domstat.net

Website loading time

during the test: 2.25 s

cable connection (average): 2.89 s

DSL connection (average): 3.52 s

modem (average): 37.1 s

HTTP headers

HTTP/1.0 200 OK

Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Expires: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:37:13 GMT

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:37:13 GMT

Cache-Control: private, max-age=0

Last-Modified: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:54:41 GMT

ETag: "f2e6e71e-d5c1-4d3f-bf29-6a6063a61d68"

X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block

Server: GSE

Information about DNS servers

Received from the first DNS server

Request to the server "accurmudgeon.blogspot.com"
You used the following DNS server:
DNS Name: rich2.serverluck.com
DNS Server Address: 173.193.5.57#53
DNS server aliases:

HEADER opcode: REQUEST, status: NOERROR, id: 48025
flag: qr aa rd ra REQUEST: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3

REQUEST SECTION:
accurmudgeon.blogspot.com. IN ANY

ANSWER SECTION:
accurmudgeon.blogspot.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162
accurmudgeon.blogspot.com. 10800 IN MX 10 rich1server.serverluck.com.

AUTHORITY SECTION:
. 10800 IN NS rich1.serverluck.com.
. 10800 IN NS rich2.serverluck.com.
. 10800 IN NS .

SECTION NOTES:
rich1server.serverluck.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162
rich1.serverluck.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162
rich2.serverluck.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162

Received 196 bytes from address 173.193.5.57#53 in 49 ms

Received from the second DNS server

Request to the server "accurmudgeon.blogspot.com"
You used the following DNS server:
DNS Name: rich1.serverluck.com
DNS Server Address: 173.193.5.57#53
DNS server aliases:

HEADER opcode: REQUEST, status: NOERROR, id: 49686
flag: qr aa rd ra REQUEST: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3

REQUEST SECTION:
accurmudgeon.blogspot.com. IN ANY

ANSWER SECTION:
accurmudgeon.blogspot.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162
accurmudgeon.blogspot.com. 10800 IN MX 10 rich1server.serverluck.com.

AUTHORITY SECTION:
. 10800 IN NS .
. 10800 IN NS rich1.serverluck.com.
. 10800 IN NS rich2.serverluck.com.

SECTION NOTES:
rich1server.serverluck.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162
rich1.serverluck.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162
rich2.serverluck.com. 10800 IN A 219.83.122.162

Received 196 bytes from address 173.193.5.57#53 in 47 ms

Subdomains (the first 50)

Typos (misspells)

Location

IP: 209.85.175.132

continent: NA, country: United States (USA), city: Mountain View

Website value

rank in the traffic statistics:

There is not enough data to estimate website value.

Basic information

website build using CSS

code weight: 243.93 KB

text per all code ratio: 35 %

title: Anglican Curmudgeon

description:

keywords:

