THE LATEST COURT PAPERS
On yesterday, 24 September, the two groups of lawyers presented their latest papers to Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court. This is the third round of papers to Dickson. The first was six petitions/motions, three from each side (Nov. 2017-July 2018). Then, he asked for "lists" from the two sides summarizing what they wanted from the court (August 2018). Afterwards, he asked the two sides to present briefs of arguments for their positions (yesterday's papers). Next, we can expect each side to respond to the other side's briefs and then responses to the responses. Honestly, how much more does this judge need? Nevertheless, I appreciate his care and considered deliberation. We certainly do not want another debacle such as we had with Judge Diane Goodstein whose conduct of the trial and decision were ridiculed mercilessly and discarded by all of the justices of the state's high court in their hearing of Sept. 23, 2015. Thus, we can understand why he is being careful, but really, three rounds of papers before he even holds a hearing? He has said he plans to hold a hearing on all this in the weeks of October 22 or 29. He should certainly have all the paperwork he needs by then. I expect to be in the courtroom for the hearing.
In the following, I am speaking only for myself. As everyone knows I am not a lawyer and not connected to either diocese. Here is what I see, for what it's worth:
There is very little that is new in yesterday's briefs. However, there are a few subtle differences that need to be mentioned.
Find the links to the briefs here .
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH/THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
First, the Church side.
TEC/TECSC's papers emphasized three points: 1-to enforce the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017; 2-to require an accounting of DSC assets since 2008; and 3-to dismiss DSC's Betterments lawsuit. None of this is new. None of this is unclear.
1 --- On the SCSC decision, TEC/TECSC is simply asking the judge to carry out the high court orders. The judge really has no choice. The SCSC denied a rehearing, then remitted its decision to the circuit court for enforcement. Afterwards, the denial of cert in the U.S. Supreme Court ended the matter. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is the final law. The lower court has to carry out the law.
While this is the same theme that the lawyers have made for months, there are several points of interest in the brief. On page 9, the lawyers asked that the titles of the 29 parishes in question to be transferred to TEC/TECSC by the court's requiring, or ordering, the parishes to execute the deeds:
"With respect to the property of twenty-nine parishes, this Court should enforce and provide further relief based upon the August 2, 2017 Opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court by transferring title to the parish property from the individual parish corporations to TEC and its Assocuiated Diocese, TECSC, by requiring the appropriate Plaintiffs to execute all necessary deeds or instruments of title, or by transferring the title by Court order..."
Then, on page 11, the lawyers said TEC/TECSC would transfer the deeds to the parish corporations, that is, the parishes of the Church diocese.
In another interesting note in this paper, the lawyers point out that Old St. Andrew's is included among the 29 parishes to be returned to Church control (page 10). This should end any speculation that the Episcopal Church and diocese were ready to recognize OSA as an independent entity.
Once again, the Church lawyers asked the court to appoint a Special Master to oversee the transition.
2 --- In the accounting brief, the lawyers provided more detail of what they want from the accounting firm. Pages 4 and 5 give a list of specific items to be accounted. This would be a thorough examination of the diocesan financial matters for the past decade. One interesting point requires all the details of DSC's legal fees. Another requires a full accounting of all bank accounts transferred from one financial institution to another.
3 --- The third paper asked the court to dismiss DSC's Betterments lawsuit. The lawyers' basic argument is the suit was improperly filed. They said the Betterments act did not apply to this situation. Besides, the parishes are the legal owners of the properties while the national church and diocese are trust beneficiaries. TEC/TECSC cannot be sued since they are not the owners. In addition, DSC missed the 48-hour time limit to file a suit under the act which they had not right to file anyway as the original plaintiffs.
DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Now, the independent diocesan side.
The DSC lawyers presented three papers that were really two.
The first two documents, "Memorandum in Support of Motion for Clarification and for Other Relief," and "Supplement to Motion..." are parts of the same. The third paper is a one-page request for complex case designation which would mean one judge would handle all aspects of the case.
Essentially what the DSC lawyers are asking is a re-litigation of the issues. They want Dickson to discard the SCSC decision and decide the issues anew. They claim the SCSC decision is too ambiguous to be enforced. This is not the way I read the SCSC decision. The three primary decisions of the SCSC are enumerated clearly on the last page (p.77): 1-8 church organizations outside trust, 2-28 church organizations under trust control of TEC via accession to the Dennis Canon, and 3-Camp St. Christopher under control of Church diocese. There is nothing ambiguous about these opinions.
The DSC lawyers also said the SCSC reaffirmed the All Saints decision of 2009. I do not see that either. In fact, only former chief justice Jean Toal, the author of the decision, defended it. The other four justices all said the 28 or 29 parishes had legally acceded to the Dennis Canon. Three of those four went on to say the parishes could not unilaterally revoke their accessions (only Kittredge disagreed). Thus, no one other than Toal, supported the All Saints decision.
Another interesting point of the DSC papers is that they do not mention Old Saint Andrew's. Apparently DSC has dropped the attempt to have the court recognize OSA as one of the parishes outside of TEC control. The people of OSA should get ready for the return of the Episcopal Church.
In football-speak, DSC's papers of yesterday would be called The Hail Mary Pass. Is there anyone down field to catch the ball and score? I doubt it.
In summary, yesterday's papers present very little new. The lawyers have been arguing the same points for months now.
