) why the congregation negotiated, even though they claim to own the property. As a lawyer, I can tell you that we are the last people you want involved in a relationship breakdown like this; all that litigation can do is make the conflict worse. Any reasonable person will look for every possible alternative. It appears from the tone of the press release that the diocese did so, but finally concluded that it negotiations had broken down and it had no alternative.
Assume for a moment that the diocese honestly believes that the buildings belong to the parish in trust for the diocese and national church, and that the parish has an identity that should be determined in accordance with their Constitution and Canons, not by a secular court or even by a congregational vote. Given that assumption, what would you have them do? From their perspective, this is no more objectionable as “going to court before unbelievers” than suing to recover the assets embezzled by a church employee who had no right to them.
#3
Assume for a moment that the diocese honestly believes that the buildings belong to the parish in trust for the diocese and national church, and that the parish has an identity that should be determined in accordance with their Constitution and Canons, not by a secular court or even by a congregational vote.
I’m not following you here. Th diocese just went to secular court asking that the full force of the law be brought to bear to decide this case. Clearly, in these cases it is the courts that will decide who owns the property. I suspect, however, that if the courts rule in favor of the parishes, we will still hear the parishes referred to as “thieves” in some quarters even though it will be the courts who will have determined at the instigation of the diocese who the lawful owner is.
In this case, moreover, it is hard to avoid a conclusion that vindictiveness is in play when a definitive ruling by the California Supreme Court is imminent, unless the parish rejected a proposed standstill or tolling agreement (which is not suggested in the diocese’s press release).
I think Dale Rye’s explanation makes sense, and I respectfully disagree with Matt’s response.
But the main reason for writing this note is to tell you all that Bob from Boone is giving up the Anglican blogs for Lent. All of them. My rector thinks I’ll find it tough going, but I’m determined. And perhaps in the joy of Easter Resurrection, I may decide to give them up for another forty days. And, who knows?
So, to all of you, a holy and blessed Lenten season, and a joyous Day of Resurrection.
Signing off. Bob
It’s near time for a Welsh vs. McCarthy moment when the litigious senator was finally asked by the old attorney,
“Have you no shame? Is it not finally time to stop?”
DBB and his boss look like thugs the more that the media shines the light. Eventually people will get 815 Fatique and vomit this pair out. It’s time to start thinking 3rd careers for the 815 Duo.
Perhaps the Presiding Pharisee should consider giving up lawsuits for Lent!
For the sake of all of us unfamiliar with this case or the diocese, can anyone please explain where St. John’s Anglican is located and who they affiliated themselves with and so on? Inquiring minds want to know.
David Handy+
an East Coast guy
#3, Dale, I’m pretty sure seminarian is a member of the Virginia Bar.
#9, SJ Anglican is in Petaluma, @35 mi. north of San Fran., affilaited with So. Cone (Abp. Venables).
#2 that is generally my understanding as a neighbor.
While Dale Rye’s analysis is reasonable as far as it goes, it ignores the elephant. The pending CA Supreme Court case could well decide the Petaluma case. So why waste money filing now? The signs for TEC are ominous as the CA Supremes so quickly agreed to hear the SoCal appellate case that overturned 30 years of settled law to rule in favor of TEC. Regardless of the handicapping, good stewardship would have dictated waiting, absent some statute of limitations problem
PS The church learned of the lawsuit from a reporter and the diocesan website. Sad.
#11, Bill Matz,
Thanks for providing the basic information I requested. I expected that since they are so close to San Joaquin, they’d also go with the Southern Cone, but I didn’t know.
But I’m also glad you added that juicy tidbit about how the diocese didn’t even bother to notify the departed parish about the lawsuit. Sad to say, but why am I not surprised?
David Handy+
Why is it that so many (all? most?) of those in the Continuing Church Movement left TEC for various matters of conscience and doctrine and did not attempt to take Episcopal Church buildings with them but present day reasserters do? I have read with interest some of the history and statements of the Anglican Province of America, which suffered into truth and now flourishes. They are proud (rightly so to my way of thinking) that when they left the Episcopal Church they walked away from all buildings, holy hardware, pensions, paychecks and financial security. They seem to have taken the moral high ground. Why such a vast difference between them and Network folk?
You don’t delay filing a lawsuit for months or years because you’re waiting for an appellate decision that could have any number of possible effects on church property law in California. (It is not certain it will decide this case for either side.) You file, then let the case proceed slowly.
When you have a dispute over property, you can settle it one of two ways — with force or in court. Although I would prefer no property dispute at all, if there must be one, in court is the better choice.
“I think Dale Rye’s explanation makes sense, and I respectfully disagree with Matt’s response.”