encoding: UTF-8

language: en

Website code analysis

one word phrases repeated minimum three times

two word phrases repeated minimum three times

three word phrases repeated minimum three times

B tags

Consider the latest snafu over the "mistaken" listing of Ms. Josephine Hicks, the Church Attorney to the Disciplinary Board of Bishops, on the Official Roster of that Board as published on ECUSA's Website. She was still shown as a "Member" (i.e., a participant with a vote) as late as October 12, and yet on the previous September 30, she authored a letter to the President of South Carolina's Standing Committee, which she signed as "Church Attorney to the Board". Now the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson, former (resigned) Bishop of Upper South Carolina, is a canon lawyer. He has served on the predecessor to the Disciplinary Board (the former "Title IV Review Committee"). As such, he participated in the proceedings against Bishops Schofield and Duncan for so-called "abandonment of communion", which resulted in their faux "deposition" by a tiny minority of the full membership of the House of Bishops who are actually entitled to vote under ECUSA's Constitution, notwithstanding what the vindictive Presiding Bishop or her financially very interested Chancellor chooses to opine. So he is no stranger to the canonical process, especially in so-called cases of "abandonment."On July 1, 2011 Bishop Henderson -- despite having his term on the Title IV Review Committee shown as continuing until GC 2012 -- transferred directly from his former position on that Committee to the new Disciplinary Board for Bishops, having been appointed to the Board by the Presiding Bishop under the purported authority of the new (but unconstitutional) Title IV Canons which "took effect"* on that date. ____________*Constitutional scholars of the Episcopal Church (USA) might well want to ask themselves: what, exactly, went "into [canonical] effect" on July 1, 2011? The major part of the new "Title IV" has to do with proceedings at the diocesan level. But not a single one of those provisions could actually "take effect" within a Diocese unless that Diocese enacted them into law at its own earlier Convention -- so the far greater part of the new Title IV had no canonical effect whatsoever. General Convention, no matter what the revisionists may think, has absolutely no power to enact legislation for dioceses; it depends on them to take up the baton and follow its suit (which, to be sure, the vast majority of unthinking sheep did). The current crisis is all over one particular Diocese which chose, under its own careful reading of ECUSA's Constitution and the authority it grants to General Convention, not to adopt holus bolus every single "Canon" pushed through that body at the last minute, and with zero opportunity for meaningful debate.To return to the chronology: we know that on that same day -- July 1, 2011 -- the Board held its first meeting, since it was now officially in business. The minutes are not yet published (why? because this is ECUSA, of course), but we may hazard a guess that the meeting was largely organizational. The Board needed to elect a President, and it elected the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson. It also needed a Clerk, and it elected the Rt. Rev. Robert Fitzpatrick to that position.But did it have any other business before it at that first meeting? Only the minutes will let us know for certain -- and the Board, being an official body of ECUSA, has not seen fit to publish them yet. But we can note from its Website that it met again, just six weeks later -- on August 17, 2011. And I find this simple fact most interesting.Why? Do you remember the famous Sherlock Holmes mystery in which the most significant fact, in Holmes's view after explaining how he solved the case, was the dog that did not bark? That is rather what we have to observe in this case, as well. For (again according to the Board's official Web page) it has not met again ("barked") after August 17.This observation, my dear Watson, raises at once the following question: Why did the dog in question "bark" on August 17 -- two full months ago -- but not once since? We know that the Board's President sent Bishop Lawrence a copy of the allegations of abandonment which it was considering during the month of September. But there was no official meeting of the Board during September; therefore, I conclude that the matter of the allegations against Bishop Lawrence was first presented at, and was indeed the very reason for, the unusually quick second meeting of the Board on August 17.July 1 was a Friday; August 17 was a Wednesday. On both dates, a teleconference of the full Board needed to be arranged. It takes time to set up an acceptable date in advance for a Board consisting of eighteen members. Obviously the organizational meeting on July 1 could have been scheduled well in advance, as soon as it was known who would be serving on the Board.But the meeting on August 17, just six weeks later, suggests that something had come to the attention of the Board in the interim. And it is only logical to infer that the "something" which had come up in the interim was the arrival of the letter(s) from South Carolina with allegations of "abandonment" on the part of Bishop Lawrence. Otherwise, there was absolutely no reason for the full Board

Consider: at some point in the last few weeks, the Presiding Bishop was presented with a question of whether she should restrict ("inhibit") the resigned bishop of the Diocese of Olympia. Now he was not charged with "abandonment" (requiring the full Board to deliberate), but with adultery during his former marriage. The charges were found credible after they were taken up by the Intake Officer and an investigator, under the procedures I outlined in this post. And so they resulted in the bishop's inhibition (restriction from performing episcopal acts, such as ordination, confirmation, etc.). But such a decision to inhibit pending further proceedings, I emphasize, did not require a meeting of the full Disciplinary Board. The Presiding Bishop, acting under metropolitical authority purported to be granted to her by these unconstitutional new canons, may "at any time" she pleases impose restrictions (inhibit) a Bishop against whom charges have been brought. She does not need the consent of the full Board, or indeed of any of its members, to exercise that power -- that is one of the significant changes between the old disciplinary Canons and the new.The clincher, however, is that the current Bishop of Olympia stated on September 30 that he had become aware of the adultery allegations "several weeks ago", i.e., most likely still within the month of September, and most certainly after the Disciplinary Board's full meeting on August 17.I conclude that the charges against the resigned Bishop of Olympia could not have been on the agenda for the full Disciplinary Board at its meeting on August 17. Then what matter was then before the full Board, which required all of its members to meet on that date? We have the answer, whether wittingly or not, from Bishop Henderson's statements: it was the "serious" charges of abandonment by then brought to the Board by unknown (and unforthcoming) persons in the geographical territory of the Diocese of South Carolina, whether communicants of that Diocese or not. (The new Title IV allows literally anyone to bring charges -- not just members "known to the Treasurer" of a parish.)For the charges to have been delivered to the Board, and for its newly elected President to have scheduled a teleconference among all of its members on August 17, means that the charges would have come to the Clerk of the Board in sufficient time to arrange the August 17 meeting -- that is, probably in mid-July, or shortly after the Board itself was organized and "open" to do business.Now please note this one additional fact: as of July 1, the date of the organizational meeting of the Board, there most probably was no occasion to hire a "Church Attorney" for the Board. Why not? Because there was not even a President elected as of that meeting. Unless there was in place a complete and foreordained program (which would emphatically not redound to the supposed "impartiality" of these proceedings), the Board needed to organize itself before it could begin to hire investigators and a Church Attorney. Moreover, if (as I have hypothesized) the charges against Bishop Lawrence were not submitted until after July 1's change in the national Canons, then there would have been absolutely no reason to engage a "Church Attorney" when there were no matters before the Board requiring such an official's attention. (As explained in this earlier post, the "Church Attorney" gets involved only after all the preliminaries before the Reference Panel, and an initial determination by its investigator, have been completed.)So -- is the largely inescapable logic all clear now?1. The Disciplinary Board could not legally have organized itself, and elected a President and a Clerk, before July 1, 2011.2. At that meeting, the allegations against Bishop Lawrence were either already on the agenda, or they were not. 3. But if they were already on the agenda, the Board could not have proceeded to deal with them until after it had organized. It needed both a President to direct the proceedings, and a "Church Attorney" to investigate the charges under Canon IV.16, and to report to the full Board before it voted on their sufficiency, as provided in that Canon.4. So in either event, the charges could not have begun to have been addressed until after the Board met again six weeks later, on August 17.5. Unless the Church Attorney had been authorized to be hired at its July 1 meeting, then the Board either (a) voted to hire Josephine Hicks on August 17, or else (b) authorized the President to hire a Church Attorney of his choosing after that meeting, to make a full report to the Board.6. Ms. Hicks wrote her letter to the DSC Standing Committee on September 30, 2011, as the Board's "Church Attorney", asking for information to assist her in her investigation for the Board.7. It is thus logical to infer that the Board hired Ms. Hicks sometime after

