CHURCH LAWYERS SEEK END
OF FEDERAL CASE
On Friday, December 7, 2018, attorneys of the Episcopal Church and its diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, filed papers in the United States District Court, in Charleston, supporting their request to Judge Richard Gergel for a summary judgment favoring the Church side in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. The TECSC document is "Memorandum of Law in Support of Bishop vonRosenberg, Bishop Adams, and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's Motion for Summary Judgment." Find it here . The TEC paper is "Plaintiff-in-Intervention the Episcopal Church's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment." Find it here .
The federal case originated on March 5, 2013, when Charles vonRosenberg, bishop provisional of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, entered a suit against Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, charging that Lawrence was in violation of the Lanham Act, a federal act protecting trademarks. He said Lawrence was pretending to be the Episcopal bishop even though he had left the Episcopal Church. In essence, this suit asked the federal court to declare the Church diocese to be the legal heir of the pre-schism diocese instead of the secessionist diocese which was still using the names and controlling the assets of the entity of the old diocese.
As this non-lawyer understands it, the litigation that has been going on for nearly six years now follows two streams, state court and federal court. The state court dealt mainly which who owned the local churches. The federal dealt mainly with who owned the entity of the old diocese. The state court has finished in the SCSC decision that recognized TEC/TECSC trust control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question. We are waiting on Judge Dickson to implement the decision. The federal court has yet to rule. Its ruling will boil down to whether it sees the Episcopal Church as hierarchical or congregational, that is whether sovereignty rests in the church as a whole or in its individual parts. TEC says it rests in the whole, DSC says in the local parts. The secessionists' position all along has been that the diocese is sovereign and self-governing. They claim the diocese left TEC intact and is the Episcopal diocese even though it is not in the Episcopal Church. The Church's position all along has been that the diocese is under authority of the national Church. It cannot act contrary to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. What the federal case boils down to is whether the secessionist diocese or the Church diocese is the true heir of the pre-schism diocese. This would include names, marks, insignia, legal rights, and property, as diocesan headquarters and the bishop's residence.
As this non-lawyer understands it, the litigation that has been going on for nearly six years now follows two streams, state court and federal court. The state court dealt mainly which who owned the local churches. The federal dealt mainly with who owned the entity of the old diocese. The state court has finished in the SCSC decision that recognized TEC/TECSC trust control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question. We are waiting on Judge Dickson to implement the decision. The federal court has yet to rule. Its ruling will boil down to whether it sees the Episcopal Church as hierarchical or congregational, that is whether sovereignty rests in the church as a whole or in its individual parts. TEC says it rests in the whole, DSC says in the local parts. The secessionists' position all along has been that the diocese is sovereign and self-governing. They claim the diocese left TEC intact and is the Episcopal diocese even though it is not in the Episcopal Church. The Church's position all along has been that the diocese is under authority of the national Church. It cannot act contrary to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. What the federal case boils down to is whether the secessionist diocese or the Church diocese is the true heir of the pre-schism diocese. This would include names, marks, insignia, legal rights, and property, as diocesan headquarters and the bishop's residence.
As I read Friday's two memoranda, the Church is basing its new appeal to Judge Gergel largely on the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. In this, the majority of justices declared the Episcopal Church to be hierarchical and the Church diocese to be the true heir of the old diocese. The SCSC decision is final having been denied rehearing and refusal of cert by the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, the Church lawyers are asking Gergel to act on part of the SCSC decision.
Other points the TECSC lawyers emphasized were: ---the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the civic state from interfering in the internal affairs of a religious body, ---TECSC is the beneficiary of the trust of the old diocese including its assets, ---the independent diocese is in violation of trademark laws and false advertising. In conclusion, the lawyers wrote, "The public confusion resulting from Defendants' conduct is pervasive. It is undeniably causing irreparable harm to The Episcopal Church, and more locally, to TECSC and its Bishops. All that the Plaintiffs seek in this action is declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages (for which they could easily make a case). They have been asking for relief since this action was initiated in 2013. Respectfully, this Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment and award them the relief to which they are entitled." Note that the lawyers emphasized they want only a declaratory judgment, in favor of TEC, and an injunction, against Lawrence. They are not asking for damages.
