Translating the Appellate Decision in the San Joaquin Case

From the Anglican Curmudgeon -

As briefly reported in this previous post, the Fifth District Court of Appeal today reversed the grant of summary adjudication by the Fresno trial court in favor of the Episcopal Church (USA) and Bishop Jerry Lamb. It held that the trial court should not have adjudicated the issue of who was the proper Bishop of San Joaquin, with entitlement to the assets of the departed Diocese of San Joaquin (now called the "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin").

This article continues with an extensive review of the decision. Please read the rest of Mr Haley's analysis at the Anglican Curmudgeon.

Appellate Court Sends Case back to Superior Court

The following excerpts are from a recent Fresno Bee article, "Episcopal dispute sent back to Fresno Co. court":

"The legal battle between the U.S. Episcopal Church and the breakaway Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin over who owns church property will return to Fresno County Superior Court, the 5th District Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.

The appellate justices tossed out a Superior Court judge's decision that the breakaway diocese couldn't claim a right to the property in a jury trial. The judge essentially had decided that it was a church matter, not a matter for the civil courts."

At the end of the article there is this comment from the attorney representing the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin:

"Attorney Russell VanRozeboom, who represents the breakaway diocese, said he was aware of the ruling and that the trial court has been told by the appeals court to proceed based on neutral principles of the law. 'It's absolutely a positive step. We asked for it to be reversed and it was. Not only was it reversed, it was dismissed. We got more than what we asked for.'"

See the link below to read the entire article, which includes commentary from those representing the Episcopal Church.

Read more at Fresno Bee.

Appellate Court Issues Order to Show Cause in San Joaquin

Sorry folks, I'm falling behind. Here is a legal update from The Anglican Curmudgeon:

"Word was received this afternoon [9-22-09] that the Fifth District Court of Appeal has formally accepted Bishop Schofield's petition to review the ruling and order entered by the trial court granting Bishop Lamb's and ECUSA's motion for summary adjudication. This means that the trial court's decision and ruling are suspended pending a determination by the Court of Appeal, and the entry of a new order either vacating the trial court's ruling, or directing the entry of a new summary adjudication."

Read the rest here at the Anglican Curmudgeon.

What They Saw Is Exactly What They Got

Journalists and others frequently ask for a factual list of what the problems/trends are with The Episcopal Church. For those of you who have looked for such a detailed list, here is an excerpt from an informative list and analysis posted by the Anglican Curmudgeon:

2. The amount of its resources which ECUSA is devoting to litigation in the civil courts has multiplied even more enormously. As detailed in this post, ECUSA's budget for litigation went from an original estimate (at GC 2006) of $300,000 for the triennium 2007-2009 to a currently budgeted $4,704,138 for that same triennium, plus a further $1.8 million proposed to be budgeted for the next three years, for a total of over $6.5 million.

3. The number of clergy deposed since November 2006 (when the Presiding Bishop's term began) comes to 121 --- and counting. (With the recent action in San Joaquin, the number more than doubled.) That number is up from just 36 in the years 2004-2006 --- nearly a fourfold increase. (The details---excluding San Joaquin---are on pages 22-25 of this Report.) And now there are a potential 72 more depositions scheduled in Fort Worth.

4. Three bishops were "deposed" (not canonically) under the current Presiding Bishop, while she "deemed" another six to have voluntarily renounced their orders --- without their ever having in fact done so (see page 25 for details). That makes nine bishops removed in less than thirty-six months without bothering so much as once to observe the canonical procedures. (Previously, such an abuse had occurred only once in Presiding Bishop Griswold's term, and once in Presiding Bishop Browning's term; no one saw them for the canonical violations they were at the time, but an illegality can never serve as a precedent. And counting those two, there had been just five bishops of ECUSA deposed in the entire four-hundred year history of the Church, before Presiding Bishop Schori started her current campaign.)

The entire post is here.

Superior Court Denies Episcopal Diocese's Motion for Attorneys' Fees

NEWS FROM ST. JAMES ANGLICAN CHURCH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SUPERIOR COURT DENIES EPISCOPAL DIOCESE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES BROUGHT AGAINST ST. JAMES CHURCH AND ITS VOLUNTEER BOARD IN CHURCH PROPERTY CASE

SANTA ANA, Calif. – May 15, 2009 – Orange County Superior Court Judge Thierry P. Colaw today denied a motion by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles which would have forced St. James Church and its volunteer board of directors to pay the Diocese’s attorneys’ fees in this ongoing property dispute.

The case began when St. James Church disaffiliated from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the Episcopal Church over theological differences in August 2004. The Diocese then sued St. James Church, All Saints Church in Long Beach, and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood, and each of their volunteer board members in September 2004. Subsequently, the national Episcopal Church intervened in the lawsuit with its own claims. The three local churches brought special motions to strike the Diocese’s suit under a unique California statute providing for early evaluation of cases involving free speech rights.

The Superior Court initially granted St. James Church’s motion, but the case made its way to the California Supreme Court, which reversed and reinstated the Diocese’s suit. St. James Church recently announced that it will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to seek further appellate review. Even as St. James Church prepares its bid to the United States Supreme Court, the case continues to proceed in the Superior Court.

Today’s motion was a heavy-handed attempt by the Diocese, which has engaged in “scorched earth” litigation tactics against St. James Church for years, to recoup its attorneys’ fees. The Diocese claimed that St. James Church’s earlier special motion to strike was “frivolous” and warranted the sanction of a fees award.

The Superior Court considered briefs filed by both sides and heard oral argument. While the special motion procedure had never before been used in a church property dispute, the Court ruled that it was not frivolous, and had been brought in good faith by experienced and well-qualified defense counsel. As a result, the Court denied the Diocese’s motion for attorneys’ fees and set the case for a further status conference in September.