8. Also, please note that as of September 24, 2011, Google made a cache of the Board's Roster page, which showed Ms. Hicks as a "Member" as of that date. It is inescapable from the foregoing facts that (a) the Board met to discuss what to do about allegations from South Carolina on August 17, 2011, and that sometime between that date and mid-September, it hired Ms. Josephine Hicks as its "Church Attorney" to investigate the allegations. And in that one logical conclusion from the available facts lies all that we need to know about the kangaroo character of these trumped-up proceedings against Bishop Lawrence.Why? Ask yourself this question: Of all the available and qualified church attorneys to investigate Bishop Lawrence, why would anyone pick Ms. Hicks

Of course, without an open and complete confession by Bishop Dorsey Henderson and the other members of his "impartial" Board, we will never know the absolute answer to that question. Nevertheless, just the asking of it, when combined with the following evidence, gives a clue to its answer -- because actions speak louder than words.In July 2007, four bishops of the Church released the text of an inquiry which they had sent to the Executive Council, following the latter body's publication of a "Resolution" it had adopted at its June 2007 meeting which supposedly declared "null and void" all attempts by dioceses in the Church to amend their governing documents so as to qualify, in various ways, their "accession" to the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA. They also inquired as to the amounts which the Church was devoting to litigation, and followed their inquiry up with a formal letter signed by five bishops, dated August 27.Their inquiries were answered in a letter sent November 29, 2007 from two members of the Executive Council: the chairs, respectively, of its Administration and Finance Committee, and of its Committee on National Concerns. The former was none other than Ms. Josephine Hicks

The first part of the letter in question addresses the Executive Council's recent enactment of "Resolution NAC 023", whose text was as follows (I have left unchanged the Council's sycophantic references to ECUSA as "The

“Resolved, That the Executive Council, meeting in Parsippany, New Jersey from June 11-14, 2007, reminds the dioceses of The Episcopal Church that Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of The Episcopal Church requires each Diocese to have a Constitution which shall include ‘an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church’; and be it further“Resolved, That any amendment to a diocesan Constitution that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is null and void; and be it further“Resolved, That the amendments passed to the Constitutions of the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, which purport to limit or lessen the unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, are accordingly null and void and the Constitutions of those dioceses shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed.”The letter then quotes the “Explanation” given at the meeting for passing the Resolution, as follows:“Some dioceses of The Episcopal Church have purported to pass amendments to their diocesan Constitutions that repeal or limit the extent to which those dioceses are subject to the Constitutions and Canons of The Episcopal Church. The Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin have done so, and other dioceses have taken initial steps to do so. Because such actions violate the Constitution of The Episcopal Church as a whole, they can have no force or effect and must accordingly be considered as completely ineffective.”So here we have members of the Executive Council -- a body which has no authority under ECUSA's Constitution, and which was invented by General Convention on its own to allow certain actions to be "authorized" in between its triennial gatherings -- taking it on their own (actually, at the instigation of the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, who was figuratively rubbing his hands in anticipation of the litigation which in 2007 he could foresee would ensue) to "pronounce" certain legislative acts by sovereign member dioceses (just like the sovereign States under the Articles of Confederation) to be "null and void", and "completely ineffective."Oh, really? Is the Executive Council a "Supreme Court" of the Episcopal Church (USA)? No. Does it have any kind of Constitutionally granted jurisdiction or power over the member dioceses of the Church? Again, no. Pray tell, then: what is the source of its claimed authority to make such pronouncements as it did in "Resolution NAC 023"? Answer

But those constitutional facts do not stop our Ms. Hicks. For she then goes on to write (with her co-signer -- I have added the bold, for emphasis):. . . [T]he Resolution simply reminds people of something we believe is obvious

the very essence of a Diocese of this Church

In enacting Resolution NAC 023, as the Explanation states, Council was motivated by the actions of several Diocesan Conventions that purported to qualify their previously stated accessions to the Constitution and Canons of this Church. These are alarming actions

But Ms. Hicks was not done with her legal asseverations in her response to the bishops. No: she had to add for them these words of precaution (bold again added):Although this Resolution, contrary to the language in your “open letter,” does not contain “threats of litigation,” it is the case that Canon I.17.8 provides that“Any person accepting any office in this Church shall well and faithfully perform the duties of that office

is a presentable offense

We very much hope and pray that there will be no further occasion to refer to these provisions

outta here

Oh, I'm sorry -- but you were not done yet, were you Ms. Hicks? You decided that you needed to put in a plug for the Church's infamous Dennis Canon (bold again added):We are quite frankly stunned to learn of the actions of priests and lay leaders who undertake to leave The Episcopal Church

to maintain control and ownership of church buildings and other assets that belong to the Church

As you know, that Canons of the Church are very plain on this subject

states unequivocally

“All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission, or Congregation is located.” See also Canons I.7.5 and II.6.4.Canon I.7.4 goes on to state“The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.” (Emphasis added.)In case after case

decisions must be respected by the courts

the courts will enforce them

they leave as individuals, and the property remains part of the Church they have left

But thank goodness for ECUSA: they know a good attorney when they see one, and they (Bishop Henderson and his fellow Board members) saw how useful a perspective you could bring to their job of weighing the charges against Bishop Lawrence for -- among other things -- refusing to go back to court after the All Saints

Let's see -- you weren't quite done yet, were you, Ms. Hicks? You tossed in this "friendly advice" to clergy who, like Bishop Lawrence, might be dissuaded -- even by their State's Supreme Court -- from claiming that the Dennis Canon created any kind of operative legal trust within their borders:If these persons would acknowledge the undisputed provisions of the Canons, and the court cases enforcing them, there would be no need for litigation, and there would be no need for The Episcopal Church or its Dioceses or its Parishes to expend on litigation funds that should be devoted to the mission of the Church."[A]cknowledge the undisputed provisions of the Canons," Ms. Hicks? "Undisputed," as in the 2009 case of All Saints Waccamaw vs. Diocese of South Carolina? Oh, certainly -- certainly anyone in authority in the Diocese of South Carolina, after that decision came down, should see the necessity of "expend[ing] on litigation funds that should be devoted to the mission of the Church" in a futile attempt to get the Supreme Court of South Carolina to reverse its opinion. Oh, yes -- that would make perfect sense, and once again, we see just why the Disciplinary Board wanted you as its "Church Attorney" to look into Bishop Lawrence's alleged failure to follow the law as laid down by his State's Supreme Court.But you just couldn't let matters rest there, could you, Ms. Hicks? You just had to dig your claws into the poor bishops who asked for your opinion. And so, as a parting shot, you signed your name to these unforgettable words (with bold and italics added, lest anyone miss your main point):But we and the Presiding Officers

to preserve its structure

the sole authority to make changes in the identity and responsibilities of Dioceses

should not be tolerated by any active or retired Bishop

Presiding Officers

Well -- if we had the least doubts about your impartiality before, Ms. Hicks, you have certainly set our minds at rest with these concluding observations you expressed in 2007. No, you made up your mind on all these issues two years before Mark Lawrence took a stand against General Convention as bishop of his Diocese. And that, of course, is the principal reason why Bishop Dorsey Henderson and his full Board wanted you, and only you, to be their impartial and independent "Church Attorney" for their kangaroo proceedings against Bishop Lawrence.There are none so blind as those who will not see. ECUSA, its leadership, and its entire disciplinary machinery, are so incapable of seeing their bias that they should require all further proceedings in this kangaroo court to be conducted in Braille.[UPDATE 10/14/2011

There is certainly a plausible case for reading Canon IV.16 as Bishop Henderson does in his statement, if one isolates its language from all the rest of Title IV. However, it must be noted that the drafters of the new Title left quite a bit open for argument, because they wrote the very next canon (IV.17) in this way (emphasis added):Sec. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Canon

