tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post2888782684178951286..comments2012-01-04T21:38:14.716-06:00Comments on The Commonwealth Report: The Episcopal Diocese of Fort WorthBill Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-55963215321410363232009-02-09T14:21:00.000-06:002009-02-09T14:21:00.000-06:00Erik,In answer to your first question, No, I do no...Erik,<BR/>In answer to your first question, No, I do not consider the recent actions of TEC of electing a new bishop to be legitimate. The PB and those parishes who attended the "special convention" on February 7th acted as though they were the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. They were not. The EDFW is the one in which Bp. Iker is Bishop. <BR/><BR/>In answer to your second question, yes, they can form a new diocese with the same region as the original EDFW. Since EDFW has left the province of TEC, there is now no TEC diocese in that geographical area, and they are free to form a new one if they wish. Unfortunately, they are not doing that. They are attempting to make believe that they are the EDFW and that the EDFW is without a Bishop. <BR/><BR/>The basis of the problem is the position TEC has taken that dioceses and parishes may not leave TEC, only people can leave TEC. Of course, there is no canonical authority for such a position, but that does not seem important to the PB or her disciples in Fort Worth. Of course dioceses can leave TEC. They did it during the civil war. <BR/><BR/>The sad thing is that, it appears, this will all be placed before a secular judge to be worked out. It does not have to be this way. The PB and the breakaway dioceses could mediate the issue and come to an amibalbe agreement. The PB appears not to want to do this. <BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, this is not a time for dispair. God is separating the wheat from the chaff in His church, and it will turn out as He wills it, no matter what any of us want. <BR/><BR/>Peace+Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-72197101178524802662009-02-09T13:08:00.000-06:002009-02-09T13:08:00.000-06:00As Bishop Iker so graciously provided a means for ...As Bishop Iker so graciously provided a means for dissenting parishes to leave the diocese under Canon 32, and Bishop Iker determined a few parishes have met these conditions granting them their release, do you consider the recent actions of TEC of electing a new Bishop for those parishes legitimate?<BR/><BR/>Before their release, TEC and the presiding bishop had no business meddling in the affairs of the diocese. Now their release has been granted, can they form a new diocese covering the same region as the original Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese?Erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11339839010584884211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-23703205059293848032009-01-27T09:35:00.000-06:002009-01-27T09:35:00.000-06:00humbleservant:I am copying below my response to yo...humbleservant:<BR/><BR/>I am copying below my response to you in the Stand Firm in Faith thread on this same subject. Please, in the future, post your comments to me in one place or the other but not in both. In the future, I will only respond once.<BR/><BR/>What you fail to understand about Canon 18.4 and its application to the situation at All Saints’ Episcopal Church is that the EDFW is not attempting to claim the property of All Saints as diocesan property. You have been deceived by your rector and chancellor into believing that the EDFW is after your property. I’ve read over and over the words used by you and others about how this is just an attempt by Bp. Iker to take All Saints’ property. If you start with that false premise, then all that follows will be built on a shaky foundation. <BR/><BR/>What this canon does is to actually protect the property of All Saints from any claim, including any claim by TEC, that All Saints does not own the property. It was created to protect the property of the parishes within EDFW. The term “adverse claim” means a claim to ownership that is adverse to the trust whereby the EDFW holds title to the property of the parishes for the benefit of the parishes. No claim adverse to or outside of that trust relationship will be valid or recognized, including a claim by TEC or the EDFW itself. In fact, the so-called “Denise Canon” of TEC, if found to be legally passed, would then have the further obstacle of attempting to pose a trust upon a trust, which moves TEC further from its goal of claiming parish properties within the EDFW.