LEGAL NEWS, 25 SEPTEMBER 2020
There is some news today concerning the ongoing litigation between the Episcopal and Anglican dioceses in lower South Carolina. On yesterday, 24 September, the Anglican lawyers submitted to U.S. District Judge Gergel, "Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Petition to Enforce the Injunction." This was a reply to the Episcopal lawyers' paper of 10 September asking the judge to enforce his injunction of September 19, 2019. That injunction essentially banned the breakaway association from claiming to be the heir of the historic Episcopal diocese. The judge declared that the Episcopal diocese was the legal heir of the old diocese and that the breakaway group formed a new association when they departed from the Episcopal Church in 2012. After the judge issued the injunction, the breakaways adopted the name "Anglican Diocese of South Carolina."
In yesterday's Response, the Anglicans declared they had removed the questionable terms, listed by EDSC on 10 Sept., from their websites: "Defendants [ADSC] have removed the protected terms from their websites upon notice from this petition." Attached to the Response was an affidavit of James Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary of ADSC. He declared: "I also contacted all of the clergy and communicators of the Diocese via mail and notified them of the second petition, instructing them to delete the seals, names, and additionally protected terms from the second permanent injunction wherever they occurred electronically." So, ADSC claims it has scrubbed its sites of the banned terms.
This is not quite true. On a cursory look, I found right away two instances of continuing apparent violations of the judge's injunction.
---"On January 26, 2008 at a festival service in the Cathedral of Saint Luke and Saint Paul in Charleston, Mark Joseph Lawrence was consecrated the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina." Wrong. He was consecrated bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina in 2008. He remained bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of SC until December 5, 2012 when he was given an official "Release and Removal" by the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. The "Anglican" diocese did not exist before October 15, 2012. It was created by the people who left the Episcopal Church in 2012. Lawrence and his followers regarded him as the bishop of the breakaway association.
---The breakaway congregation occupying the old Trinity Episcopal Church on Edisto claims to be "Trinity Episcopal Church." See their website here. In fact, there is only one Episcopal church on Edisto Island. It is now called the Episcopal Church on Edisto and its meets in the New First Missionary Baptist Church building. Perhaps the folks at Trinity did not get Lewis's memo.
So, in spite of the ADSC officials' claims, there is still cause for the Episcopal Church lawyers to ask Judge Gergel to enforce his injunction against the breakaways.
Two other bits of information I discovered in yesterday's court filing, which I have since confirmed, that would be of interest to everyone:
---On August 8, 2020 , the South Carolina Supreme Court officially agreed to accept the Episcopal lawyers' appeal of Judge Edgar Dickson's outrageous order attempting to nullify the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. So, we can expect the SCSC to proceed with this. We do not know yet whether they will hold a hearing or go straight to a written decision.
---The lawyers for the Episcopal Church side are to submit their brief (arguments in the case), concerning the appeal, to the South Carolina Supreme Court, by October 11, 2020.
Now we await Judge Gergel's response to the Episcopal side's petition for him to enforce his injunction. We also await the briefs the two sides will present to the SCSC regarding EDSC's appeal of Judge Dickson's order. After that, at some time we should get a ruling from the SCSC. The question at hand is whether the present SCSC justices will uphold the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. It is unimaginable the state high court would overthrow a final decision of the SCSC, and one that had been sent back down to the lower court on Remittitur. This would throw the entire judicial structure of South Carolina into chaos.
