Diocese of San Joaquin: It's not a done deal -- Court arguments made

By Mary Ann Mueller
VirtueOnline Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
5/5/2009

FRESNO, CA--- Time is ticking away, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second until the courtroom showdown starts today (May 5). The attorneys are closeted, double and triple checking their notes, references and arguments. The interested parties are in prayer, barnstorming the gates of heaven and trusting the Lord to make His will manifest and followed. The media is observing with baited breath to see what happens. Everyone is on pins and needles, watching and waiting for the courtroom drama to play itself out.

A hint as to the result of that drama may have been released Monday (May 4) by the California Superior Court - Fresno County -- when a tentative ruling basically struck down all of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin's arguments. Basically, the tentative ruling says that both the defendant (Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin) and the plaintiff (the TEC Diocese San Joaquin represented by Bishop Jerry Lamb) see eye to eye and agree on the facts of the case. A tentative ruling will not necessarily be chiseled into stone by the judge this afternoon.

The Honorable Adolfo M. Corona signed the tentative ruling on May 4, scheduling a hearing for the next day in his Department 97A courtroom.

So far, the judge in the case has supported all of the arguments presented by TEC and its battery of lawyers. His tentative ruling says that Bishop Lamb is the legitimate church authority for the Diocese of San Joaquin. That determination was tentatively made because the judge believes that TEC is a hierarchical body and therefore, the ecclesial authority comes from the top down with the top being TEC headquarters in New York.

"A hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church," Judge Corona writes in his tentative ruling. "In a hierarchical church, an individual local congregation that affiliates with the national church body becomes a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, under its government and control, and bound by its orders and judgments."

However there is no agreement to the presumed facts of the case, as the judge seems to see them, so the litigants will argue their separate positions before Judge Corona their separate positions. The attorneys for the defendants, lead by Russell G. Van Rosenboom of Wild, Carter and Tipton, a Fresno law firm, intend on demonstrating that the judge is mistaken in his tentative judgment. Van Rosenboom is also chancellor for the Diocese of San Joaquin.

"It's not a done deal," The Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger told VOL this morning. "Whichever way the judge rules, the other side is going to appeal."

"The 'Tentative Ruling' in the San Joaquin case is nothing more than that, 'tentative'," explained Texas attorney William Fisher who has been keeping an eye on the various TEC lawsuits around the country. "This ruling is on a Motion to Adjudicate, or, as is commonly known a Motion for Summary Judgment. Such a motion is often made by one of the parties in a law suit when they believe there are no contested matters of fact for a jury to decide."

A summery judgment approved by a judge, and in this case Judge Corona, declares that both sides agree to the basic details of the case. If both sides agree, a summery judgment is issued.

"The purpose of a tentative ruling is to let the parties know the way the judge is inclined to analyze the arguments and the evidence that has been offered thus far by each side. In that way, the parties know what points they need to address specifically at the hearing.,." explains attorney A.S. Haley on his blog 'The Anglican Curmudgeon'. "The judge will not issue a final ruling until after he has heard the oral argument by counsel, and he can either affirm or modify his tentative ruling, or revise it completely."

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is hoping for is its day in court before a jury where it can present all the facts of the case and fully explain its side of the issues. The jury can then decide the merits of the case instead of a lone judge.

"In our legal system, juries decide the facts and judges decide the law.,." Fisher explained. "If there are no contested facts, then there is nothing for the jury to decide, and the case can go directly to the judge to decide the law."

In this case, there are contested facts. One is what constitutes a hierarchical church and does The Episcopal Church truly fit that definition -- as understood and practiced by the Church of Rome -- a truly hierarchical church government wherein what the pontiff and the magisterium have the ultimate rule.

Anglican insight into the hierarchical church does not seem to match the Roman Catholic understanding. That seems to be the crux of the matter.

"The court basically ignored most of the arguments we presented," explained Canon Gandenberger.

"Defendants dispute that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church," the judge states in his tentative ruling. He even threw out Bishop William Wantland's expert testimony on behalf of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.

"Defendant's attempt to dispute the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church with the declaration of Rev. Wantland is unavailing. His declaration as to the nature of the Church is an inadmissible opinion on a legal conclusion," Judge Corona continued. "[It] is thoroughly established that experts may not give opinions on matters which are essentially within the province of the court to decide."

Bishop Wantland is a qualified attorney in his own right and is licensed to practice law in the State of Oklahoma and the Seminole Nation. The bishop is also a brilliant canonist who thoroughly understands Episcopal Church canons.

California is a neutral principal law state meaning that the issues of a property dispute should be decided by the written law itself and not influenced by outside matters. The judge should take a balanced approach to the legal decision and not be blinded by the confusion wrought by the ecclesial hierarchical issues.

As an interested bystander reviewing the tentative ruling, Fisher said: "There are many flaws which can be attacked. The most glaring flaw is that the trial court seems to believe that once the hierarchical body of the Episcopal Church has pronounced something to be fact, such as their recognition of Bishop Lamb as Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, then the court cannot look at the process by which this happened.

"On the other hand, the court seems to have no difficulty in examining the process by which Bishop Schofield and the Diocesan Convention amended the constitution and canons of the diocese to remove the accession clause," Fisher continued. "Clearly, the court believes it can examine the process of what the diocese and its bishop did, so then, it must as clearly be able to examine the process by which Bishop Lamb became Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin."

"... the Episcopal Church has spoken as to who holds the position of Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin - Reverend Lamb," the judge states in his tentative ruling. "Defendants challenge Lamb's election as Bishop on procedural grounds such as notice and quorum, but this court has no power to rule on the validity of the Episcopal Church's election of its Bishops."

The judge also noted that The Episcopal Church has formally recognized Bishop Lamb and allows him to function sacramentally within the diocese.

"Moreover," the judge says, "the Episcopal Church has deposed Schofield as Bishop."

"There are procedural issues with the Motion to Adjudicate that the court seemed to simply gloss over. For example, the court was not bothered by the fact that the Motion failed to comply with California rules of procedure. I suspect upon appeal, an appeals court may find this cavalier attitude by the court toward the state's rules of procedure troublesome," Fisher predicted.

Canon Ganderberger doesn't expect an immediate ruling after today's oral arguments in the case., He thinks the judge will take the added information gleaned from the spoken litigation under advisement and issue his final judgement at a later date.

Virtueonline will keep you up to date on the Fresno court proceedings as they become available.


---Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline