Fort Worth ruling released

The Fort Worth ruling from yesterday has now been posted for your viewing (and commenting).


It’s only 2 pages long, so do take a look…

So which of you is the real Diocese of Fort Worth?

Part of our continuing series of aquatically-themed videos from the annals of Revisionist® Anglican ecclesial law.

Category : The Lead
Tags :

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real name and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted

9 Comments
  1. Michael Lockaby

    That’s a meaningless order if ever I saw one.

  2. Michael Russell

    In LA the local country court judge ruled for the schismatics too. This will wall resolve on appeal, but it will be good to have his ruling overturned.

    It took three years in LA and San Diego to begin getting our properties back….

  3. laurenstanley

    That’s it? It’s a short ruling and says the two attorneys don’t work for Bishop Iker. That’s ALL it says. Methinks Bishop Iker’s spin on it is incredibly off-kilter.

  4. I am with you, Lauren. The Iker-ites have done us a great favor by demonstrating early in the game that they cannot be trusted to interpret the documents that are put in front of them.

  5. John B. Chilton

    Recall the statement last night from Gulick’s diocese: “Texas today ruled that our attorney Jon Nelson and Chancellor Kathleen Wells are not authorized to represent Jack Iker or others associated with him. Our attorneys have never claimed to do so.”

    The judge’s ruling can be interpreted this way. Iker and Gulick are contestants on the TV game show To Tell the Truth. One’s real and the other is the impostor trying to fool the judge(s).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Tell_the_Truth

    Now add the twist that the contestants have legal representation. Each lawyer X representing client X claims to be serving the interests of the nonimpostor.

    The judges are not willing to agree to that stipulation because that is what the game/trial is to decide. So judges agree instead that lawyer X represents client X who claims to be the real rocket scientist.

    Party A runs out and trumpets that ruling as a big win.

  6. Where is Father Matthew when we need him?

    Peter Carey

  7. John B. Chilton

    Dale Rye summarizes well,

    “As far as I can tell from this order, the judge refused to decide the substance of the dispute at the Rule 12 proceeding. As a Texas lawyer, I would not expect him to settle the case this early in the suit. Going with either party’s position on this motion would have done that. So, he refused to rule that the plaintiffs’ attorneys represent the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth or its Church Corporation (as the plaintiffs had asked) and also refused to rule that they cannot represent the diocese and corporation (as the defendants had asked). Instead, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ lawyers do not represent the diocese and corporation headed by Bishop Iker (which seems pretty obvious). Whether that diocese and corporation are the diocese and corporation that controls the property of the formerly undivided diocese is still an open question.”

    The rest of his comment is well worth reading,

    http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25376/#393744

    It may as be worth reading Rule 12,

    http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/Rules/TRCP/RCP_all.pdf

    Iker’s group sought a ruling from the court would have said the Iker’s group was the real diocese Gulick’s lawyers couldn’t not bring a case representing Iker’s group. The court didn’t bite: it merely said that whatever Iker’s group is, it isn’t represented by Gulick’s lawyers. That of course was never at issue. As Dale says the judge refused to become entangled in the substance of the case prematurely, that substance being who is the real diocese?

    All’s fair in love and war, but the Rule 12 lawsuit brought by Iker was frivolous in my eyes. Fortunately in his questions in court the judge began to see the outlines of the real ecclesial dispute which in Texas must be decided by the principles of governance standard (hierarchical deference approach).

  8. Jason Lewis

    @Peter:

    LOL! I would totally love to see “Father Matthew Presents: Anglican Schismatics and the Lawyers who Love Them”

    Maybe Fr. Matthew can do a YouTube-cum-CourtTV type coverage of all the legal battles ensuing from schismatics absconding with TEC property…

  9. Much ado about nothing. I thought of the old TV show myself, as I read about the ruling and Bishop Iker’s interpretation. I did. Really.

    June Butler

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *