Some caution is in order for the Diocese of Virginia. You cannot have it both ways. If all church property is held by vestries in trust for the diocese and the dioceses can legitimately lay claim to ownership by virtue of being a hierarchical church, the argument in many previous church property disputes, it cannot then turn around and claim that one parish "owns" the proprty of another. There must be some consistency in the pleadings of the diocese.

This effort to claim Christ Church as a party to the dispute flies in the face of previous claims by the diocese.

Phillip,

I disagree. The diocese is adjusting its case according to the prior rulings of the judge. As I pointed out in the post, the judge's interpretation of Virginia law puts Virginia law at odds with the rest of the country. The diocese has to jump through this hoop, fighting the property case on this turf, before challenging the turf itself -- the constitutionality of the state's peculiar division statute.

John,

I think this is a tricky strategy. When the Diocese of Virginia goes to challenge the peculiar Virginia statute, they will have already conceded that the statute has some merit by attempting to utilize it to make their case earlier.

While more costly, it seems to me to be wiser to be consistent, lose, if need be, in the Fairfax Circuit , and win on appeal by challenging the constitutional issue at a higher and hopefully less provincial court.

Conceding the provisions of the current Virginia statute for a quicker gain may undercut the later challenge, or an appeal from the decision of the lower court.

In this case, consistency with the arguments which have prevailed nationally is important, particularly at the appellate level. This case has ramifications far beyond the borders of Virginia, however difficult it may be for a Virginian to concede this.

Phillip,

The rulings thus far amount to saying that the denomination cannot organize itself according to its theology. The diocese is not conceding the statute has any merit. They are only conceding that that the court has said for the purposes of property disputes in Virginia the statute is going to applied.

It would be a Catch 22 to say you can't argue a case on the basis of what the court has said about the statute, and not still have the right to appeal without prejudice on the basis of the constitutionality of the statute.

But I'm not lawyer.

"When the Diocese of Virginia goes to challenge the peculiar Virginia statute, they will have already conceded that the statute has some merit by attempting to utilize it to make their case earlier."

Not at all. As an attorney, I suggest you read up on the concept of "arguing in the alternative." It's perfectly acceptable and logical, and concedes nothing.

In this case, all it does in effect is to state, "We disagree with the judge's interpretation, and will appeal that, but even using the judge's interpretation, we win, and here's why."

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguing_in_the_alternative.

We disagree with the judge's interpretation, and will appeal that, but even using the judge's interpretation, we win, and here's why

Very helpful, Viriato: thank you.

JC Fisher

Thanks, JC; glad it's of use.

Btw, the link to Wikipedia seems not to be working with the original phrasing, so here's a better one to the same page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

According to the Fall Church News-Press some continuing members did not agree with the diocese's decision not to pursue voting irregularities:

http://tinyurl.com/4w4ojz