Sec. 3. The Disciplinary Board for Bishops is hereby established as a court of the Church to have original jurisdiction over matters of discipline of Bishops

to hear Bishops' appeals from imposition of restriction on ministry

takes precedence over

But what to one's surprise: Canon IV.16 provides only for summary action by a simple majority of the eighteen-member Disciplinary Board. They "certify" the fact of "abandonment" to the Presiding Bishop; she slaps a restriction on the abandoning bishop (inhibits him from exercising his office), and gives him sixty days to retract or deny his acts of abandonment. If he does not do so, or if the Presiding Bishop in her sole judgment decides that any denial is not in "good faith", then she presents the matter to the House for a resolution to depose the abandoning bishop. Under this procedure, and contrary to the peremptory language of Canon IV.17, no appeal exists from any restriction imposed by the Presiding Bishop, or from any resolution adopted by "a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote" (which the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor interpret -- wrongly, as demonstrated in the series of posts linked at this page -- as meaning "a majority of those present and voting"). So despite the Canons saying what they do, we once again are witnesses to the Church's higher authorities deciding that they do not mean what they say.The abandonment canon was originally enacted to cover the clear case where a bishop converts to another faith without bothering to resign his see first (an act which also requires consent from the House of Bishops). Its expedited procedures assumed that (a) there could be no argument over what acts constituted the "abandonment" -- hence the lack of provision for any hearing, or trial; and (b) the abandoning bishop would in all likelihood not contest the fact of his having left the Church. Neither of those circumstances applies in Bishop Lawrence's case.But now Bishop Henderson has made it official: despite all the fanfare about the supposedly "more humane" character of the new disciplinary canons, when it comes to "abandonment", it is business as usual in the Episcopal Church (USA). If the Disciplinary Board certifies the flimsy acts spelled out in the document published on South Carolina's website as constituting "abandonment", it will have acted even worse (if that is possible) than did the old Title IV Review Committee in the case of Bishop Duncan. And for the second time in its history, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops will have decided to remove one of its own members, a sitting and functioning bishop, from his diocese without any overt act on his part of renunciation or departure -- indeed, in spite of all his protestations to the contrary.And so now, the question arises: why did it take so long for the Disciplinary Board to get involved? Why was not the September 2010 letter from the Episcopal Forum, with its nearly identical charges, not referred to the old Title IV Review Committee at the time? (Its Web page shows that they held their last meeting by teleconference on November 5, 2010.) Is it possible that the old Title IV Review Committee did consider the charges of abandonment at that time, and deemed them insufficient to certify as such?The old body had just nine members on it, including six bishops. The new Disciplinary Board is twice as large, and has ten bishops -- only two of whom, Bishop Waggoner from Spokane and Bishop Henderson, are carryovers from the Title IV Review Committee. Also, please note this very disturbing fact: North Carolina attorney Ms. Josephine Hicks, who acting as "Church Attorney" for the Disciplinary Board sent this letter to the Diocese's Standing Committee, doubles as a voting member of the Board! So she not only gets to conduct an investigation into the charges as the Board's Attorney, she then gets to vote on them! Would you care to guess what her recommendation about the charges is going to be? Or is it too much to ask that the investigator not also function as judge and jury to boot? (See UPDATE #3

It will take a vote of ten members to certify "abandonment" to the Presiding Bishop. So if they did not have five members willing to vote for abandonment in September 2010, do they have ten such members now -- including their own attorney, for heaven's sake? We soon shall see.The same jurisdictional and constitutional problems remain, however, as I discussed in my previous post. Neither Bishop Lawrence nor his Diocese concedes any authority or validity to the "Disciplinary Board for Bishops." And we now have a "double jeopardy" problem of sorts, too. For if the old Title IV Review Committee rejected the charges as constituting an act of abandonment, then where is the fairness in having a new and larger body consider them again?There surely is no other church in the world which manages to muck up its disciplinary procedures, or to make the formerly clear now so murky and uncertain, as the Episcopal Church (USA). Lack of leadership at the top is solely responsible for this mess -- just as we are witnessing in the case of a president who would rather campaign for his seat than govern and do his job. Like the President, the leadership at 815 is too concerned with politics and what they see as their opposition, rather than getting on with what they were put into office to do. But that, of course, is exactly what is meant by the phrase "business as usual."[UPDATE 10/11/2011

Church Attorney

pursuant to Diocesan Canons

The Diocesan Canons may provide a process for the removal of a Church Attorney for cause.

necessary to advance proceedings under this Title

to have access to the personnel, books and records of the Diocese

to determine

whether the reported information, if true, would be grounds for discipline

to exercise discretion consistent with this Title and the interests of the Church by declining to advance proceedings

by referring any matter back to the Intake Officer or the Bishop Diocesan for pastoral response in lieu of disciplinary action

