The ruling reads:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
And now, this 17th day of October, 2011 the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby DENIED.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ORDER
PER CURIAM
And now, this 17th day of October, 2011 the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby DENIED.
How could any other outcome have been expected in light of the 2005 Stipulation?
ReplyDeleteThey never give up, Lapin. The ACNA folks probably see themselves as determined. Others see them as unable to face reality.
ReplyDeleteThey force TEC to spend money and time defending its interests. Attrition is the game.
ReplyDeleteMurdoch, yes. The plan is to break TEC financially.
ReplyDeleteThis was a ridiculous suit that never stood a chance of success. The 2005 agreement, signed by Robert Duncan as Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh, stated that "property, whether real or personal (hereinafter “Property”), held or administered by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (hereinafter “Diocese”) for the beneficial use of the parishes and institutions of the Diocese, shall continue to be so held or administered by the Diocese regardless of whether some or even a majority of the parishes in the Diocese might decide not to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America."
ReplyDeleteLapin, right, whyever did they think they'd win? I doubt that they did. As I said earlier, they are trying to break the Episcopal Church.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's quite that simple. I think that G. W. Bush et al were so intent on invading Iraq that they convinced themselves that Saddam Hussein really had nuclear weapons. Likewise I think Bob Duncan et al were so intent on taking the whole Diocese, kit and kaboodle, out of the Episcopal Church that they convinced themselves that the term Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America would really still mean them after they had left. I think that some of them still believe that, despite the court rulings. On the other hand, I think that their pursuing of the issue in the courts long after it became obvious they had lost the case eventually changed from a matter of principle (in their mind) to something more like spite.
ReplyDeleteBill Ghrist, you could be right. If Duncan et al. do it for spite, then making the Episcopal Church spend money on lawsuits would work into the spite.
ReplyDelete