There are a number of odd things about those paragraphs:
First, my understanding is that the diocese was dithering on who should pay costs and we protested once they decided it should be the individuals; the ruling makes it sound as if it was clear-cut up until the point we protested.
Second, in a similar case in the US, the judge was shocked by the fact that the diocese was going after individuals rather than the parish. Milanetti seemed unphased.
Having attended the first Milanetti trial, listened to her comments and watched her body language, I am reasonably certain that she had made up her mind before anyone opened his mouth.
What I was told how the matter came up, from someone who I believe attended the hearing, is different from both what you understood and Justice Milanetti’s account.
And what the Chancellor expected to be decided — whether the wardens were to be liable personally or in their capacity as trustees for the congregation — was not even mentioned. (Which means they are liable personally unless someone holds otherwise).
Anf I believe Justice Milanetti is right in saying that she cannot award costs against anyone or anything that is not a party.
One day you are being honoured by the Diocese, recieving the Order of Niagara, for your many years of faithful service to your church family and to your community. Then after you have spent a life time supporting your church giving generously of your time and money, you are sued. The Bishop probably has not spent as much time and given more of his money than the people he is persecuting and he has been paid for every day of his service.
While those who have stood to defend the Gospel Message are being punished the Diocese is deliberately delivering their message to all those who are in leadership roles throughout the church. We will take your Church! We will take your retirement saving and even your home.
Thousands have died and have suffered to defend the Gospel, and on judgement day they will receive their reward. I have no doubt the Bishop will also get what he deserves.
The diocese is suing the wardens – they are the ones named on the papers that were served right at the very beginning. This is to “dissuade” any other wardens from taking similar action. I’m not sure why the wardens though – they were merely following canon law when they were presented with a letter from 6 members asking for a special vestry to address and vote on leaving the ACoC. Perhaps they should really be suing those 6 people instead. This would make about as much sense.
Paragraphs 34 to 38 are especially worthy of reading. And pondering.
There are a number of odd things about those paragraphs:
First, my understanding is that the diocese was dithering on who should pay costs and we protested once they decided it should be the individuals; the ruling makes it sound as if it was clear-cut up until the point we protested.
Second, in a similar case in the US, the judge was shocked by the fact that the diocese was going after individuals rather than the parish. Milanetti seemed unphased.
Having attended the first Milanetti trial, listened to her comments and watched her body language, I am reasonably certain that she had made up her mind before anyone opened his mouth.
What I was told how the matter came up, from someone who I believe attended the hearing, is different from both what you understood and Justice Milanetti’s account.
And what the Chancellor expected to be decided — whether the wardens were to be liable personally or in their capacity as trustees for the congregation — was not even mentioned. (Which means they are liable personally unless someone holds otherwise).
Anf I believe Justice Milanetti is right in saying that she cannot award costs against anyone or anything that is not a party.
Anf I believe Justice Milanetti is right in saying that she cannot award costs against anyone or anything that is not a party
Yes, I believe the issue was one of personal vs trustees for the congregation.
One day you are being honoured by the Diocese, recieving the Order of Niagara, for your many years of faithful service to your church family and to your community. Then after you have spent a life time supporting your church giving generously of your time and money, you are sued. The Bishop probably has not spent as much time and given more of his money than the people he is persecuting and he has been paid for every day of his service.
While those who have stood to defend the Gospel Message are being punished the Diocese is deliberately delivering their message to all those who are in leadership roles throughout the church. We will take your Church! We will take your retirement saving and even your home.
Thousands have died and have suffered to defend the Gospel, and on judgement day they will receive their reward. I have no doubt the Bishop will also get what he deserves.
[5] Dave,
I am in heartfelt agreement.
Regards,
Jim
The diocese is suing the wardens – they are the ones named on the papers that were served right at the very beginning. This is to “dissuade” any other wardens from taking similar action. I’m not sure why the wardens though – they were merely following canon law when they were presented with a letter from 6 members asking for a special vestry to address and vote on leaving the ACoC. Perhaps they should really be suing those 6 people instead. This would make about as much sense.