St. James Church continues to hold services and to operate in its property at 3209 Via Lido in Newport Beach, and remains committed to spreading the Gospel and the traditional Faith.

For more information about the court case: http://www.steadfastinfaith.org.

Diocese of San Joaquin: It's not a done deal -- Court arguments made

By Mary Ann Mueller
VirtueOnline Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
5/5/2009

FRESNO, CA--- Time is ticking away, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second until the courtroom showdown starts today (May 5). The attorneys are closeted, double and triple checking their notes, references and arguments. The interested parties are in prayer, barnstorming the gates of heaven and trusting the Lord to make His will manifest and followed. The media is observing with baited breath to see what happens. Everyone is on pins and needles, watching and waiting for the courtroom drama to play itself out.

A hint as to the result of that drama may have been released Monday (May 4) by the California Superior Court - Fresno County -- when a tentative ruling basically struck down all of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin's arguments. Basically, the tentative ruling says that both the defendant (Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin) and the plaintiff (the TEC Diocese San Joaquin represented by Bishop Jerry Lamb) see eye to eye and agree on the facts of the case. A tentative ruling will not necessarily be chiseled into stone by the judge this afternoon.

The Honorable Adolfo M. Corona signed the tentative ruling on May 4, scheduling a hearing for the next day in his Department 97A courtroom.

So far, the judge in the case has supported all of the arguments presented by TEC and its battery of lawyers. His tentative ruling says that Bishop Lamb is the legitimate church authority for the Diocese of San Joaquin. That determination was tentatively made because the judge believes that TEC is a hierarchical body and therefore, the ecclesial authority comes from the top down with the top being TEC headquarters in New York.

"A hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church," Judge Corona writes in his tentative ruling. "In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments."

However there is no agreement to the presumed facts of the case, as the judge seems to see them, so the litigants will argue their separate positions before Judge Corona their separate positions. The attorneys for the defendants, lead by Russell G. Van Rosenboom of Wild, Carter and Tipton, a Fresno law firm, intend on demonstrating that the judge is mistaken in his tentative judgment. Van Rosenboom is also chancellor for the Diocese of San Joaquin.

"It's not a done deal," The Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger told VOL this morning. "Whichever way the judge rules, the other side is going to appeal."

"The 'Tentative Ruling' in the San Joaquin case is nothing more than that, 'tentative'," explained Texas attorney William Fisher who has been keeping an eye on the various TEC lawsuits around the country. "This ruling is on a Motion to Adjudicate, or, as is commonly known a Motion for Summary Judgment. Such a motion is often made by one of the parties in a law suit when they believe there are no contested matters of fact for a jury to decide."

A summery judgment approved by a judge, and in this case Judge Corona, declares that both sides agree to the basic details of the case. If both sides agree, a summery judgment is issued.

"The purpose of a tentative ruling is to let the parties know the way the judge is inclined to analyze the arguments and the evidence that has been offered thus far by each side. In that way, the parties know what points they need to address specifically at the hearing.,." explains attorney A.S. Haley on his blog 'The Anglican Curmudgeon'. "The judge will not issue a final ruling until after he has heard the oral argument by counsel, and he can either affirm or modify his tentative ruling, or revise it completely."

The article continues here.

St James Church Legal Battle Moving to United States Supreme Court

ST. JAMES CHURCH’S LEGAL BATTLE OVER ITS PROPERTY
MOVING TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO BE FILED IN MAY 2009

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 5, 2009 – St. James Anglican Church, at the centerpiece of a nationally publicized church property dispute with the Episcopal Church, announced today that it will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to resolve an important issue of religious freedom: Does the United States Constitution, which both prohibits the establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion, allow certain religious denominations to disregard the normal rules of property ownership that apply to everyone else?

Under longstanding law, no one can unilaterally impose a trust over someone else’s property without their permission. Yet, in the St. James case before the California Supreme Court, named Episcopal Church Cases, the Court created a special perquisite for certain churches claiming to be “hierarchical,” with a “superior religious body,” which may allow them to unilaterally appropriate for themselves property purchased and maintained by spiritually affiliated but separately incorporated local churches. St. James will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that this preferential treatment for certain kinds of religion violates the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional issues St. James will raise before the U.S. Supreme Court go far beyond St. James or even the Episcopal Church. Every local church, temple, synagogue, parish, spiritual center, congregation or religious group which owns its property, and has some affiliation with a larger religious group, is possibly at risk of losing its property upon a change of religious affiliation. As a result, religious freedom is suppressed, as those who have sacrificed to build their local religious communities are now at risk of having their properties taken based on some past, current or future spiritual affiliation. A United States Supreme Court decision in favor of St. James would benefit local churches and religious groups throughout the country because it would allow congregations the ability to freely exercise their religion without having to forfeit their property to a larger religious body or denomination with which they are affiliated in the event of a dispute over religious doctrine.

The article continues here.

Will HR-1388 begin the erosion of religious liberties?

The following is an excerpt from HR 1388, a bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama to institute mandatory volunteerism for students who are receiving government education loans. Note the activities and organizations that students would not be allowed to participate in. SEC. 1310. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. Subtitle C of title I (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 132 the following: 'SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. '(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities: '(1) Attempting to influence legislation. '(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes. '(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing. '(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements. '(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to Federal office or the outcome of an election to a State or local public office. '(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials. '(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132. '(8) Consistent with section 132, providing a direct benefit to any-- '(A) business organized for profit; '(B) labor union; '(C) partisan political organization; '(D) nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and '(E) organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless the position is not used to support those religious activities. '(9) Providing abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services. '(10) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive. '(11) Carrying out such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit. The entire text of the bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388