The second paper, from the national Church lawyers, follows along the same lines of argument, and, at 42 pages, adds a great deal of detail supporting the charges of damaging trademark infringement and confusion. The lawyers spent an enormous amount of time and effort presenting an apparently exhaustive listing of evidence supporting the Church's arguments. It is impressive.
An item of interest to everyone is in the TECSC memorandum on page 17. Here we find an official list, from the Church diocese, of the local parishes that are under trust control of the Church, those that are not and the others.
THE 29 PARISHES UNDER TEC/TECSC TRUST:
1. All Saints, Florence
2. Christ/St. Paul's, Yonges Island
3. Church of the Cross, Bluffton
4. Church of the Holy Comforter, Sumter
5. Church of the Redeemer, Orangeburg
6. Holy Trinity, Charleston
7. St. Luke's, Hilton Head
8. St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville
9. St. David's, Cheraw
10. St. James, Charleston
11. St. Paul's, Bennettsville
12. Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston
13. Church of Our Saviour, Johns Island
14. Church of the Epiphany, Eutawville
15. Church of the Good Shepherd, Charleston
16. Church of the Holy Cross, Stateburg
17. Church of the Resurrection, Surfside
18. St. Philip's, Charleston
19. St. Michael's, Charleston
20. St. Jude's, Walterboro
21. St. Helena's, Beaufort
22. St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte
23. St. Paul's, Summerville
24. Trinity Church, Myrtle Beach
25. Trinity Church, Edisto
26. Trinity Church, Pinopolis
27. Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant
28. St. John's, Johns Island
29. St. Andrew's, Charleston (Old St. Andrew's)
THE 7 PARISHES OUTSIDE THE TRUST:
1. Christ the King, Waccamaw
2. St. Matthew's, Darlington
3. St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant
4. St. John's, Florence
5. St. Matthias, Summerton
6. St. Paul's, Conway
7. Prince George Winyah, Georgetown
THE LOCAL CHURCHES TO BE DETERMINED:
---Barnwell, Holy Apostles
---Blackville, St. James
---Berkeley County, Strawberry Chapel
---Charleston, St. Alban's Chapel
---Charleston, St. Andrew's Mission
---Charleston, St. John's Mission
---Dillon, St. Barnabas
---Florence, Christ Church
---Goose Creek, St. James
---Grahamville, Holy Trinity
---Hagood, Ascension
---Marion, Church of the Advent
---Myrtle Beach, Church by the Well
---North Myrtle Beach, Grace
---Orangeburg, St. Paul's
---Cane Bay, St. Timothy's
---Walterboro, Atonement
---Sullivans Island, Church of the Holy Cross
As I understand it, the lawyers will examine the records of the "to be determined" local churches to see if they acceded to the Dennis Canon and therefore fall under trust control of the Episcopal Church diocese. Thus, there are three categories of local churches now in DSC: those under TEC/TECSC trust, those outside the trust, and those to be determined at some time in the future.
I cannot tell you what happens next in the ongoing litigation. I suppose the Lawrence side lawyers will present counter-memoranda to Judge Gergel in opposition to the Dec. 7 papers of the Church side. As far as anyone knows, Gergel is still on track to hold the trial in his court in March of next year. However, I do not know what would stop him, before then, from granting the Church side's petitions for expeditious summary judgment in their favor.
Meanwhile, there has been no word from Judge Edgar Dickson, in the state, circuit, court. I am beginning to wonder if he is waiting on the federal judge to rule before he makes a ruling. Dickson has had the case before him for nearly a year now and has made no decision. All he has done is pile up arguments, written and oral, from the two sides. His desk must be overflowing with papers.
My best guess is that as the next act in this drama attorney Alan Runyan will present counter-arguments to Judge Gergel soon.
Whatever happens, I will relay the news as I can.
See also the press release from TECSC concerning the Dec. 7 court memoranda. Find it here.
See also the press release from TECSC concerning the Dec. 7 court memoranda. Find it here.
