By the way, for those interested in trying to follow what is going on in the US litigation in Fort Worth in particular, one could do no better than read the analysis of the court transcripts by attorney Alan Haley:

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-logic-in-fort-worth.html

He is obviously sympathetic to the conservative position but I don't think that affects the points he makes which are really that the cursory way the TEC hierachy dealt with reorganising the dioceses and deposing bishops in breach of their own canons and ignoring the rules for organisations and meetings including following rules and quorum requirements is coming home to roost.   In particular the first decision to debar the TEC lawyers from acting for the original 1983 diocese and corporation is based on that inability to show the logical steps taken by TEC to establish the legal standing of their place-holders as representing the diocese and corporation which are established under Texas law, particularly in the deposition of the bishop and replacement of convention delegates and corporation trustees.   From this it follows if this is not established then those place-holders are not in a position to take actions on behalf of the 1983 diocese to appoint lawyers to represent that diocese.  Mr Haley and the Court particularly make the point that even if the diocese and corporation had acted outside their legal authority [ultra vires] that the delegates, trustees and officers would still be in situ.

Many pointed this out at the time, but these objections [particularly to the bishop depositions] were dismissed by the TEC HoB through its Parliamentarian, the Presiding Bishop's office and in particular her Chancellor.   Well it appears to be proving not so easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the US Courts.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Hello Celinda,

Thank you for exhuming your comments about Bishops Marshall and Breidenthal.    I agree it's very important that their witness to the faith be read by all so I hope you don't mind if I just post my reply from the last time this was raised by you:

Thanks Celinda.  Once again we appear to have crossed wires - my post referred to the votes of these two bishops at General Convention..    Bishop Marshall of Bethlehem voted Yes to Motion D025 and Yes to C056; Bishop Breidenthal of Southern Ohio also voted Yes to Motion D025 and Yes to C056, the motions that open the way to election of active gay partnered bishops in the Episcopal Church and to dioceses conducting same-sex unions, both of which are inconsistent with the "moratoria".   As we have seen there are now 3 candidates in Los Angeles and Minnesota who fall into this first category.    

Frankly as far as orthodoxy goes in the Episcopal Church I have stopped accepting  what people SAY, only what they DO, and what Bishops Marshall and Breidenthal have DONE is not “orthodox”.

http://anglicanprayer.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/bishops-votes-gc09.pdf

Thanks Celinda - two new developments in the US courts I see:

Fort Worth have made application to delay TEC's application for summary judgement, in part due to TEC's failure to comply with the Court's order:

http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-for-logic-in-fort-worth.html

and the California Court of Appeal has agreed to take and has given directions for its review of the San Joaquin proceedings

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25480/ and http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/09/appellate-court-issues-order-to-show.html

So all in all it has been quite a significant week for the US litigation, where the Courts have been making decisions which it would be hard to see as in TEC's favour:

Fort Worth - TEC lawyers debarred from acting for "The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" and Corporation

San Joaquin - aspects of previous pro-TEC decision to be reviewed by Court of Appeal

South Carolina - departed parish keep their property per appeal granted by the Supreme Court

TEC persecution attempts roll on however: the alleged bishop of TEC's newly organised Quincy diocese [some are calling them 'Potemkin dioceses'] has been doing the usual inhibition/deposition of clergy routine:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24717

I suspect TEC know how badly this comes across to the rest of us - but they really don't care.

Following on from my earlier post with the latest transcript in case it is helpful I found the following on the Fort Worth site which give the picture from the side of the diocese of what went on so far:

1. Answers to questions asked by the Court given on behalf of the Fort Worth Diocese:

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/091509AnswerstoQuestionsoftheCourt.pdf

2. Transcript of the first part of the hearing 9 September:

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/Transcriptof09-09-09Hearing.pdf

3. and of course the latest Transcript of the second part of the hearing and order 16 September:

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/Transcriptof09-16-09Hearing.pdf

From here:

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/index1.php

[and since people seem interested I fully support education for boys and girls, and Americans]

Interestingly one can today read the authoritative transcript of what the Judge in the Fort Worth case actually said, so no need to rely on conjecture and spin elsewhere:

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/Transcriptof09-16-09Hearing.pdf

That's pretty random Stuart - I am not sure it is a matter of 'belief', not to mention off topic and probably ridiculous.

Pageantmaster, with your insistence on referring to the Presiding Bishop as "Mrs", are we to understand that you don't believe women are allowed to hold doctorates? Or is it just married women?

Reading Kurt's post below you would not realise that Dr Mullen's paper was submitted by the Episcopal Church lawyers in the Fort Worth diocesan litigation - the litigation where so far the judge took such note of it that he debarred the same lawyers from appearing, although whether this was directly related to the quality of Dr Mullen's paper I do not know.

To understand the Episcopal Church polity and property issues one would be better advised to read Mike Watson's just published 'Litigation against disaffiliating dioceses: is it authorised and what does fiduciary duty require':

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/09/litigation-against-disaffiliating-dioceses-is-it-authorized-and-what-does-fiduciary-duty-require/

and Mark McCall's magisterial: 'Is the Episcopal Church Hierachical' [Sep 2008]:

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/is_the_episcopal_church_hierdoc.pdf

and the subsequent Bishops' Statement from the Communion Partner Bishops [Apr 2009]:

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bishopsstatement_pdf.pdf