“The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has lost congregations that collectively contributed $10.4 million directly to the diocese in the 20-year period before the dispute erupted.”

And they think suing the congregations will bring them back? What fools!

They didn’t sue to bring people back, although they would be most welcome.  The suits were in response to suits by departing parishioners who sought to have title transferred to them for properties where the departees worshipped before they decided to leave the diocese.  If the diocese had not joined the action, the properties might have gone to the people who left by default.

Your post at #2 is completely inaccurate NoVA Scout, but I suppose we are all used to that by now. Properties don’t go to anyone “by default” - what nonsense. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

At law, Michael, if someone brings an action and an interested party fails to respond, the petitioning party wins.  I can assure you that if the Diocese had not opposed the action brought by departing parishioners to have the titles to the properties put in their hands under the Virginia “Division Statute” , the properties would have been forfeit and the Diocese would have had a heckuva time trying to undo something like that.
 
That’s the cold hard truth.  It was not a realistic option to remain silent when the 57-9 court actions were filed by CANA groups.

Here we go again, more of your spin and deception. There is no “cold hard truth” in your post.

Your first paragraph is 180 degrees wrong because of specific agreements entered into between the congregations and the Diocese, but you just conveniently forgot to mention that, didn’t you? ;o)

I can only go by my experience in litigation over the course of nearly 40 years, No. 5.  It seems like an incontrovertible truth to me.  I have never seen it any other way. If you have experience to the contrary, it would interest me.

The Diocese rejected the proposed “protocols” (which I think is your reference).  In any event, even if the protocols had been operative, they created a framework for orderly departure, but did not contemplate the uncompensated takeover of properties by people who left.  They, at most, permitted departing groups to propose purchase terms to the Diocese.  As I have stated elsewhere recently in response to a direct query from Mr. Seitz, while some parishes might have been suitable for negotiation had the protocol been approved, I do not believe the Diocese would have found any price acceptable for the the two large, historic parishes. 

Finally, when I discuss these things, I do not do so with any intent to “spin” or “deceive.”  This kind of talk, while common enough in these parts (I think Dr. Harmon does a better job than others of damping that sort of thing down), is not worthy of you or others who lapse into it.  I do not reciprocate that kind of personal attack.  I can be mistaken, I’m sure, or I can have an opinion that others don’t share.  But I do not think it asking much to be taken for someone who speaks honestly of his views and offers support for them, whether it is ultimately convincing or not to others.

NoVA Scout,

If you have the sort of personal knowledge that you claim in your response to Dr Seitz on the other thread, then you know perfectly well that there was no prospect whatsoever of properties being “forfeit” because of the 57-9 filings. Both parties had agreed that these filings would take place and had entered into an agreement that they would not have any such effect. Your continual and vehement assertions to the contrary are unimpressive, to say the least.

My comments were not “personal attacks” on you, but restrained objective comments. I suggest you look at your own behaviour rather than seeking to blame others.

I view a charge of deception as a personal attack.  The word and its cognates have meaning.  I have not engaged in any activity that merits that charge.  You can’t accuse me of deception without my regarding it as ad hominem.

The parties could not and did not agree that the filing of petitions by the departees would have no legal effect.  Once the petitions were filed, if the Diocese had not opposed, the courts would have granted them mechanically.  That’s the way things work.  I don’t make those rules.  That’s just the way it is.

NoVA Scout,

Its not a personal attack if your claims actually are deceptive.

“The parties could not and did not agree that the filing of petitions by the departees would have no legal effect.”

Since I have never said that, why refer to it? “No such effect” does not mean “no legal effect”. When you make these sort of ‘mistakes’ so often, there really seem to be only two possibilities - either you are being provocative for its own sake, or you do not have a legal background as you claim. 

“Once the petitions were filed, if the Diocese had not opposed, the courts would have granted them mechanically.”

That is untrue. The congregations had already entered into the standstill agreement with the Diocese and would have been estopped from going against it if they had tried:

“The congregations:

a. will not initiate any transfer or conveyance of their property.

b. will not initiate any civil legal action against The Diocese/TEC, but may report their congregations determinations by filing a petition/report with the relevant VA Circuit Courts pursuant to Va. Code 57-9 without violating the agreement.

The congregations’ Va. Code 57-9 filings will state that notice has been provided to The Diocese/TEC. The congregations will not take any further steps to bring the Va. Code 57-9 filings to judgment. Upon the Diocese’s request, the congregations will seek a stay of their Va. Code 57-9 filings. If the Diocese seeks to intervene in the Va Code 57-9 filings, the congregations will not oppose such intervention and upon the Diocese’s request will jointly with the Diocese move to stay the filings. In not opposing the intervention, the congregation of course reserve the right to contest the Diocese/TEC’s alleged interest in the property.”

