The trial finished this afternoon in time to catch planes and trains and automobiles for the Thanksgiving holiday.Bishop Peter James Lee and the Presiding Bishop's chancellor David Booth Beers were among those who testified today. Judge Bellows is expected to issue his ruling around January 17.
10 comments:
Earlier news suggested the constitutional issue will be argued sometime in December notwithstanding the eventual Division Statute outcome. Is this accurate?
Well BB,
Wondered if you've been in court these last few days or whether you've had to be at work, like many of us who would have liked to have been there to see it all unfold ... (or is that unravel?)
Then the thought hit me, you know, this might make a fascinating book, told from someone inside, told from someone at one point who was being sued.
Would it premature of you to "name it and claim it" by writing the ending now. Some of us are tired of the suspense of waiting for it all to be done ...
Or not. Just a thought.
BB,
I'm going to have to talk to your employer to see that you get paid to take time off to report these things for us so we know what is going on. That could be part of their pro bono contribution.
Art+
If I understand correctly, the judge has requested briefs on the constitutional issues. I'll check to make sure that's the case, so to speak. Those are due in December.
bb
From my two visits to the courtroom I feel that the case has been going very well for the 11 churches, but who knows the mind of man. If anyone wants to hear Bishop Martyn he will be at our Church on Dec 2nd
Robin
www.pwcweb.com/ecw
I could be way off, but it strikes me that the only reason the judge would need to consider the constitutionality of the division statute is that he plans to apply it in his ruling. That suggests that the departing churches have made a convincing case for the applicability of the division statute to our situation. If we had not done so, why would Judge Bellows expend effort considering this larger question about the statute?
If I am on track with this thinking, our prayer must be that those 19th century Virginians crafted a law that will stand up to a constitutional test.
"it strikes me that the only reason the judge would need to consider the constitutionality of the division statute is that he plans to apply it in his ruling."
my thoughts, exactly. keep praying!
Perhaps that's the root of my confusion.
BB, did the judge request briefs as to the constitutionality of the Virginia division statute, or did he request briefs on the constitutional analysis that would apply if the division statute is found either inapplicable or unconstitutional?
Thanks.
The following is extracted from the Washington Times report.
Midway through yesterday's hearing, Judge Randy I. Bellows told both sides they should be prepared to argue the constitutionality of the division statute in court next month. That request reschedules the expected time of his ruling to early 2008.
"I'd prefer to issue a final decision on" the division statute, he explained, "rather than piecemeal decisions." To date, the trial has only concerned whether the division statute applies to this property dispute.
Got it. Thanks!
Post a Comment