advance proceedings

And here there can be no question that Ms. Josephine Hicks is the Disciplinary Board's "Church Attorney." She identifies herself as such in her letter sent to South Carolina's Standing Committee, dated September 30, which she signs as "Josephine H. Hicks / Church Attorney to the Disciplinary Board". So how in the world do Bishop Henderson and his Board conceive, in the furthest reaches of their supposedly neutral and dispassionate roles as enforcers of the new Canons, that they can hire one of their own voting members to be the "Church Attorney" as defined in Canon IV.2???? Quite simply, the sheer chutzpah of this maneuvering boggles the legal mind. Attorneys must serve their clients first and foremost, and if Ms. Hicks is the Church Attorney for the Board, then her client is the Board. She cannot objectively fulfill that role while serving on the Board itself as one of its voting members. Even were she to recuse herself from voting on any matters involving Bishop Lawrence, there is the fact that she has been hired by, and so is presumably being paid by, the very people who are her colleagues on the Board. Do you imagine that she could, in those circumstances, begin to exercise her independent judgment as to whether the proceedings against Bishop Lawrence should move forward, despite the total flimsiness of the charges? (Hint: she wrote the September 30 letter, so she obviously is incapable of being independent in this matter.)Shall we continue with the joke which all this makes of the new Canons, passed with such fanfare at General Convention -- after only fifteen minutes of deliberation? Take a look at the Canons which spell out the "impartiality" required of all bodies which exercise functions under the disciplinary canons (Canons IV.19.14-15):

Sec. 14.

(a) Any Bishop Diocesan exercising authority under this Title shall disqualify herself or himself in any proceeding in which the Bishop's impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Comment

(b) Any member of any Panel provided for in this Title shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the member's impartiality may reasonably be questioned. The member shall also disqualify himself or herself when the member . . . (4) has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding [such as the knowledge gained by personally investigating the charges?], [or] (5) has a personal financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding . . . [such as being paid

(c) Any member of any Panel provided for in this Title who has not disqualified himself or herself as provided in this section may be subject to challenge by the Church Attorney

But wait -- we are not through; I have saved the best for last. Here is what new Canon IV.19.15 provides, in relevant part:

Sec. 15.

Now, stop and reflect for a minute on all of the foregoing. We have an eighteen-member Disciplinary Board, none of whose members saw the slightest conflict of interest in hiring one of their own members to act as Church Attorney in the proceedings against Bishop Lawrence. Does that simple fact not suggest that they all

Needless to say, there is no need for Ms. Hicks to call her office, because no one at 815 is trying to point out to her the impossibility of her situation, and of all the current proceedings for which she is so dutifully laboring. But as we constantly have seen, all this is "par for the course" under the "leadership" (hah!) of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. It is she, after all, who gives free rein to her own personal attorney (Chancellor) to hire his own law firm to carry out the vast litigation program of the Church, while earning that firm tens of millions of dollars in the process with no meaningful oversight of what they do. So why should Bishop Dorsey Henderson do any less? Hire one of his own as the "independent" counsel to the Board! Why not, given his mentor's example?This all stinks, and it stinks to high heaven. And to add insult to the injury to the Canons, the folks at the Anglican Communion Institute remind everyone that the duty to report canonical "offenses" (such as "abandonment of communion") is mandatory, and not discretionary, under the new Title IV. Such a duty, if followed as the new Canons require, should have sidetracked all so-called "independent" proceedings under Canon IV.16, and should have injected the due process protections of Canon IV.17 into those proceedings. But not when it is "business as usual" in the Episcopal Church (USA). By making a joke of their new canons -- six years in the drafting, but deliberated upon for just fifteen minutes at General Convention -- they turn the joke upon themselves. From this point forward, everything that 815 does against the Diocese of South Carolina should be treated as the joke that it is. It is unworthy of serious deliberation or debate, and any results produced will be ludicrous in light of the bias which will inexorably taint them. One might have thought that the Episcopal Church (USA) could not sink any lower -- but one would obviously be wrong.] [UPDATE 10/12/2011

So why would not Ms. Hicks be listed as "Other" as well -- especially since Canon IV.5.3 (c) would appear to prohibit her from serving on the Board as well as its Church Attorney? That Canon states (in connection with diocesan Disciplinary Boards -- but in the introduction, it states that the Canon applies to "all" Disciplinary Boards):No person serving in a Diocese as Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Advisor, Conciliator, Church Attorney, Intake Officer or Investigator may serve on the Disciplinary Board of that Diocese, and no member of a Disciplinary Board may be selected to serve in one of those positions in the same Diocese. If we ignore the restriction about "that Diocese/same Diocese" (which is meaningless at the national level), then this Canon expressly excludes both Bishop Matthews and Josephine Hicks from serving as members of the Disciplinary Board itself -- as it ethically should, given their independent roles as explained in the previous Update. But it would have been helpful if the Official Roster had clarified that point from the outset -- and it still would help if the Board was open about just who is voting in this matter, in what capacity. Given that Ms. Hicks was also a former member of the Executive Council which passed the resolution which purported to "nullify" the constitutional amendments passed by San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh in June 2007, she is hardly to be regarded as an "impartial official" in this matter. My comments above about the kangaroo-court nature of this "process", therefore, stand.][UPDATE #3 - 10/12/2011

