A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR,

28 SEPTEMBER 2021

The announcement last week that the South Carolina Supreme Court would hold a hearing on the church case has spurred a flurry of renewed interest in the ongoing legal war of the schism. After nearly nine years since the break, the two sides are nearing the finish line. The ownership of the 29 parishes and the Camp will be decided by the SCSC in the foreseeable future. 

With the Battle of Waterloo on the horizon, I encourage everyone to share your thoughts about any and all aspects of the schism with me and our blog readers. Letters to this editor are always very popular (I think people get a little tired of reading only what I have to say). I am a democrat. Everyone has the same rights and everyone is equally important. Your opinions are just as valuable as mine. So, go on and share your views with us. We need it. All I ask is that you talk about issues and not make personal attacks. If published, you may include your name or leave it anonymous.

Letter of the day:

Hi Ronald:

I read your September 26 analysis of Collective vs Non-Collective Opinion, or Opinion vs Collective Opinion. As I am no attorney, but have experience in property and property held in trust, deeds and transfer of deeds.

First, a trust created for property holds the real property to protect that asset. Protecting for the benefit of those the trust is holding it for. In this case, 'Church Properties'. The Dennis Canon created for this very protection.

Second, a majority opinion is the final opinion on a case, by that court, as in state supreme courts, with defined results. A court, even US Supreme Court, may have some in majority that vote in the majority, but write an opinion as caution, or write more closely to the letter of the law. Write on not just legal reasoning of their decision but how their legal mind finds a conclusion in the evidence presented. Happens all the time.

Evidence presented, both sides try to persuade with arguments, their position before judges or justices. Therefore, "I conclude this way, here is my opinion from the facts presented, here is my reasoning, and some precedent."

However, the majority decision is final, for that case. State Supreme Courts do reverse cases from previous courts---even landmark rulings by SCOTUS. However, rarely reverse their own ruling just a few years ago. This is because a reverse decision soon becomes a question about the quasi legitimacy of that court. In this, for standing by its own previous rulings. Then upheld other future decisions on any case going forward as legitimate and respected for future plaintiffs and defendants.

In South Carolina the SCSC may reverse its own decision based on to clarify opinions written by the very same judges. That's odd, these are odd judges if they do this after the December 8 hearing. This places an issue of legitimacy on SCSC ruling, binding rules, adhering to law.

We are heading into a state supreme court that is going to reverse itself on December 8. It will also then ignore the principle of stare decisis [to stand by things decided]. Only when the court uses the theory of collective opinions, presented before the lower court to Judge Dickson. A new theory in this case. Now, isn't that special?

One may interpret a trust that holds property different than others since it may benefit one over others. And others will interpret a trust that hold property that benefits them more, or even less than others.

In properties sold there are title searches done by attorneys. The attorney is neutral on the chain of ownership. And conducts a comprehensive legal review. Standard on most all real estate transaction. In this there are (3) ways to determine ownership of any property held in trust, or held in a complex manner that non-attorneys don't understand. 

First, there are documents, the original deeds, language of a trust created to the benefit and protection of those to enjoy the asset. Second, a title search completed by a neutral real estate attorney that traces chain of ownership. Third, there are legal hearings by a judge as a legal ruling on ownership. Not a trial per se. Not dragged out into the public, confuse everyone, and delay a final understanding to settle the dispute.

The point is this is a real estate case, it always was a real estate case. This is a land grab, a tradition in America going back centuries. Here, stealing $500 million in Church properties. It's not a religious expression case, not a free exercise case, not a right to assemble peacefully, not about speech, or press. It's not a first amendment case at all. It's more like a 14th Amendment and even a 5th Amendment  case to drop some new theories.

This is supposed to be about gay marriage and female clergy from the start, going back and escalating decades ago. Perhaps this is a label stamped on it here. And is totally moot. This is for the newspapers, and for non-Episcopalians to comment about and stamp a political label on it. Stamp it! It's all about politics today, and culture---but it is not. South Carolina's largest newspaper can't even keep up, knows facts loosely and gives up reporting on it. December 8 hearing will hear arguments, but we will once again likely go into a winter 2022 waiting for a decision.

Finally, Episcopalians are good at one central area in the United States. We know land. We hold land and other assets as an estimate in USA exceeding $300 billion. And with less than 2 million active parishioners. This is not to benefit us. It's to benefit everyone that walks into our doors. Also, the churches hold endowments attached to the parishes that may exceed the actual land value of the church property. It's really about money, who gets to control that pot of money with a nice property for worship.

The great robbery of South Carolina likely will end soon. We sigh a relief, go back to worship and doing kindness for others as a central aspect of Episcopalian faith life, and maybe enjoy the end of Advent with a resolution.

Christopher Rogers, MPA---Adjunct Faculty, Trident Technical College, Charleston, South Carolina.

----------------------------------------------------------

To Christopher Rogers, I say a big "Thank You" for this thoughtful letter. 

Now reader, let us know what your think.