[Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth

[Charles Wohlers]

The fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case simply means that, 
whatever the situation was last week, it's the same this week - nothing has 
changed.

Chad Wohlers
@ TPA right now, but soon back in
Woodbury, VT USA
chadwohl at satucket.com


-----Original Message----- 
From: Ginga Wilder
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Magdalen
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth

This USSC decision to reject the case will mark the path forward for
TECSC.  And, we in new missions and worshipping communities now know that
we won’t have our buildings back anytime soon, if at all.  That fact will
be hard for some to grasp, but I do believe it is the truth.   As I have
thought all along, these cases will not be settled in my lifetime.



Very sad, and all Episcopalians must grieve our loss, and then create a new
faith community, looking forward, rather than hold to the stuff of the
past.  That is my opinion.  History will happen, and at some point in the
more distant future, the Lawrence church may fail and their buildings, etc.
may have to be sold.


In these days of a dwindling TEC, not having the burden of upkeep of old
buildings may be a gift to fledgling congregation.  I do still want the
intellectual and real diocesan (not parish) property returned sooner rather
than later.



Ginga

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Charles Wohlers <
charles.wohlers at verizon.net> wrote:

> I believe it means they refused to hear the case, meaning the lower court
> ruling stands.
>
> Chad Wohlers
> about to head back North from sunny Florida,
> Woodbury, VT USA
> chadwohl at satucket.com
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Grace Cangialosi
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 10:18 AM
> To: magdalen at herberthouse.org
> Subject: Re: [Magdalen] EC v. ED of Ft. Worth
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't know what this means.
>
>  On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Cert denied. :(
>>
>>  On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Ginga Wilder <gingawilder at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK.  It's 9:30 am.  What's the story....yes, that is a ridiculous
>>> inquiry.
>>> But, members of TECSC are among those waiting on this decision. If USSC
>>> takes the case and iff USSC decides on behalf of TEC, this will have
>>> enormous impact on the South Carolina case.  I don't much care about
>>> parish
>>> real property issues, but I do indeed want our name, our symbols, our
>>> trust
>>> fund, our camp and conference center, our diocesan property ETC returned
>>> to
>>> Episcpalians.  Others in TECSC sincerely are invested in having the
>>> parish
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> SC awaits the decision of Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein in the
>>> lawsuit where Bp Lawrence and his breakaway church is suing TEC and
>>> TECSC.
>>>
>>> Ginga
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did I say 11/1? Tomorrow at 9:30. My guess is that it gets relisted for
>>>> another conference. That has been their recent practice.
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Roy Murphy <roy.murphy at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  The Supreme Court docket says the case was distributed for the 10/31
>>>>> conference. We could hear further news on 11/1. Either grant, deny or
>>>>> relist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>