tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post7902669672924601113..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: General Convention: July 3, early morningMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-51848659798770759692012-07-06T13:41:06.548-04:002012-07-06T13:41:06.548-04:00"The decision to proceed with the charges has..."The decision to proceed with the charges has not been made."<br /><br />No, either the Intake Officer decided to 'proceed with the charges' or he didn't and the PB overruled. That is the way Title IV works.<br /><br />I believe you are misinformed.<br /><br />SCMSCMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-91335721279129050772012-07-06T11:55:13.084-04:002012-07-06T11:55:13.084-04:00Dear David
Kindly read the public remarks of the ...Dear David<br /><br />Kindly read the public remarks of the Intake Officer. He says he will initiate Title IV proceedings in a few weeks. <br /><br />That means he did not dismiss the charges.<br /><br />This is fairly basic data.<br /><br />RobertRobertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-34828805347458490282012-07-05T14:04:29.231-04:002012-07-05T14:04:29.231-04:00Perhaps you are playing dumb to the process Robert...Perhaps you are playing dumb to the process Robert. The formal charges are being looked into. The charged have been alerted to that fact. The decision to proceed with the charges has not been made. If the charges were found without merit, there would be no further process and the world at large would have been none the wiser.<br /><br />So, what political games is the one who publicly made this stage of the process public hoping for.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-67938035676441719682012-07-04T02:50:18.210-04:002012-07-04T02:50:18.210-04:00"the real question is which one of the accuse..."the real question is which one of the accused made the accusation public"<br /><br />I don't take your point. Is someone formally accused (of a frivolous charge) and told they are subject to disciplinary procedures 'in a few weeks' required for some reason to keep silence? Required by whom? <br /><br />Keep in mind as well that Title IV is being revised. It is a flawed document, so judged even by liberals like Attorney Rehill (who defended +Righter).<br /><br />Why would someone so charged be obliged to stay silent?<br /><br />RobertRobertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-21597926199540906882012-07-03T13:45:28.009-04:002012-07-03T13:45:28.009-04:00No, the real question is which one of the accused ...No, the real question is which one of the accused made the accusation public. Given that Clay Matthews would not have done so, and no one else knew, that leaves one of those who received a notice. Who did so, and why, is the question.Tom Sramek, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17891982131922786298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-25410750447878598012012-07-03T12:11:26.351-04:002012-07-03T12:11:26.351-04:00"The real question is why did the person maki..."The real question is why did the person making the charge do so at this moment."<br /><br />Yes, that qualifies as a 'real question' for sure!<br /><br />And alongside it, 1) why did the Intake Officer dignify the charge, 2) was the PB involved if he didn't choose to, vetoing his decision, 3) is any of this timed as it is because Title IV is going to be reviewed and so one might question its actual probity.<br /><br />I hope you can find out and report to the wider world of Episcopal Christians who don't like this sort of stealthy Title IV activity.<br /><br />RobertRobertnoreply@blogger.com