<BR/><BR/>As applied to All Saints, Canon 18 upholds the trust established for the benefit of the parish. That would be for the whole parish, and not just a part of the parish. Until the parish, following the canons of the diocese which holds the legal title to the property in trust, takes the necessary actions under Canon 32, the legal title remains with the EDFW for the benefit of the parish. The parish remains attached to the EDFW until it votes to be otherwise attached to a different diocese. In other words, until All Saints follows the provisions of Canon 32, the legal title to All Saints’ property remains to be held in trust for the parish. This prevents someone from simply hijacking the parish and stealing its property. The parish must follow the very simple and equitable provisions of Canon 32. Jambor+ has convinced you that it can be done otherwise, but it cannot be done otherwise and remain legal.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-25152820033449971642009-01-26T15:43:00.000-06:002009-01-26T15:43:00.000-06:00Commonwealth Report Below is Canon 18.4 from Fort ...Commonwealth Report <BR/><BR/>Below is Canon 18.4 from Fort Worth Diocese. Focus on the last sentence. If we ignore Canon 32, does the canon forbid the Fort Worth diocese from suing the parish for the property? <BR/><BR/>Sec 18.4 as presently amended, provides in part as follows: <BR/>Property held by the Corporation for the use of a Parish, Mission or Diocesan <BR/>School belongs beneficially to such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School only. No <BR/>adverse claim to such beneficial interest by the Corporation, by the Diocese, or by <BR/>The Episcopal Church of the United States of America is acknowledged, but rather is <BR/>expressly denied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-87161406244608963532009-01-22T18:54:00.000-06:002009-01-22T18:54:00.000-06:00humbleservant, it is going to be extemely difficul...humbleservant, it is going to be extemely difficult to reach any understanding so long as you insist on ignoring the canons of the church, be they TEC or EDFW. Since it is obvious from your comment that my citing Canon 31 meant nothing to you, I truly do not see how there can be any point in continued dialogue. When I wrote that the All Saints' corporation was adminstrative, I was simply stating what Canon 31.1 says. Am I to understand your position that since All Saints' was incorporated in 1953 before the EDFW was formed that the articles of incorporation and by-laws of All Saints trumps the canons of the diocese. By following that line of reasoning, any parish in the EDFW that existed prior to 1983 is not bound by the canons of the EDFW. I doubt if you will find much agreement with such an assertion.<BR/><BR/>I get that some of you at All Saints just "want to be left alone," and wouldn't that be convenient for you. Unfortunately, there are parishioners of All Saints that don't want to remain in TEC. They seem to believe that since All Saints was a parish within the EDFW before the convention in November, 2008, they remain in it now,and since EDFW has left TEC, so did All Saints. If you want All Saints to remain in TEC, you must vote to do so. By refusing the members of All Saints the opportunity to have any say in their future affiliation, you are denying the most basic Christian charity, and you are violating the canons to do it. You are in effect thumbing your nose at the canons of the diocese to which you belong, and have become lawless. There is only one Episcopal diocese in Fort Worth, and that's the one with Bp. Iker as the Bishop. By the way, he is not a "former" bishop. Either you will abide by the canons of the church to which you claim to belong, or you, like the PB, have become a law unto yourself.<BR/><BR/>I am praying daily that this matter can be resolved with Christian charity all around, but frankly, humbleservant, after reading your comments, it doen't look much like that now. <BR/><BR/>This absurd notion that the vote at the Diocesan Convention 2008 has no effect on anyone who disagrees with it is born out of a dillusion. Either All Saints is bound by the canons of EDFW, or it is not. From what you are writing here, it appears to me that you and other who agree with you do not believe the canons of the EDFW apply to All Saints. I guess that will have to be decided by an impartial tribunal. We certainly are not going to resolve it between the two of us.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-30382343819395968282009-01-22T17:25:00.000-06:002009-01-22T17:25:00.000-06:00Wow -- Mr. Fisher, I likewise have practiced for m...Wow -- Mr. Fisher, I likewise have practiced for many years and I am trying to keep a straight face. Are you serious? A corporate entity purlely administrative? <BR/><BR/>Please point me to any case law, treatise, law book or anything that supports your contentions. Sorry, All Saints' wins. By-laws in effect for sometime. Even Articles of Incorporation filed in 1953 (Before there was a Diocese of Fort Worth) state: <BR/>"The purpose for which the corporation is formed is religious; that is to say, to associate ourselves together for the purpose of maintaining the worship of God and the preaching of the Gospel according to the doctrine , discipline and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church (now TEC) in the United States of America in conformity with the Constitution and Canons of its General Convention and of the Diocese of Dallas...."