tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post242114721789138510..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: The Living Church on the California Supreme Court clarification.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-85901190248889650392009-03-03T23:01:00.000-05:002009-03-03T23:01:00.000-05:00That's certainly my interpretation of the court's ...That's certainly my interpretation of the court's ruling. There are instances where a case is presented to the court on a stipulated set of facts and the court is asked to apply the law to those facts in making its decision. AFAIK, that didn't happen here, nor to my knowledge is it required for a demurrer, but since I practice in a state that doesn't use demurrers, I will happily defer to someone with more knowledge in this area.<BR/><BR/>Also, while I disagree that this is a complete victory for TEC and the Diocese, I think the court's ruling gives them a definite advantage when it goes back to the Superior Court. For one example, it's pretty clear that the issue of whether the Dennis Canon was properly adopted by GC is now off the table.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-78261083689509474032009-03-02T22:22:00.000-05:002009-03-02T22:22:00.000-05:00Paul Powers:I see (I think): so, this may be sent ...Paul Powers:<BR/><BR/>I see (I think): so, this may be sent back to the court of first jurisdiction? And the demurrer - "asserting that even if all of the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint are true, they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action" - did not include a stipulation <I>that</I> the facts are correct?<BR/><BR/>Well, as I said, I'm not an attorney, and so am subject more to the way things have been reported. Apparently, I'll just have to watch and wait myself. Thanks.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-16510374063986208092009-03-02T19:48:00.000-05:002009-03-02T19:48:00.000-05:00The point is, Marshall, there never was a trial or...The point is, Marshall, there never was a trial or any sort of hearing on the merits in the lower court. What happened is that the defendants (i.e. the seceding congregations) filed a demurrer, which is basically a pleading asserting that even if all of the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint are true, they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The trial court agreed with the defendants. The court of appeal disagreed and found that the complaint's allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action and then ordered the case to be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. <BR/><BR/>The case then went to the California Supreme Court, which affimed the Court of Appeal's judgment (which includes sending the case back to the trial court). In determining whether the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action, all 3 courts would have assumed that all of the allegations of the complaint are true. However, no evidence has been introduced into any court that these allegations are true, not has any court had the opportunity to consider any affirmative defenses that any of the defendants might offer that could change the result.<BR/><BR/>I'm not familiar with the specific details of California civil procedure, but I imagine that the next step is that the defendant congregations will file their answers, some discovery will be conducted, and then there will be either a full blown trial (or at least a summary judgment hearing) at which evidence will be offered and a judgment on the merits will be rendered. Depending on the trial court's judgment (and the parties' willingness and ability to continue the battle), the case may then be appealed back to the court of appeal and possibly from there to the California Supreme Court.<BR/><BR/>So, while I think there's a good chance TEC and the Diocese of LA will win in the end, it's not over yet.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-40901808006105636912009-03-01T16:04:00.000-05:002009-03-01T16:04:00.000-05:00Paul Powers:What? Your core is based on, "_if_ th...Paul Powers:<BR/><BR/>What? Your core is based on, "_if_ this set of facts is established at a trial or hearing on the merits;" but, wasn't that the role of the circuit court in the first place? I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that appellate procedures accept the facts as established in the first instance, and review whether the decision based on those facts was correct (as opposed to the facts themselves). So, the the first court determined that there were certain facts: the Canons of the Episcopal Church say <I>X</I>; the bylaws of the parish say <I>Y</I>; California law says <I>Z</I>; and here is how the principles and precedents of law apply to these facts. The Appellate Court found that the Circuit judge has misapplied the principles and precedents of law, not that he has misidentified the facts; and the Supreme Court ruled, and refused to review, based on application of principles and precedents. Presumably, the trial on the merits of the facts was the first trial.