[UPDATE #4 - 10/13/2011

Q

A

According to Episcopal News Service, the Executive Council responded to the Forum's letter, and explained that they had no canonical authority to act: "The letter says that the council and the presiding bishop are 'committed to doing what we can to help the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina continue to participate fully in the life, work and mission of the Episcopal Church,' but notes that 'there are canonical limits

If the Intake Officer determines that the information, if true, would not constitute an Offense, the Intake Officer shall inform the Bishop Diocesan of an intention to dismiss the matter. If the Bishop Diocesan does not object, the Intake Officer shall dismiss the matter. . . .Q

The president shall promptly select from the Disciplinary Board, by lot or by other random means, a Conference Panel and a Hearing Panel, and shall designate a president of each Panel. A Conference Panel may consist of one or more persons. A Hearing Panel shall consist of not less than three persons and shall include both clergy and lay members. The president shall be ineligible to serve on either Panel.Q

The Reference Panel shall meet as soon as possible after receiving the intake report to determine how to refer the report. Referral options are (a) no action required other than appropriate pastoral response pursuant to Canon IV.8; (b) conciliation pursuant to Canon IV.10; (c) investigation pursuant to Canon IV.11 or (d) referral for possible agreement with the Bishop Diocesan regarding terms of discipline pursuant to Canon IV.9. Referral decisions shall require the approval of a majority of the Reference Panel.If the charges were filed right after July 1, the three-bishop Reference Panel could have met shortly afterwards, because Bishop Henderson was probably elected as President of the Disciplinary Board on July 1, as well. It does not appear that the Panel chose either of the first two options available to it, because of the nature of the letter which Bishop Lawrence received, detailing the charges against him which the Panel called "serious." And they certainly did not offer him any disciplinary terms under the fourth option. So that means they must have chosen to investigate the charges further, under Canon IV.11.Q

Upon referral of a matter to a Conference Panel, the president of the Disciplinary Board shall forward to the Church Attorney the intake report, all of the Investigator's reports and any other writings or other file materials created or collected by the Disciplinary Board or any panel thereof during the intake, investigative or referral process. From this material the Church Attorney shall prepare a written statement, describing each alleged Offense separately, with reasonable particularity sufficient to apprise the Respondent of the acts, omissions or conditions which are the subject of the proceedings. The Church Attorney shall then forward the materials received from the president of the Disciplinary Board, together with the written statement, to the Conference Panel.Q

No Member of the Clergy shall be accountable for any Offense if the act or omission constituting the Offense shall have occurred only prior to the effective date of this Title, unless such act or omission would have constituted an offense under the predecessor to this Title.The charges against Bishop Lawrence are for "abandonment of the communion of this Church" under Section IV.16.1. The definition of that offense is still very close to how it was defined under former Canon IV.9, and so the elements of the offense have pretty much remained the same under both the old and the new versions. Q

cannot

No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.Not only would such a lawsuit be "reviewing or affecting" a proceeding under Title IV itself, but it would also ask the secular courts to resolve "a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons." The South Carolina courts, I predict, would not hesitate in dismissing any such suit.Q

U tags

so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons

I tags

i.e.,

vote

diocesan

not a single one

that Diocese

has absolutely no power

depends

holus bolus

ECUSA,

can

just six weeks later --

it has not met again ("barked") after August 17.

two full months ago --

meeting

first presented at,

was indeed the very reason for,

was the arrival of the letter(s) from South Carolina with allegations of "abandonment" on the part of Bishop Lawrence.

etc.

did not require a meeting of the full Disciplinary Board.

September 30

after

was

anyone

shortly after the Board itself was organized and "open" to do business.

no

President

not

organize

there would have been absolutely no reason

1. The Disciplinary Board could not legally have organized itself, and elected a President and a Clerk, before July 1, 2011.

2. At that meeting, the allegations against Bishop Lawrence were either already on the agenda, or they were not.

3. But if they were already on the agenda, the Board could not have proceeded to deal with them until after it had organized. It needed both a President to direct the proceedings, and a "Church Attorney" to investigate the charges under Canon IV.16, and to report to the full Board before it voted on their sufficiency, as provided in that Canon.

4. So in either event, the charges could not have begun to have been addressed until after the Board met again six weeks later, on August 17.

5. Unless the Church Attorney had been authorized to be hired at its July 1 meeting, then the Board either (a) voted to hire Josephine Hicks on August 17, or else (b) authorized the President to hire a Church Attorney of his choosing after that meeting, to make a full report to the Board.

6. Ms. Hicks wrote her letter to the DSC Standing Committee on September 30, 2011, as the Board's "Church Attorney", asking for information to assist her in her investigation for the Board.

7. It is thus logical to infer that the Board hired Ms. Hicks sometime after its August 17 meeting -- otherwise why would she wait until September 30 to open her investigation?