<BR/><BR/>The By-laws state: "...provided in the event of any conflict between the General Convention Canons and either the Diocesan Canons or these by-laws, as they relate to the affairs of the Corporation, the General Convention Canons shall prevail, to the extent of such conflict."<BR/><BR/>Mr. Fisher, there is no judge in Texas that will say Former Bishop Iker has control or power over All Saints' corporation or vestry.<BR/><BR/>All Saints' is a lost cause for Iker. We only want to be left alone to worship in Peace and to continue to be who we are --- An Episcopal Church in Fort Worth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-70818908064779621252009-01-22T07:36:00.000-06:002009-01-22T07:36:00.000-06:00humbleservant, in response to your comment about t...humbleservant, in response to your comment about the All Saints by-laws, please read the text of Canon 31 of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. <BR/><BR/>First Canon 31 states: <BR/><BR/><B><I>Sec. 31.1 Any Parish, Mission or Diocesan Institution which desires to organize a corporation to use in connection with the administration of its affairs may do so upon compliance with the following requirements.<BR/><BR/> a. If organized by a Parish or Mission, any such corporation shall be merely an adjunct or instrumentality of such Parish or Mission; the Parish or Mission itself, being the body in union with Convention, shall not be incorporated.<BR/><BR/> b. The articles of incorporation must expressly provide that such corporation is subject to, and its powers and rights shall be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of this Diocese.<BR/><BR/> c. Such corporation shall not hold title to real estate acquired for the use of the Church in the Diocese, which title must be vested and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Diocese.<BR/><BR/> d. The proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws of such corporation, and any amendments thereof, shall, prior to filing or adoption, be submitted to the Chancellor of the Diocese for his approval as being in conformity with these provisions.<BR/><BR/>Sec. 31.2 Those in charge of the affairs of any corporation, organized by any Parish, Mission or Diocesan Institution, shall review its articles of incorporation and bylaws and bring them into conformity with provisions of this Canon, if inconsistent therewith.</I></B><BR/><BR/>As you can see, All Saints' corporation is purely administrative and does not actually constitute the body in union with the Diocese. Secondly, the by-laws must state that the corporation is subject to the C&C of the Diocese. Finally, those in charge of the affairs of the corporation are required to bring the by-laws into conformity with Canon 31.<BR/><BR/>It is my understanding that All Saints' corporation has repeatedly refused to bring the corporate by-laws into conformity with Canon 31.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can see, as it relates to the administrative authority of the All Saints' corporation, there is no conflict between TEC and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. The conflict is outside the administrative limitations of All Saints' corporation.<BR/><BR/>That being the case, Bp. Iker is not required to dissolve the corporate Board in order to exercise his ecclesial authority over the parish, since the two are separate entities. Bp. Iker may exercise his ecclesial authority over the parish, which would include actions related to the rector and vestry, without having to take any action related to the corporation Board.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-74278776297843693272009-01-21T22:40:00.000-06:002009-01-21T22:40:00.000-06:00For the benefit of the Blog readers please discuss...For the benefit of the Blog readers please discuss "legal" title v. "equitable" title. Because as we all know the diocese only holds legal title because equitable title belongs to the parish.<BR/><BR/>I agree there is a conflict in the canons between the diocese and TEC. All Saints by-laws state that when there is such a conflict the TEC canons will prevail. Based on this any prudent vestryperson has to default to TEC. Your thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-60837040694788384202009-01-21T22:36:00.000-06:002009-01-21T22:36:00.000-06:00What authority does Iker have to disolve a parish ...What authority does Iker have to disolve a parish corporation's board of directors? Isn't what he really saying is I won't recognize the board on ecclesiastical desisions. As he has no authority over the corporation in the legal sense. Or do you contend he has both ecclesiastical and legal control over a corporate parish board?