Letter from the Anglican District of Virginia regarding outcome of TEC/DoV lawsuit hearing
by Jim Oakes
August 13, 2007
As you may have heard, we had a preliminary hearing on Friday, August 10, in court, at which the court heard arguments on our demurrers and pleas in bar. (Our demurrer asserted that even if everything The Episcopal Church claims is true, they still would have no case. The plea in bar argued that vestry members are immune from suit for actions taken in an official capacity as volunteers).
After extensive argument over the plea of statutory immunity, the court was prepared to rule but suggested that the parties work out an agreement. After recess, the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church agreed to dismiss all of the vestry members and rectors as defendants without prejudice and the individuals agreed to honor any determination of the court regarding the plaintiffs' property claims, subject to their rights of appeal of any adverse ruling.
"We are appreciative that after all these months, our volunteer vestry members and our pastoral leadership are no longer named defendants in lawsuit filed by the Diocese and The Episcopal Church," said Tom Wilson, Senior Warden of The Falls Church, and Chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia Board of Directors.
As to the ownership of the property, the court stated that it was making a very narrow ruling. The court found that, at this preliminary stage in the litigation, the complaints filed by the Diocese and The Episcopal Church state a sufficient claim to an interest in the property for those claims to proceed to trial where The Episcopal Church and the Diocese will have to put on actual evidence to support their allegations. The court emphasized that it was not making a determination as to any rights, but simply that the complaints alleged enough to get The Episcopal Church and the Diocese past a preliminary motion to dismiss.
However, before those claims proceed to trial, the court has scheduled a hearing later this year to determine whether or not the claims filed by the Virginia churches under the Virginia Division Statute preempt the property claims of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese. If the court rules in favor of the churches under the Virginia Division Statute, that finding will be dispositive (which means that there would be no reason to proceed with the property claims made by the Diocese and The Episcopal Church).
What does all of this mean? Our legal team will be parsing every sentence of Judge Bellows' rulings for some time, but we should keep in mind that these are preliminary skirmishes in a long battle. Since football season is about to begin, I can't help but use a couple of analogies...
Our demurrer was, frankly, a long shot. Our legal team has told us that, as a practical matter, it is very rare for a judge to dismiss an entire case at this preliminary stage, particularly one with such national visibility. But it was worth a try. Think of it as a long incomplete pass.
We can think of the plea in bar as a touchdown - very good news, but it is still the first quarter of the game. And we must remember that our trustees are still named as defendants, although no claim of personal liability is asserted.
We still have a long way to go, and we still need prayer! We appreciate your support, encouragement and prayer throughout this process.
Jim Oakes
Vice Chairman
Anglican District of Virginia
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| warmac9999 | Posted: 2007/8/13 20:41 Updated: 2007/8/13 20:41 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/2/16 From: Posts: 1463 |
I would hope that the vestry members sued by the Diocese would turn around and sue the Diocese. There was never any question about their volunteer service to the laity they represent - and they were duly elected by that laity as their representatives in Christ. For the Diocese to sue the vestry is tantamount to the Diocese suing the laity - and I am surprised that TEC didn't sue every individual member of the church.
About 98% of all civil actions settle. This will be a long hard road but if the TEC sees that it is losing ground and a lot more members because of the debacle of homosexual celebration, they will settle. The fly in the ointment is Beers, who can run his law firm for decades on these cases. |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2007/8/13 20:50 Updated: 2007/8/13 20:52 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6863 |
I agree. It also seems to me that the diocese and the Church also realize the futility of bringing suit against the vestries; knowing that public opinion would be against them, and by doing so, it would harm their case against the parishes.
The smart thing thing for the diocese to do would be to settle with the parishes. Cennydd |
| Fisherman | Posted: 2007/8/14 3:03 Updated: 2007/8/14 3:03 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/8/25 From: Dallas - Province of the Southern Cone, DoFW Posts: 675 |
Quote:
After extensive argument over the plea of statutory immunity, the court was prepared to rule but suggested that the parties work out an agreement. "Certain things, like the sight of a hangman's noose, tend to organize one's thoughts" (Mark Twain). Our prayers are with the NoVa parishes. p.s. Odd, this isn't on the ENS front page yet? |
| Cennydd | Posted: 2007/8/14 3:16 Updated: 2007/8/14 3:20 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/10/30 From: Los Banos, CA, Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 6863 |
Of course not, Fisherman!
Mustn't let the 'Piskies know what's happening! Can't risk having any Nervous Nellies in The Episcopal Church, can they? Keep 'em in the dark! Cennydd |
| railbirdbc | Posted: 2007/8/14 3:44 Updated: 2007/8/14 3:47 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/6/6 From: Posts: 767 |
Realistically, where could such a case go? If it were possible for any church to prosecute its laity, the chaos that would follow would be unthinkable. A bishop could theoretically prosecute a laymen who insists on putting forth the orthodox Gospel over the revisionist version. In other words, a layman passing out gospel tracts to fellow parishioners could be charged under the law (which is very close to a reality in Canada under the anti-hate law in place). Such a scenario would make the church a totalitarian state rather than a spiritual fellowship. Above all, TEC and others like it, need to remember that the world is watching. And what a testimony it's attitude presents to an unbelieving world looking for a better way.
|
| Seraph | Posted: 2007/8/14 16:23 Updated: 2007/8/14 16:23 |
Just popping in ![]() ![]() Joined: 2007/8/13 From: Alexandria, VA Posts: 14 |
Quote:
However, before those claims proceed to trial, the court has scheduled a hearing later this year to determine whether or not the claims filed by the Virginia churches under the Virginia Division Statute preempt the property claims of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese. If the court rules in favor of the churches under the Virginia Division Statute, that finding will be dispositive (which means that there would be no reason to proceed with the property claims made by the Diocese and The Episcopal Church). To me this is the ACE in the Hand of The Falls Church (my church) and Truro atleast. The Falls Church was establish as an Anglican Sister Church of Truro in 1732, which is some 52 years before the Anglican disestablishment in 1784 (slightly post revolutionary war) and the creation of TEC. The Falls Church and Truro are sort of like Asland (in CS Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe") and the TEC/DofV are like the Witch. Asland defeated the witch because, as he says, "He was there before her time." It is my belief, that God will make sure that the court simply can't ignore this fact. |
