8. Also, please note that as of September 24, 2011, Google made a cache of the Board's Roster page, which showed Ms. Hicks as a "Member" as of that date.

Of all the available and qualified church attorneys to investigate Bishop Lawrence, why would anyone pick Ms. Hicks?

asking

suitable

candidate to be preferred over all other applicants

The Episcopal Church

sic

Resolved,

No.

Again, no.

None whatsoever.

Convention,

done

words of precaution

You dare to disobey our Constitution / Canons and you are outta here, Bub -- Bishop or no Bishop.

no wonder

you

Wow,

that

most definitely

they

how useful a perspective

refusing to go back to court after the

decision to waste yet more of the Diocese's precious money in trying to enforce the Dennis Canon against St. Andrew's in Mt. Pleasant.

certainly

of the essence

even by their State's Supreme Court

undisputed

Undisputed,

All Saints Waccamaw vs. Diocese of South Carolina

perfect

had

and

the sole authority to make changes in the identity and responsibilities of Dioceses

but also for the Church's "Presiding Officers" --

two years before

that,

only

will

seen

Living Church Foundation.

spite

did

doubles as a voting member of the Board!

See

no question

chutzpah

hired

paid

Hint

Comment: Bishop Jefferts Schori has steadfastly refused to meet with Bishop Lawrence, or to respond to his entreaties that they confer about the differences that divide them. Is that the action of an "impartial" diocesan?

such as the knowledge gained by personally investigating the charges?

such as being paid for all time spent in "investigating" the facts?

bring the matter of her own disqualification before the Board!

neglected to provide

none

hiring one of their own members to act as Church Attorney

all

all this is "

(hah!)

.

his own law firm

tens of millions

the duty to report canonical "offenses"

is

six years

fifteen minutes

how

Sic simper tyrannis . . .

Exactly who sent to Bishop Lawrence the documents published on South Carolina's website which accuse him of "abandonment of Communion"?

And who sent the charges to the Disciplinary Board?

Was no action taken on the charges at that time?

What is different about the new disciplinary canons?

any person

What could Bishop Matthews do with the charges once he received them?

And who would be "the Bishop Diocesan" referred to by the Canon in this matter?

So the charges made against Bishop Lawrence could not have been dismissed in the first place without the consent of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori?

he

And who is on this Reference Panel?

What can the Reference Panel do with the charges, once they are before it?

What do these other Panels do?

And what does that mean?

Why do you suggest that?

President.

So what does the letter coming from the President of the Disciplinary Board mean?

also

Are the documents published on the diocesan Website the report by the Church Attorney?

All of the charges appear to stem from actions Bishop Lawrence is claimed to have taken before the new Canons took effect. How could the new Canons make conduct before they were enacted an "offense"?

How, in any sense of the word, can a Bishop who has insisted on

in the Church be accused of "abandoning" it?

What can Bishop Lawrence do at this point?

What kinds of constitutional questions?

old

But aren't all bishops in the Church subject to the Church's disciplinary canons as enacted by General Convention?

authority

How did General Convention lack the authority to enact the new Title IV provisions?

Who is the final decider of the constitutionality of the canons enacted by General Convention?

But isn't that a recipe for anarchy?

So I ask again: what can Bishop Lawrence and his Diocese do in this situation?

So he cannot refute the charges?

What happens if the Presiding Bishop uses her new powers to inhibit Bishop Lawrence?

But what happens if she then asks the House of Bishops to depose him?

Why do you say that?

But what if it goes ahead and does so anyway?

Couldn't the Presiding Bishop sue Bishop Lawrence in the South Carolina courts to force him to be removed from office?

How could her canons be used against her?

And what if the Presiding Bishop were to "derecognize" the Standing Committee, and convene a special convention of the Diocese to elect a new bishop, as she did in San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy?

But what would happen to the real Diocese in the meantime?

its

love

images

headers

H1

H2

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Thursday, October 6, 2011

A Guide to This Site

Subscribe to This Blog

A Gentle Warning to Readers

Comment Policy

A Gallimaufry of Weblogs

AngliCannon to the left

EvangeliCannon

(Anglo-) CatholiCannon

JuriCannon

Other Curmudgeons

Recent Comments

About Me

AngliCannon to the right

AngliCannon in front

Liturgicannon

Cannon Fodder

Blog Archive

H3

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Thursday, October 6, 2011

A Guide to This Site

Subscribe to This Blog

A Gentle Warning to Readers

Comment Policy

A Gallimaufry of Weblogs

AngliCannon to the left

EvangeliCannon

(Anglo-) CatholiCannon

JuriCannon

Other Curmudgeons

Recent Comments

About Me

AngliCannon to the right

AngliCannon in front

Liturgicannon

Cannon Fodder

Blog Archive

H4

H5

H6

internal links

external links