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-65504010323586645292009-01-20T13:16:00.000-06:002009-01-20T13:16:00.000-06:00Sarah, one last thought: I am very sympathetic to ...Sarah, one last thought: I am very sympathetic to any orthodox Anglican who wants to remain in TEC in order to try to overcome the heresy that has crept into that organization. I wish them luck. As for me, I've seen enough to be convinced that there is no "inside" strategy that will work to deter the PB from her goal of taking TEC further into heresy. <BR/><BR/>My only point about this is that there is an orderly process for this to happen. There are some rectors and lay leaders who are, I believe, misleading people about what has happened, and what is happening. My purpose in writing this article on The Commonwealth Report was to at least provide a reasoned explanation of what has happened and what is happening. . . to shed light on this subject, so to speak. I am not angry with you or any of the good folk in the Diocese of Fort Worth who wish to remain in TEC, for whatever reason. That is their right. Having said that, I felt called to provide this information in order to counter some of the disinformation that has been, apparently, purposefully spread about.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-63591012585102216032009-01-20T13:06:00.000-06:002009-01-20T13:06:00.000-06:00Sarah, as far as I can determine, neither Bp. Iker...Sarah, as far as I can determine, neither Bp. Iker nor any of his supporters have claimed that people, or parishes for that matter, may not leave the diocese. Quite the contrary. There have been repeated statements asking those who wish to stay with TEC to abide by the rules set up to accomplish that. So far, those who want to stay in TEC have not availed themselves of the procedures to accomplish it. All that has happened is the continual resort to the kind of argument you make here based on allegations about things that have not happened.<BR/><BR/>I would ask those of you who hold to this position expressed here by Sarah, if the dioceses is the people, then what is all of this fuss about the property? Why is TEC so aggressive in going after propery? In diocese that have not left TEC, there are parishes, like Good Shepherd in the Diocese of Central New York, who left TEC and were sued for their property. It is only about the property for TEC. The diocese that have left are leaving because of heresy in TEC, not to take property.<BR/><BR/>Also, if the diocese is the people and only the people, how are the bills of the diocese paid? What entity writes the checks to pay the salaries, the telephone bill, the electric bill, the printing, the postage, the insurance, and all of the other expenses. It would by my guess that some legal entity set up a bank account to receive the apportionments from the parishes and then used those funds to pay the bills. There has to be some legal entity to conduct the businesss of the diocese. It is not simply some whispy, invisible thing occupying no space and having no form.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-8714943842796580032009-01-20T11:33:00.000-06:002009-01-20T11:33:00.000-06:00The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort W...The Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth holds the monetary assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. It does nothing else. It does not hold the people of the Diocese of Fort Worth in so that they have to pledge membership in the Southern Cone. The people are the diocese, its membership is listed in terms of people membership, not numbers of buildings. If a group of people decides they are going to continue to be members of The Episcopal Church (USA), the Corporation cannot say,"No, we are a corporate entity, you cannot leave the Southern Cone." The church is the people, not the buildings. Many people have continued their membership in The Episcopal Church by renting space and holding services there each week. Jack Iker cannot deny this is happening. There are people who have a strong desire to continue life in the Episcopal Church, with or without the buildings. Therefore, Jack Iker cannot say there is no Episcopal church in Fort Worth just because he alledges he has title to the buildings. That's not gonna fly with anybody. The Episcopalians also have quite a lot of money and will do just fine with or without the property held by the corporation. The Episcopal Church will live on in Fort Worth and I think that makes a lot of people mad because if their church buildings were taken away, they would not want to go to great lengths to rent space, find clergy, etc. in order to go on as a parish community as the Episcopalians are doing.