Hearing Tomorrow in Fort Worth on Appeal Bond Issues

from Anglican Curmudgeon by A. S. Haley

A hearing will take place tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m. in front of Judge John Chupp, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has announced:

At 2 p.m. tomorrow, April 28, Judge John Chupp will determine to what extent he will permit the local minority group aligned with TEC to conduct discovery with regard to the Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond* that has been filed by our attorneys. We are asking Judge Chupp to permit the Diocese and our 48 congregations to continue to have possession of the property while the case is being appealed, without the necessity of posting a large bond. The local minority group wants to take depositions and conduct other discovery, including inspections of the property, ostensibly for the purpose of developing evidence to support their argument that a substantial bond should be required as a condition for the continued possession of the property by the Diocese and its congregations during the appeal.

According to David Weaver, who is representing our congregations, "Since the plaintiffs likely will not prevail on the bond issue, they are attempting a flanking maneuver by seeking permission from the Court to allow them to engage in expensive discovery procedures."

Please keep the hearing in your prayers, and, if possible, plan to attend. The 141st District Court is located on the fourth floor of the Family Law Center on Weatherford Street in Fort Worth.

----

*A supersedeas bond is a deposit made during an appeal process when the case involves property and the party making the appeal wishes to delay full payment until the process concludes.

The group led by Bishop Ohl has tried every maneuver in the book to push up the costs for Bishop Iker and his diocese. They are not interested in getting the case decided by the Texas Supreme Court as quickly as possible; they want to drag out the proceedings below by having court-ordered "inspections" of each individual church property, and depositions of church rectors and treasurers. Then they want to use any financial information so gathered as a means to argue that Bishop Iker's diocese should have to post a huge bond pending the appeal.

Bishop Iker and his diocese are not going anywhere. Nor are they engaged in running down their properties, or in selling off the altar cloths, or in recycling hymnals and prayer books. Were Bishop Ohl and his group to take over all the properties from this day forward, they would not be able to keep all of them staffed and maintained -- they would immediately have to offer a lot of them for sale, in a difficult market. They are far better off getting the free services of the properties' current occupants to keep them well-run and maintained while the appeal runs its course. Thus it is cynical at best, and harassment at worst, to request that the court drive up the costs of the defendants still more.

One can hope that Judge Chupp is beginning, through all of this extraneous maneuvering, to get the flavor, as we say, of those to whom he awarded the property -- and of where their hearts really lie.