TEC/TECSC is asking Dickson to enforce the SCSC decision. DSC is asking Dickson to set aside the SCSC decision and judge anew the issues of the case. Now, using common sense, which side do you think Dickson will favor? Would any sane judge want to reopen this can of worms? Dickson appears to me to be the most sane judge imaginable.
Alas, we have more to come. On Friday, October 5, the two sets of lawyers are to give Dickson their responses of yesterday's briefs. Then, on Friday, October 12, they are to present to Dickson their replies to the responses. Let's all hope the judge will have had enough and will be ready to wrap up all in a hearing late in October. After nearly six years, we have all had enough.
In the following, I am speaking only for myself. As everyone knows I am not a lawyer and not connected to either diocese. Here is what I see, for what it's worth:
There is very little that is new in yesterday's briefs. However, there are a few subtle differences that need to be mentioned.
Find the links to the briefs here .
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH/THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
First, the Church side.
TEC/TECSC's papers emphasized three points: 1-to enforce the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017; 2-to require an accounting of DSC assets since 2008; and 3-to dismiss DSC's Betterments lawsuit. None of this is new. None of this is unclear.
1 --- On the SCSC decision, TEC/TECSC is simply asking the judge to carry out the high court orders. The judge really has no choice. The SCSC denied a rehearing, then remitted its decision to the circuit court for enforcement. Afterwards, the denial of cert in the U.S. Supreme Court ended the matter. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is the final law. The lower court has to carry out the law.
While this is the same theme that the lawyers have made for months, there are several points of interest in the brief. On page 9, the lawyers asked that the titles of the 29 parishes in question to be transferred to TEC/TECSC by the court's requiring, or ordering, the parishes to execute the deeds:
"With respect to the property of twenty-nine parishes, this Court should enforce and provide further relief based upon the August 2, 2017 Opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court by transferring title to the parish property from the individual parish corporations to TEC and its Assocuiated Diocese, TECSC, by requiring the appropriate Plaintiffs to execute all necessary deeds or instruments of title, or by transferring the title by Court order..."
Then, on page 11, the lawyers said TEC/TECSC would transfer the deeds to the parish corporations, that is, the parishes of the Church diocese.
In another interesting note in this paper, the lawyers point out that Old St. Andrew's is included among the 29 parishes to be returned to Church control (page 10). This should end any speculation that the Episcopal Church and diocese were ready to recognize OSA as an independent entity.
Once again, the Church lawyers asked the court to appoint a Special Master to oversee the transition.
2 --- In the accounting brief, the lawyers provided more detail of what they want from the accounting firm. Pages 4 and 5 give a list of specific items to be accounted. This would be a thorough examination of the diocesan financial matters for the past decade. One interesting point requires all the details of DSC's legal fees. Another requires a full accounting of all bank accounts transferred from one financial institution to another.
3 --- The third paper asked the court to dismiss DSC's Betterments lawsuit. The lawyers' basic argument is the suit was improperly filed. They said the Betterments act did not apply to this situation. Besides, the parishes are the legal owners of the properties while the national church and diocese are trust beneficiaries. TEC/TECSC cannot be sued since they are not the owners. In addition, DSC missed the 48-hour time limit to file a suit under the act which they had not right to file anyway as the original plaintiffs.
DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Now, the independent diocesan side.
The DSC lawyers presented three papers that were really two.
The first two documents, "Memorandum in Support of Motion for Clarification and for Other Relief," and "Supplement to Motion..." are parts of the same. The third paper is a one-page request for complex case designation which would mean one judge would handle all aspects of the case.
Essentially what the DSC lawyers are asking is a re-litigation of the issues. They want Dickson to discard the SCSC decision and decide the issues anew. They claim the SCSC decision is too ambiguous to be enforced. This is not the way I read the SCSC decision. The three primary decisions of the SCSC are enumerated clearly on the last page (p.77): 1-8 church organizations outside trust, 2-28 church organizations under trust control of TEC via accession to the Dennis Canon, and 3-Camp St. Christopher under control of Church diocese. There is nothing ambiguous about these opinions.
The DSC lawyers also said the SCSC reaffirmed the All Saints decision of 2009. I do not see that either. In fact, only former chief justice Jean Toal, the author of the decision, defended it. The other four justices all said the 28 or 29 parishes had legally acceded to the Dennis Canon. Three of those four went on to say the parishes could not unilaterally revoke their accessions (only Kittredge disagreed). Thus, no one other than Toal, supported the All Saints decision.
Another interesting point of the DSC papers is that they do not mention Old Saint Andrew's. Apparently DSC has dropped the attempt to have the court recognize OSA as one of the parishes outside of TEC control. The people of OSA should get ready for the return of the Episcopal Church.
In football-speak, DSC's papers of yesterday would be called The Hail Mary Pass. Is there anyone down field to catch the ball and score? I doubt it.
In summary, yesterday's papers present very little new. The lawyers have been arguing the same points for months now.
TEC/TECSC is asking Dickson to enforce the SCSC decision. DSC is asking Dickson to set aside the SCSC decision and judge anew the issues of the case. Now, using common sense, which side do you think Dickson will favor? Would any sane judge want to reopen this can of worms? Dickson appears to me to be the most sane judge imaginable.
Alas, we have more to come. On Friday, October 5, the two sets of lawyers are to give Dickson their responses of yesterday's briefs. Then, on Friday, October 12, they are to present to Dickson their replies to the responses. Let's all hope the judge will have had enough and will be ready to wrap up all in a hearing late in October. After nearly six years, we have all had enough.
