Episcopal property dispute must go to trial, judge rules (Colorado Springs)(Open)

COLORADO SPRINGS — An El Paso County District judge ruled Tuesday that the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado and officials of Grace Church and St. Stephen's Parish in Colorado Springs must resolve their $17 million property dispute at trial.

District Judge Larry E. Schwartz concluded that he cannot make a decision based solely on matters of law because "there is virtually no agreement as to the facts."

Thanks to PAR35 for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

With such fine examples of “Christian” conduct and unity the heathen is sure to cast away his idols and darkness of mind to join himself to these representatives of......of..., well, of who exactly? Not of Christ certainly, not in any imagination.
Then whose spirit is being manifested here?
“But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” James 3:14-16. What more need be said?

This is the case where the Bishop accused the Rector of criminal misconduct, but no charges were ever filed;

Uh, you might want to wait a bit before you believe that.... There's apparently a lot of stuff going on in that regard.

As the story notes, there is no way to reconcile the accounts of the two sides.

True enough.

To judge the relative merits of the arguments, however, the CANA folks are basing much of their property argument on a claim that the parish hadn't actually been an Episcopal parish since 1973, and had not acceded to any Episcopal canons in that time. The claim is preposterous -- there are dozens of instances of documentary evidence to the contrary, including the CANA group's "declaration of independence" -- but that's what they're saying.

In point of fact, the judge ruled pretty much as expected --this particular judge is not known for decisive rulings, especially on a high-visibility case like this one. Beyond that, the property arguments are complex, and there's a lot of stuff to sift through, and the 2-hour hearing had no serious debate about the evidence.

His actual ruling, however, shows that he basically accepts the way that the Diocese's lawyer framed the issues.

Finally, it's important to realize that this article is talking about a 2-hour hearing in which two lawyers basically stood up and presented their positions. There were no witnesses, cross-examinations, or serious discussions of the nature of the material presented. The judge basically said that the discussion was insufficient to untangle many of those issues, and he wants a "full evidentiary hearing." Not quite sure what that is -- it would appear to be something prior to an actual trial (which is currently docketed for February, '09).

In addition, this hearing was not even on the main property issue, but rather a somewhat ancillary hearing to address the status of the contending parties.

Has anything been presented to a grand jury yet?

I honestly don't know. Grand juries operate in secret, and one hears all sorts of things about whether or not they're active in this case. I know people have been interviewed by the cops, and that the cops are treating it seriously, but that's about all I know.

Based on what I’ve read, it just doesn’t sound like something the DA would want to jump into.

The charges are along the lines that Mr. Armstrong is committed embezzlement and tax evasion. There have been several such cases around here in the past several years, so as a rule I don't think there's any reticence about prosecuting them.

However, the DA is a member of the parish, and obviously had to recuse himself from this case. The grand jury will be in Pueblo, if it's meeting yet. Anyway, it's an election year, and he really can't be seen to be trying to fix this case.

(The DA's got his own problems right now: acting on tips from various attorneys, a local TV station secretly followed him around ... taped him drinking over a gallon of beer in 5 hours, and driving during the period in question. Based on the fact that the tipsters were attorneys who are familiar with him -- there are hints that some are in his office -- one gets the idea he's not particularly popular among some parts of the lawyer community. He was going to be running unopposed in the upcoming election, but now various folks are looking into a challenge.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.