TEC is, in fact, in a state of anarchy.

It would be appropriate for every orthodox parish vestry and diocese standing committee to act now to protect itself, declare martial law and a state of emergency and temporary independence from TEC until KJS and her ilk are removed.

Or join the parish or diocese with GAFCON/FCA/CCP.

And/or declare them mission fields and begin to plant real churches there.

Or as individuals, head off to a continuing Anglican church, Orthodox, Catholic, PCA, LCMS or Southern Baptist.

+Jefferts Schori may be able to contradict her Church’s legal position in the House of Bishops, where she is, as you say, Maximum Leader, but such two-faced argument won’t fly in the courts. She cannot argue that +Schofield was validly deposed and +Lamb is his valid replacement when she is telling the Virginia courts that “majority of the whole number entitled to vote” means all those entitled to vote, whether they in fact are present and vote or not.

If she installs a puppet to go after +Duncan, she will have the same problem. And if she deposes +Iker and +Ackerman with less than a full majority of all the bishops in the House, then no court anywhere will buy her argument that the depositions were valid. So while she can rig the game all she wants within TEC, she cannot do that and take an inconsistent position with the courts. That’s why it’s important to point out the duplicity, and I thank you for helping to do so, in your own inimitable fashion. (Come to think of it, Christopher, couldn’t you make up a pretty riotous picture posting of a three-card monte game with +Schori running it and Beers being the face card? Now we’re in Virginia—where’s Beers? Now we’re in San Joaquin—where’s Beers? Now we’re in the HoB—where’s Beers? etc.)

I think Schori is channelling Henry VIII

I am confused – which, I think, is my normal state. Why was TEC making this argument about 57-9? What was the point? I don’t have the time – or the patience – to wade through all the contorted legalese to get to the point. Can someone elucidate for me?

Allen Lewis, TEC wanted to argue that the petitions filed by some of the Virginia parishes to confirm their right to leave TEC with their property were invalid, because they had not received the affirmative votes of a “majority of the whole number of [their] members over the age of 18″, as the statute requires. (It’s exactly the same argument that we are using to say that the depositions of +Cox, +Schofield and now +Duncan were invalid!) The CANA congregations were arguing that “members” included only their communicants “in good standing”, i.e., who were regular contributors and attenders, and TEC argued that it meant anyone who had been baptized in the Church and still lived in the area, whether they came to church or not.

Significantly, TEC has now given notice that it is abandoning any arguments about the validity of the votes, and will contest only the congregations’ actual ownership of the properties in light of what their deeds and TEC’s canons say. It may be that they realized (too late!) that the argument about the language of 57-9 would significantly undermine their contention that the Bishops had been validly deposed.

A. S. Haley –
Thanks very much for the clarification of that point. However, it is now a matter of record that TEC (or at least their lawyers) do know what “a majority of those eligible to vote” actually means.

Would this brief be of any use in any kind of upcoming lefal suits?

I’m sorry, but y’all don’t get it: It’s whatever TEO wants at any point in time that determines what words mean. They can purge their enemies using the OED if they want…after all, all the words one needs will be found herein, right?

Jeffersonian, you are absolutely right—TEC can do, and does, anything it wants within its own polity—freely ignore the canons and Constitution, “derecognize” Standing Committees, organize rump conventions on no notice and approve a puppet “bishop” without a quorum, etc.

But as an attorney, you know that the courts do not like it when a litigant tells one court one thing, and then is caught telling the exact opposite to another court. So, Allen Lewis, your answer is “yes”—if TEC tries to tell the court in San Joaquin that there were a valid number of bishops voting to depose +Schofield, thus clearing the way for (and providing the required legal standing to) +Lamb to be a plaintiff, you may be certain that the Court will be referred to what TEC said about the very same language in the Virginia lawsuit.