The facts presented in the Conger affidavit, based upon a personal examination of the original records, are sufficient to raise a classic issue of disputed fact as to whether or not the Canon properly passed both Houses at General Convention 1979.<\/p>\n
Therefore, even with my pre-announced bias, I have no difficulty in opining that the motions brought by the plaintiffs (the Diocese and ECUSA) should be denied on that basis. The plaintiffs should be required to present their evidence of passage at a trial, and let the trier of fact decide whether it is good enough in light of all the evidence.<\/p>\n
But what about the motion to dismiss, and the cross-motion for summary judgment on all claims brought by the defendant parish? Here I am afraid I must be consistent, and say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is a disputed issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motions of the Diocese and of ECUSA, then there is a disputed issue of fact preventing resolution as a matter of law of the cross-motions as well.<\/p>\n