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03817513039056295985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-34069810649697349662009-01-20T09:53:00.000-06:002009-01-20T09:53:00.000-06:00Anglican, thank you for your thoughtful comment. ...Anglican, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I would simply respond by pointing out that during the Civil War the diocese that were in the Confederate States of America separated from PECUSA. That having happened, I believe an argumuent can be made for the proposition that (1) surely there was a possibility of a diocese leaving PECUSA, and (2) since PECUSA, ECUSA, and TEC have not addressed the subject in the C&C, then, in that event, the decision was made to do nothing about this problem. And since specific provisions were made for missionary diocese, it is clear that some thought went into dealing with that situation, and had there been a decision to address the issue of a domestic diocese, it would have been addressed.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-46055977490324141182009-01-20T09:39:00.000-06:002009-01-20T09:39:00.000-06:00humbleservant, I have read quite a lot about the i...humbleservant, I have read quite a lot about the idea of the heirachical nature of TEC and other denominations. I have not attempted to cite them all for they are too many. I cite Mark McCall's article because it is an excellent treatment of the subject and one I believe anyone can read and understand. I do not cite it as legal precident. In fact, as you will notice this is not a legal brief with case citations. <BR/><BR/>Did you read my blog? In the very first paragraph I wrote:<BR/><BR/><B><I>"This is intended to be a very brief explanation of the status of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth ("EDFW") and those parishes and parishioners who were members of the EDFW prior to and immediately after the Diocesan Convention, November, 2008 ("The Convention"). This explanation is not intended to be a legal explanation of all the nuances and fine points of the law concerning this subject, but merely an explanation that will hopefully educate those who were affected by the actions taken at The Convention."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I am not going to conduct legal research to satisfy the curiosity of my readers. It is my opinion that there are no Texas cases, or for that matter no cases in other states, that deal directly with the situation of a diocese leaving TEC and what happens to the property. But then, I have not done an exhaustive search of such cases. Since this is the first time since the Civil War that this has happened, it is my opinion that these cases should be cases of first impression for the courts. As I have written repeatedly, the issue of hierachy is different for parishes and diocese. The mistake you and other are making is trying to apply the principle to both the same way. I doubt very seriously if a court will do the same, if the case is presented properly to them.<BR/><BR/>In response to your last question, I refer to the California Supreme Court case which you seem to admire. Read the references to the Georgia cases. It is indeed possible that Bp. Iker may have the authority to do exactly what you suggest.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-42820137211123319482009-01-20T09:29:00.000-06:002009-01-20T09:29:00.000-06:00Iker and co. continually point to the C&C as n...Iker and co. continually point to the C&C as not prohibiting a diocese from leaving TEC. However, the C&C does provide a mechanism whereby dioceses outside the US may leave. These dioceses are all termed Missionary Dioceses - the only definition of which in the C&C is:<BR/><BR/>"Missionary Dioceses...shall constitute jurisdictions for which this Church as a whole assumes a special responsibility."<BR/><BR/>In all other respects, however, these dioceses are formed, structured and function just as any other domestic diocese:<BR/><BR/>- They are admitted into union with General Convention via acknowledging the TEC C&C<BR/>- They have a Diocesan Convention and Standing Committee<BR/>- They are governed by Diocesan Constitution and Canons<BR/>- They elect a bishop by Diocesan Convention<BR/>- They elect Deputies to General Convention<BR/>- They elect Deputies to Provincial Synod<BR/>- They adopt an annual budget and program, and provide for its administration<BR/><BR/>Structurally, Missionary Dioceses are identical to a domestic diocese. The only difference is that they exist outside of the US, but they are, to all intents and purposes, 'dioceses' of TEC.<BR/><BR/>If a Missionary Diocese wishes to leave the Episcopal Church for another neighbouring (nb) province, it must:<BR/>- pass such a motion at its Diocesan Convention and then forward that request to the General Convention<BR/>- undergo a 3 year trial period between conventions<BR/>- the next Convention may either grant or deny the request, or extend the trial period<BR/><BR/>From this we could conclude a number of things:<BR/>- that it is an unwritten assumption in the C&C that only non-domestic dioceses may leave TEC, therefore only they are provided with a mechanism to do so. If TEC had contemplated the possibility of a domestic diocese leaving they would have provided a mechanism. Provision is provided for domestic dioceses to revert to Area Mission status, or be subsumed into or unite with a neighbouring diocese, but not leave. The explicit granting of such provision to non-domestic dioceses, while only providing for Area Mission/uniting for domestic ones shows that the C&C does not make it possible. It is unwritten but explicitly assumed.