Dale and Bob can disagree, but they are not disagreeing with Seminarian or Matt+ but St. Paul. That would give me pause but not, apparently, Dale, Bob, or Beisner.
Re #15: Right. To see one alternative to lawsuits, take a look at the last few Sundays in Harare, Zimbabue, where rival factions (and the former bishop’s hired thugs) have physically battled over who gets to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the churches.
In the case of St. John’s, there are two different congregations, each of which has a plausible claim to be the legal continuation of the pre-schism parish. That leaves five alternatives: (1) The Southern Cone parish lets the Episcopal parish take the property they both claim; (2) The Episcopal parish lets the Southern Cone parish have it; (3) The party not in possession sues the other to get possession; (4) They both get clubs and pitchforks and fight over it; or (5) they act like Christians and reach a settlement. Obviously, I support (5) and regard (4) as off the table. Given the premise that both congregations honestly believe themselves to be the parish, choosing between (1) and (2) without negotiations, litigation, or armed struggle will come down to the question of who gets to the building first and changes the locks to exclude the other. In other words, (1) and (2) are really just a more refined variation on (4), deciding ownership by a physical contest. That leaves (3), a lawsuit, as the only remaining alternative to working out a compromise.
Speaking of conflict resolution, does anyone remember the Advent letter of RW? Heard any peeps about the “facilitated conversations”? What a joke. A sham. A smokescreen. More dithering.
Nice rationalization from Dale. This is not complicated. What part of [i]”Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?”[/i] can’t he understand? Dale, Beisner, Jefferts-Schori, Booth-Beers are utterly lost in the words of Paul.
robroy, the same logic applies to the breakaway congregations, each of whom provoke a lawsuit by ousting whatever remnant remains for TEC. The question of who files the lawsuit is irrelevant because it’s determined simply by physical presence. If you think otherwise, you’re adopting a “might makes right” or “possession is 10/10ths of the law” approach.
The fact is that both sides cause the lawsuit, both sides are responsible for it, and both sides decline to do the Christian thing, which would be giving up the property. I agree with you that Jesus wouldn’t sue people. But do you seriously think that Jesus, if he got sued, would call up his lawyer and prepare for lengthy litigation? What part of turn the other cheek isn’t registering?
It’s not just “turn the other cheek.” There’s no suffix on the Golden Rule that says “but feel free to respond in kind.” And I see nothing in the bit of Paul’s advice you quote that says all plaintiffs are bad but all defendants are good.
This is not a case where only one side can end the litigation. Either side can — by giving up the property. The tragedy is that neither side chooses to do so.
#10 – I am not, let me repeat, am not a member of the Virginia bar. I have been following the Virginia case extremely close, as well as some of the other litigation around the country. I think this scenario is indicative of the PB’s new strategy to intimidate congregations who don’t line up with her new shalom message and the MDGs. In the Virginia litigation she admitted she told Bishop Lee to file the litigation and followed with litigation of her own through DBB’s firm Goodwin Proctor. If you would like to see her testimony from the trial it is posted on Stand Firm’s website.
Robroy, I think it did give Beisner pause, but he reluctantly decided to proceed.
This is a sad day for many of us in the diocese. I for one am disappointed with the Bishop for filing suit. But I am equally frustrated at St. John’s Anglican for putting him in this position, by cutting off negotiations. This is a black day for us all.
I would only add a request, that you pray for us all in Northern California. Yes, pray for St. John’s, but also for Bishop Beisner and all members of the diocese, and particularly for us reasserters now placed between a rock and a hard place. At the moment we do not need advice to leave, we do not need recrimination of our Bishop, but we are in desperate need of prayer.
I’m disappointed no one (so far) addressed the central question of my post #2: where is this diocese, which is strapped and declining, getting the money to pay for the attorneys handling the negotiations and the lawsuit??? Anyone have an insight??? Thanks.
Hugh…while I appreciate your zeal, I don’t believe that I used the words “wickedness,” “monster,” and other characterization in my response to your e-mail inquiry besides scripture, prayer and to consider redirecting resources/tithes that would be used to sue St. John’s Anglican Church.
While St. John’s strongly disagrees with the theological position of TEC, it prays for the day that TEC will repent of its unorthodox actions and return to full fellowship.
St. John’s has provided a press release in response to the lawsuit. It can be seen here: http://sjpet.org/press/lstjohnspressrelease0206089.pdf
and here: http://www.sjpet.org/index2.html
Little Cabbage, Bp B made an appeal for donations to fund suit. Yes, finances are critical. And that does not factor in the 5-10 other congregations that are conservative. Two (SJP and one valley mission) have already left, and one is imploding.
DavidH, a favorable appeal will definitively resolve this case. As that decision will be out shortly, filing now is poor stewardship.