{"id":61014,"date":"2017-06-24T09:44:15","date_gmt":"2017-06-24T13:44:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=61014"},"modified":"2017-06-26T06:48:02","modified_gmt":"2017-06-26T10:48:02","slug":"a-s-haley-tec-bishop-jon-bruno-caught-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=61014","title":{"rendered":"A S Haley–TEC Bishop Jon Bruno Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place"},"content":{"rendered":"

The litigation grew nastier, as narrated in this post<\/a>. Matters even began to sour between Bishop Bruno and his own Diocese’s convention<\/a>. Eventually, the original purchaser pulled out of the contract (because of the litigation, no doubt),\u00a0+Bruno rejected all attempts at mediation \/ conciliation with the parishioners, and the Disciplinary Board’s review panel ordered the matter (over +Bruno’s hypocritical objections<\/a>)\u00a0to a full-blown, public hearing, which took place over three days at the end of March of this year. (You can read the day-by-day accounts of the proceedings at this site<\/a>, if you choose. With my departure from ECUSA, I have pretty much stopped chronicling all the desultory conduct that goes on in the name of that body.)<\/p>\n

In the civil courts, meanwhile,\u00a0+Bruno achieved mixed results. The parishioners’ lawsuit to stop him from selling the property was dismissed, but his suit against the original donor has not fared well. On February 24, the Court of Appeal reversed a decision by the trial court<\/a> which had denied the donor’s motion to strike\u00a0+Bruno’s “slander of title” claim against it. The decision ordered the trial court to strike the claim from the lawsuit and award the donor its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of its filing. The fees and costs will have to be paid out of the Bishop’s own corporation sole, since it was the plaintiff against the donor. In another ruling, the trial court found the original donor had failed to record a renewal of its deed restriction as required by law to keep it enforceable. That freed\u00a0+Bruno to sell the property, but by then (as we now learn — see below) the original buyer had backed out.<\/p>\n

After the disciplinary hearing concluded on March 30, the hearing panel took the matter under submission for briefing before issuing its decision. The Bishop’s attorneys asked the panel to dismiss all charges against him<\/a>, while the attorney prosecuting the charges asked the panel to find him guilty and suspend him from active ministry for up to a year while fashioning a remedy that would foster reconciliation — for which +Bruno to date has shown no interest whatsoever.<\/p>\n

On June 14, before the panel had issued any decision, one of the complainants submitted colorable evidence that +Bruno had entered into\u00a0a new contract to sell St. James while the disciplinary proceedings were going on. The panel asked\u00a0+Bruno’s attorneys to disclose to it whether he was under contract with a buyer or not, and when they gave evasive replies, the panel issued a sanctions order on June 17 directing\u00a0+Bruno not to sell or contract to sell the property until “further order of the Hearing Panel<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

Now comes word from Anglican news sources that on June 22,\u00a0+Bruno’s attorney sent an email to the panel in which she disclosed that Bishop Bruno had<\/i>\u00a0signed a contract to sell the property to another developer — just three weeks after the disciplinary hearing (the purchaser signed the contract a month later).<\/p>\n

Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The litigation grew nastier, as narrated in this post. Matters even began to sour between Bishop Bruno and his own Diocese’s convention. Eventually, the original purchaser pulled out of the contract (because of the litigation, no doubt),\u00a0+Bruno rejected all attempts…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":794,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,168,600,114,441,372],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-episcopal-church-tec","category-ethics-moral-theology","category-housingreal-estate-market","category-law-legal-issues","category-stewardship","category-tec-bishops"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/794"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=61014"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61014\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61017,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61014\/revisions\/61017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}