ANOTHER HEARING, 

ANOTHER NON-ACTION

4:30 p.m.     Judge Edgar Dickson held an almost three hour hearing today and, once again, ended with indecision. This is the third hearing to go nowhere since the South Carolina Supreme Court issued its ruling in the church case on August 2, 2017 (that's 27 months if you are counting). 

I was not present in the hearing. I am relying on two reports posted this afternoon, one in www.scepiscopalians.com and one from the disassociated entity. Find it here .

According to the reports, Judge Dickson listened to various motions for two and a half hours. He asked the lawyers to submit proposed orders in the clarification matter. Finally he said he would send a request to the Court for a "clarification" of the court's Aug. 2, 2017 ruling. He did not explain exactly what clarification he sought.

Several points come to my mind right away:  

1) the three majority opinions of the SCSC are plainly and clearly listed on the last page of the Aug. 2, 2017 decision. They are as clear as they can be to anyone reading on a Third Grade level. Why would anyone need "clarification" of these?

2) If Judge Dickson were unclear about the three clear majority opinions on the last page, why did he wait 27 months to decide to get a clarification from the SCSC? Federal Judge Richard Gergel said it was time to get this case wrapped up. He had the right idea. Besides, Judge Dickson did not have to hold a hearing to ask for clarification from the SCSC. So, today's hearing was really unnecessary.

3) Returning the issue of the ownership of church property to the SCSC is the goal of the disassociated entity, as they have said repeatedly, in the vain hope they can undo the SCSC decision. The Court itself has changed. There are two new justices on the court who did not take part in the Aug. 2 decision (they replaced Pleicones and Toal). Are they going to weigh in on this even though they have never been involved in the case? So, could going back to the SCSC now possibly open up the Aug. 2 decision into a reinterpretation in favor of the breakaways? Surely the breakaways are on their knees asking for this.

There is something wrong with this picture. Obviously, Judge Dickson is reluctant to implement a SCSC decision that he has been given on a Remittitur. His only job is to effectuate the decision that the high court made and sent to him. The SCSC decision is the final law of the land. It cannot be legally altered. So, I do not see the point of going back to the SCSC to get "clarification." The church case is a closed case in the state court. It cannot be reopened, so there is no chance the SCSC will reconsider this case. I must confess, in the end, I am baffled by today's hearing.

The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 precisely and concisely lists three majority decisions:  1) eight parish organizations are free of trust control, 2) 28 (actually 29) parishes are property of the Episcopal Church, 3) Camp St. Christopher is property of the Church diocese. This is a black and white decision. There is no zone of grey. Either the circuit court implements the SCSC decision or it does not. In fact, it has not in 27 months and there is no sign now that it is going to do so.

Bottom line, by inaction the circuit court is in effect invalidating the SCSC decision. The breakaways remain in illegal occupation of the 29 parishes and the Camp with no indication they will have to change. The circuit court is allowing this situation to drag on and on. 

Perhaps it is time for the Church lawyers to go back to the SCSC for a writ of mandamus. 

Justice delayed is justice denied.