<BR/>- However, if we generously grant the possibility that a domestic diocese may leave TEC, then why should their process for leaving be any different from that of a Missionary Diocese? What is different about them that does not require a similar process? Why did the dioceses that are now part of the provinces of Mexico, Central America and the Philippines require permission from General Convention to leave, but those dioceses who now claim to be part of the Southern Cone did not?<BR/><BR/>It appears clear that the lack of provision in the C&C for a domestic diocese to leave is not affirming that any such diocese may leave at any time without approval by GC. It is a sign that it was not envisaged that a diocese could do so, and so no mechanism was provided. If, however, we grant that a domestic diocese may leave, then it is clear that such a leaving process could not be along lines different from non-domestic dioceses who are formed, structured, and governed identically to domestic ones.<BR/><BR/>Secular courts have shown a propensity to defer to the authority of TEC in interpreting its own Constitution. Such will be the case here too.Ecclesia Anglicanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796722492190089683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-14935366775019614172009-01-20T08:02:00.000-06:002009-01-20T08:02:00.000-06:00You have referred several times to Mr. McCall's pa...You have referred several times to Mr. McCall's paper. Your argument seems to rely solely on this paper for your basis that TEC is NOT hierarchical.<BR/><BR/>However, as a 35 year lawyer you know a paper has no precedential value in court.<BR/><BR/>With the California Supreme Court ruling in mind do you have any Texas case law to back your premise that TEC will not be found to be hierarchical?<BR/><BR/>And, if Texas courts do find the TEC is hierarchical where does that put the EDFW in regards to the property dispute? <BR/><BR/>Also, what authority does Iker have to disolve a parish corporation's board of directors? Isn't what he really saying is I won't recognize the board on ecclesiastical desisions. As he has no authority over the corporation in the legal sense. Or do you contend he has both ecclesiastical and legal control over a corporate parish board?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-15135479413230650082009-01-19T23:30:00.000-06:002009-01-19T23:30:00.000-06:00hunbleservant, I've made my thoughts abundantly cl...hunbleservant, I've made my thoughts abundantly clear on this matter, both in my blog here and in my comments on Stand Firm. My opinions have been developed during much deliberation, and I have not seen, nor read, anything to make me change my mind.<BR/><BR/>Since the diocese is the foundationsl ecclesial authority in the Anglican Communion, the situation is different for a diocese leaving TEC and for a parish leaving a diocese and/or TEC. A parish is a parish only in relationship to the diocese and does not exist outside that relationship. It is created at the moment is becomes a mission or parish of the diocese and not before. A diocese is created prior to becoming affiliated with TEC, therefore the diocese is no subservient to TEC and does not owe its existence to TEC. In fact, TEC was formed by pre-existing dioceses and, according to the Consitution and Canons of TEC, a diocese must be formed before it can apply for affiliation with TEC. Thus a diocese, which does not owe its existence to TEC may leave TEC when it chooses. <BR/><BR/>Later -- in a week or so -- assuming I can find the time, I will write another blog here about the hierachy of the diocese versus the heirachy of TEC. In the meantime, I recommend to you that you read Mark McCall's excellent paper on this subject.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-64289292653178086352009-01-19T23:14:00.000-06:002009-01-19T23:14:00.000-06:00"I took your advice and looked for William L. Fish...<B>"I took your advice and looked for William L. Fisher (author of Commonwealth report) and did not find him either as a licensed Texas lawyer. Mr. Fisher are you a licensed attorney?"</B><BR/><BR/>humbleservant, hopefully you have read my response to James and have found out that I am, indeed, a licensed attorney in the State of Texas. I would be subject to serious discipine if I were to say I was a licensed attorney when I wasn't, not to mention how absolutely foolish it would be to make such a claim. <BR/><BR/>Do you folks truly believe these kinds of things about others?Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-35290851329994434092009-01-19T22:53:00.000-06:002009-01-19T22:53:00.000-06:00If I am clear: Iker does not believe the TEC is hi...If I am clear: Iker does not believe the TEC is hierarchical and therefore has no power over his diocese. However, his diocese is hierarchical so it has power over the parishes? Sounds like he wants his cake and eat it too.<BR/><BR/>His diocese as a non-profit can associate and disassociate as it pleases, but parishes as a non-profit can only associate and disassociate with permission from Iker. Sounds like a power grab.<BR/><BR/>For the benefit of the Blog readers please discuss "legal" title v. "equitable" title. Because as we all know the diocese only holds legal title because equitable title belongs to the parish.<BR/><BR/>Also, I agree there is a conflict in the canons between the diocese and TEC. All Saints by-laws state that when there is such a conflict the TEC canons will prevail. Based on this any prudent vestryperson has to default to TEC. Your thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-72555882421114951222009-01-19T22:43:00.000-06:002009-01-19T22:43:00.000-06:00episcogal,I took your advice and looked for Willia...episcogal,<BR/>I took your advice and looked for William L. Fisher (author of Commonwealth report) and did not find him either as a licensed Texas lawyer. Mr. Fisher are you a licensed attorney?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-57548213859488512102009-01-19T22:36:00.000-06:002009-01-19T22:36:00.000-06:00"It's come to our attention that folks are having ...<B>"It's come to <I>our</I> attention that folks are having trouble finding you. . ." </B><BR/><BR/>Who might "our attention" be? Now that you know who I am, it would only be common courtesy to reveal who you are and who you're working with that constitutes an "our."Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-52436851676196890192009-01-19T22:30:00.000-06:002009-01-19T22:30:00.000-06:00James, my name is not James L. Fisher, so I would ...James, my name is not James L. Fisher, so I would guess that is why you are having trouble finding me. I don't know where that name came from. My name, as listed by the State Bar of Texas, is Billy L. Fisher, State Bar # 07049200. You should find out all about me there. I've just checked it to make sure all the information is up to date. BTW, I have used "William" for over 35 years, but I am known to all as just plain "Bill."Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-53526648998039494982009-01-19T21:51:00.000-06:002009-01-19T21:51:00.000-06:00James, are you licensed to practice law in Texas? ...James, are you licensed to practice law in Texas? It's come to our attention that folks are having trouble finding you at http://www.texasbar.com/ <BR/><BR/>A search using the "Find a Lawyer" feature at the bottom of the home page yields no James L. Fisher. What is your Texas Bar #? Where did you go to law school and when?<BR/><BR/>Just checking your creds.episcogalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880107577218805616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-10916588730616334092009-01-19T20:59:00.000-06:002009-01-19T20:59:00.000-06:00James, I am quite capable of reading legal documen...James, I am quite capable of reading legal documents. I've been doing it for over 45 years. I wrote in response to a question about my reading the California Supreme Court decision, to which I replied that I only had time to read it quickly. I have not had the time to digest the decision completely, but, from what I read on first reading, I saw several areas that appear weak. In the following weeks I will dig into it and probably issue a more complete response. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, I believe that the California Supreme Court decision would be supportive of my main point in this blog. I have not yet gone into any depth here about the hierachy argument and what that means for a diocese that leaves TEC. My opinion, in summary, is that there is nothing in TEC's Constituion and Canons that prohibit a diocese from leaving TEC, and that a diocese, being the foundational ecclesial authority in the Anglican Communion, will own the property in that diocese should it decide to leave TEC as the EDFW has chosen.Bill Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299456393520253279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20070357.post-9804817700511899652009-01-19T19:27:00.000-06:002009-01-19T19:27:00.000-06:00The Commonwealth Report said... From what I can te...<I>The Commonwealth Report said... From what I can tell, the Supremes of California have issued a contradictory decision which will make it easy to attack.</I><BR/><BR/>Then you better lean how to read a legal document because your "can tell" is sadly wrong.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11622358803103789307noreply@blogger.com