<BR/><BR/>So, "TEC and the diocese can't just take their victory for granted. They're going to have to work for it." Work for it <I>where</I>? In what venue? It's not like this was sent back to the first court for reconsideration.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-91292712886844188712009-02-28T22:34:00.000-05:002009-02-28T22:34:00.000-05:00There's a subtle difference between the original a...There's a subtle difference between the original and the modified opinion. The original opinion holds that based on a certain set of facts (which the court assumed to be true even though there was never a hearing on the merits in the trial court), the property belongs to the Diocese of Los Angeles and TEC. This can be expressed by the following syllogism:<BR/><BR/>A + B = C<BR/>D + E = C<BR/>Therefore A + B = D + E<BR/><BR/>The modified opinion basically says that _if_ this set of facts is established at a trial or hearing on the merits, then the property will belong to the diocese and TEC. <BR/>In other words: <BR/><BR/>_If_ A + B = C <BR/>and _If_ D + E = C<BR/>then A + B = D + E<BR/><BR/>The end result may be the same either way, but TEC and the diocese can't just take their victory for granted. They're going to have to work for it.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-78326699290775931922009-02-27T22:01:00.000-05:002009-02-27T22:01:00.000-05:00Do not the Orthodites mostly share the same alma m...<I>Do not the Orthodites mostly share the same alma mater?</I><BR/><BR/>I hear that they are mass produced in a secret underground lab somewhere. Kind of like <I>The Boys from Brazil</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-79730514299535720752009-02-27T12:39:00.000-05:002009-02-27T12:39:00.000-05:00Forrester "is an alumni of her own alma mater". Do...<I>Forrester "is an alumni of her own alma mater". </I><BR/><BR/>Do not the Orthodites mostly share the same alma mater?Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-10936867928258758752009-02-27T10:46:00.000-05:002009-02-27T10:46:00.000-05:00Fr Forrester is now an "alumnus" at Mr Haley's sit...Fr Forrester is now an "alumnus" at Mr Haley's site. Congrats on your catholic readership.Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-32367428832997030952009-02-27T10:04:00.000-05:002009-02-27T10:04:00.000-05:00There is much in The Living Church that I look for...There is much in The Living Church that I look forward to reading, such as feature articles, book reports, and the editiorials (well, sometimes...) The news section however is blantantly one-sided, and often has a curious twist on a story. Thankfully with the internet, we can find news from several sources-hopefully from progressive and conservative sources.Jeffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684867370425102981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-64457775790364443792009-02-27T09:15:00.000-05:002009-02-27T09:15:00.000-05:00another reason why I'm letting my TLC subscription...another reason why I'm letting my TLC subscription expire...Fr Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232925124388686609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80055094642672653332009-02-27T09:02:00.000-05:002009-02-27T09:02:00.000-05:00The news has nothing to do with the opinion. The n...The news has nothing to do with the opinion. The news is that they refused to rehear the case.Jim Naughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03860752046479938764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-43090997908664269712009-02-27T08:06:00.000-05:002009-02-27T08:06:00.000-05:00Concerning A.S. Haley's mastery of legal nicety, h...Concerning A.S. Haley's mastery of legal nicety, he states, re the backing that Kevin Thew Forrester is supposedly receiving from the Presiding Bishop, that Forrester "is an alumni of her own alma mater". <BR/><BR/>Nit-picking, I know, but the Devil is in the details.Lapinbizarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07686990585795363001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-86595952683777912692009-02-27T01:53:00.000-05:002009-02-27T01:53:00.000-05:00This topped "Titus 1:10" this morning. I clicked o...This topped "Titus 1:10" this morning. I clicked on it to see the provinence - The Living Church.<BR/><BR/>Frankly I don't see why you in America take it seriously, I haven't for a long time, nor "Titus 1.10"<BR/><BR/>Also: mixing news and comment, as is the fashion, is as bad as mixing Text and interpretation, isn't it?<BR/><BR/> :-(Göran Koch-Swahnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925549945659350649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-14403643885127650952009-02-27T00:50:00.000-05:002009-02-27T00:50:00.000-05:00Episcopal Cafe thinks it is essentially over - if ...Episcopal Cafe thinks it is essentially over - if you read the court opinion - linked there - you can see for your self. <A HREF="http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/church_and_state/california_breakaway_churches.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287169546184325690noreply@blogger.com