The parties contemplated that the seceding parishioners might file a petition and that the Diocese might oppose it.  If the Diocese had not opposed the petition, it risked default.  The parties could not bind the court.  The undertaking was that neither side would regard it as a breach of the protocol if the other filed or responded to the 57-9 proceeding.  Of course, the protocol was not accepted by the Diocese in any event, so the discussion is a bit abstract.

Sorry, I’m a bit old-fashioned (guess it’s my conservative bent and my age).  If someone says I’m being deceptive, I take it personally.

Then don’t write things that are patently not true.  Your latest email is just more of the same. 

“The parties could not bind the court.”

And you claim to have legal training…? A document such as this does not purport to bind the court, rather it binds the parties in personam. Equity will restrain them from taking action in court contrary to their agreement.

“The undertaking was that neither side would regard it as a breach of the protocol if the other filed or responded to the 57-9 proceeding.”

Of course, which is the whole point: TEC did not “respond to the 57-9 proceeding”.  It took fresh proceedings to seize the congregations’ properties.  It did this because it wanted to terminate the negotiations between DioVA and the congregations for a peaceful settlement, not because there was any danger that the 57-9 filings would change the status quo.

Hence why your assertion above that “the properties would have been forfeit” has no basis.

We’re beating a dead horse here. My last whack at the carcass is this:  The Diocese did not approve the protocol you reference.  The Diocese (and TEC, whose presence I view as redundant) did respond to the 57-9 petition by intervening in opposition.  It would have, in my view, been an enormous and irretrievable breach of its obligations of stewardship for the Diocese not to have opposed the petition to transfer title.  The risk, which I gauge (both now, in retrospect, and at the time) to have been very high, was that without opposition, title would have transferred by operation of law.  You apparently think otherwise, but the discussion is hypothetical in the extreme and not one we can resolve between us by constant reiterations, particularly since you regard my view as one emanating from a personal moral failing on my part.  The Diocese also acted to terminate the occupation of the buildings and their contents by the seceding group and to return the buildings for use by poor sods like me, who chose not to depart the Diocese, but who had seen Episcopal worship terminated in the buildings by those who left, who continued to use the buildings for worship in a new denomination to the exclusion of those who chose to stay.  I am very glad that the Diocese pursued this course.  You are not.  We have a different view of this.  I do not impugn your character.  You should not impugn mine. 

Nunc recedo. Vale.

“The Diocese did not approve the protocol you reference.”

Yes it did. If you keep making incorrect assertions, you can hardly complain when other people point them out.

“It would have, in my view, been an enormous and irretrievable breach of its obligations of stewardship for the Diocese not to have opposed the petition to transfer title.”

Leaving aside your florid language, the whole point of this is that you asserted that the 57-9 filings required the Diocese and TEC to respond otherwise the properties would be “forfeit”. That is clearly not the case.

“The risk, which I gauge (both now, in retrospect, and at the time) to have been very high, was that without opposition, title would have transferred by operation of law.”

Since you have no basis for what you “gauge”, it is irrelevant.

“The Diocese also acted to terminate the occupation of the buildings and their contents by the seceding group and to return the buildings for use by poor sods like me, who chose not to depart the Diocese, but who had seen Episcopal worship terminated in the buildings by those who left, who continued to use the buildings for worship in a new denomination to the exclusion of those who chose to stay.”

No, TEC (with the Diocese dragged along) chose to mount a legal action to seize the properties from their rightful owners. The worship was not changed - the doctrine was. Nor were you excluded from anything - you simply couldn’t agree with the fact that the majority of your fellow congregants rejected liberal and apostate teaching.

“I do not impugn your character.  You should not impugn mine.”

I am not impugning your character - if anyone is doing that, it is you yourself. The real issue seems to be that you cannot cope with the idea that anyone has the temerity to disagree with you, whether it be a congregation, a bishop or a blogger.

I expect people to disagree with me.  That’s the basis for discussion and learning.  Blogs would be pointless without different points of view.  How one behaves in disagreement is another point altogether.  I find it somewhat disturbing that there are a few people on this site - I now number you among them - who cannot engage in discussion without impugning the motives or personal merit of their interlocutors.  Call me deceptive, and I associate that with a charge of dishonesty.  I associate dishonesty with bad character.  A quaint notion, but a product of my conservative upbringing.