AWAITING THE HEARING

It is Friday, 19 July. There is nothing new to report today concerning the litigation of the schism. We are all awaiting the hearing on the Betterments lawsuit. It is to be next Tuesday, at 10:30 a.m., in the Calhoun County courthouse, in St. Matthews SC. I expect to attend.

At this point, what can we expect of the hearing? Not much given Judge Edgar Dickson's history. He was assigned the church case by the first circuit's chief administrative judge, Diane Goodstein in December of 2017, effective in January of 2018. In the eighteen months since then, he has done nothing at all to enforce the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision of August 2, 2017 recognizing Episcopal Church ownership of 29 parishes that purported to secede from the Episcopal Church. And, now that the SCSC has denied TECSC's petition for a writ of mandamus, Dickson is free to drag his feet as long as he likes. He is under no time constraint to effectuate the SCSC decision.

In addition to his inactivity, Dickson has jumped from one topic to another without explanation. In November of 2018, he held a hearing on the independent diocese's petition for clarification of jurisdiction that essentially asked the judge to discard the SCSC decision and decide the issues on his own. He said then he would address this petition alone and take up the other five petitions/motions before him later.

Then, all of a sudden, he announced he would hold a hearing on the Betterments lawsuit that DSC filed in the circuit court on Nov. 19, 2017, two days after the SCSC denied a rehearing on its Aug. 2 decision and the SCSC sent a "remittitur" to the circuit court to implement its decision. Under the Betterments suit, DSC recognized TEC as the owner of the parish properties and demanded money reimbursement for the "improvements" the secessionists made on the said properties. 

DSC entered the Betterments suit even though they had no standing to do so. Under the SC Code of Laws, only the defendant may enter a suit for reimbursements. DSC was the plaintiff, not the defendant in its suit against TEC. 

TECSC entered a motion to dismiss DSC's Betterments suit. The fact that Dickson is now holding a hearing on DSC Betterments suit should give the TEC side pause. Dickson could well have dismissed the suit on his own. He did not do that. Instead, he is holding a hearing, and doing so after telling everyone he was going to consider DSC's clarification of jurisdiction alone. Why Dickson changed his mind is a good question. Why he did not dismiss the Betterments suit is another good question. 

If Tuesday's hearing is anything like last November's hearing on clarification of jurisdiction, this is what we can expect to happen next Tuesday:

---Dickson will ask both sides' lawyers to present their arguments on the Betterments suit.

---DSC lawyer Alan Runyan will make an hour-long presentation throwing together everything imaginable into the mix. Last November, his Power Point presentation was so convoluted and verbose, I for one could not keep up with what he was talking about. After all, in the hearings, the lawyers are talking to an audience of one, the judge. My impression in last November's hearing was that the judge was left scratching his head over all of it ("looking through a glass darkly" as he said then). In this regard, Runyan won the day by preventing the judge from focusing on the enactment of the SCSC decision.

---From the TEC/TECSC side, I expect we will hear the lawyers ask for dismissal of the Betterments suit with lengthy explanations of the reasons for this.

---The hearing will go on for an hour and a half or so and will result in nothing definitive. Dickson will tell the lawyers he will continue the discussion via email and leave it at that. 

---If this hearing goes as the last one did, there will be no decision or action. The judge will retire to consider the arguments with a vague sense of where we go from here.

Bottom line---do not expect much to come of Tuesday's hearing.

I expect to be present at the hearing and to post a report as soon as possible afterwards, as I did last November. 

DSC's present overall strategy in the litigation between the two dioceses is deny and delay. So far, this has been effective. In a couple of weeks, it will be two years since the state supreme court recognized the Episcopal Church ownership of 29 parishes in question. How many have actually been returned to the Church? You know the answer to that. I expect that next Tuesday's hearing will do nothing to change this. If so, DSC will "win" again by prolonging the return of the properties. Justice delayed is justice denied; and the judges should know this as well as everyone else.


NOTE. It is Friday but I have no new garden picture to post. It has rained all morning long at my house. No chance to get a picture. However, as a gardener, I would rather have the rain than another picture, especially in July.