Thursday, January 24, 2013

SC Circuit Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order to Protect Identity of the Diocese of South Carolina; puts damper on Episcopal Church's attempt to take over diocese on Saturday

Anglican Curmudgeon has the scoop:
Late this afternoon (5:11 p.m. EST), the Circuit Court of South Carolina in Dorchester County (the Hon. Diane S. Goodstein presiding) issued a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") which declares:
No individual, organization, association or entity, whether incorporated or not, may use, assume, or adopt in any way, directly or indirectly, the registered names and the seal or mark of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina as are set out below or any names or seal that may be perceived to be those names and seal or mark. The registered names and mark that are subject to this order are: the seal of the Diocese of South Carolina as described in its registration with the South Carolina Secretary of State; the name "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina", as registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State; the name "The Diocese of South Carolina", as registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State; and the name "The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina", as registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State. Again, this seal and these names are those registered by this Plaintiff corporation [Bishop Lawrence's Diocese of South Carolina] with the South Carolina Secretary of State.
The order was issued following an ex parte hearing before Judge Goodstein yesterday, and after Bishop Lawrence's Diocese posted a bond set by the court at $50,000. A hearing may be held "ex parte" in cases of urgency, in order to prevent immediate harm from occurring. The opposing side does not need to be present; indeed, the Episcopal Church (USA) has not yet entered an appearance in the case, and does not seem to have been represented at the hearing.

The purpose of the bond is to ensure that any damages that may be caused by the Court's issuance of the TRO without first hearing from the opposite side will be covered; such bonds are required by law as a condition of the issuance of a TRO, and the amount is fixed by the Court in each instance based upon individual circumstances. 

The immediate urgency requiring the ex parte hearing, from the point of view of Bishop Lawrence and his Diocese, was the scheduled meeting this Saturday of the Episcopal remnant in South Carolina which desires to organize a new diocese within the Episcopal Church (USA) to replace the one that has withdrawn. In issuing notices for the meeting, the national Church and those working in concert with it have claimed the right to use the names and seal described in the Court's order, which belong (by South Carolina law) to Bishop Lawrence's Diocese.

The Court's reasoning for issuing the order states in part:
The Diocese of South Carolina has three registered names and one registered mark and, as shown by affidavit, the Defendant, or others appearing to act in its name or under its control, have allegedly and repeatedly used these names and mark, including those so similar that they are to be the Diocese of South Carolina. This use has clear ability to cause confusion over the identity of the corporate entity of The Diocese of South Carolina. The Diocese of South Carolina has been using these registered names and mark in the ordinary course of its business as the Diocese of South Carolina, both before and after its association with the Defendant. By affidavit Plaintiff states its concern that a meeting scheduled to be held January 26, 2013, by those purporting to be this corporate entity but who in reality are not the corporate entity of the Plaintiff, could intentionally affect the corporate status of those uninformed that the actors are not, in reality, the corporation. In order to avoid any confusion, this Order is issued. 
The issue at bar is whether the taking of action by those not authorized with corporate authority will so infringe on the rights of the Diocese of South Carolina, that the Diocese of South Carolina will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for which the law cannot adequately remedy. The Court is convinced this burden has been met. The use of the names and marks of the Diocese of South Carolina can affect its good will, its third party relationships and create confusion among those with whom it deals in the ordinary course of its business. In short, the ongoing business of the Diocese of South Carolina could be irreparably injured if corporate changes occur in its name, implemented by those without actual corporate authority.
The order goes into effect immediately, so it will essentially force the remnant group meeting this Saturday to adopt a different name for the entity it will form, and by which it will be known. The governing documents which are scheduled for approval (a Constitution and Canons based on the former diocesan version before changes were approved in 2011 and 2012) will need to be changed to remove all references to "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina" and "the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." The order will remain in effect until February 1, when a hearing will be held starting at 9:00 a.m. in the Richland County courthouse on a preliminary ("temporary") injunction, pending the trial and final resolution of the case. 
Read it all here.  More here.

10 comments:

Lapinbizarre said...

Diane Schafer Goodstein is apparently South Carolina's go-to judge for shady or questionable ecclesiastical cases. Her involvement in a 2010 child molestation suit against the RC diocese of Charleston evidently scuppered her chances of a seat on the SC Supreme Court, notwithstanding excellent political connections, which include an influential former-legislator husband. This will be a very short-lived success.

Dale Matson said...

Would you be stating these things had she ruled in favor of TEC?

Lapinbizarre said...

Best you can come up with, Dale? Hardly a defense of the lady or her ruling.

Steven in Falls Church said...

Dale -- You're making the mistake of arguing with someone whose source is a website called "Fitsnews.com" where the tagline is "Unfair. Imbalanced." Doing some research, it seems that the response of the TECites to this legal defeat is to attack the judge for ethical impropriety--a not very smart tactic for a group that continues to violate her TRO.

Dale Matson said...

Answering my question with a question is not an answer.

Lapinbizarre said...

Then try the Charleston Post & Courier, one of the oldest (1803)and most conservative of Southern dailies for size, Steve. "Apparently all counsel were colluding to move settled cases to Dorchester County to get the cases to Judge Goodstein, or to get them away from any judge who might preside in Charleston County"

Fr. TJ said...

So? All counsel, if they are any good, seek a legal venue where they believe their client will have the best chance for a favorable hearing. I'll bet TEC's attorneys do the same all across the country. Shoot, I'd want my attorney to work hard to find a venue where my case (if I had one) would receive the most favorable hearing. It's part of doing due diligence as an attorney.

Steven in Falls Church said...

Rabbit, seriously, you're repeating unsubstantiated claims about the judge from an attorney/plaintiff in a suit that was later dismissed, from what it appears.

http://www.themiscellany.org/index.php/news/3729-lawsuit

Maybe next time you hop around here, you can manage to produce some evidence against the judge that has been validated in a venue other than the TEC fever swamps.

Lapinbizarre said...

I enjoy BB as a good-natured person and one who, though there are issues on which we differ, genuinely loves her religion. She does not wield it as a stick with which to chastise those with different views. Would that the same could be said of some of her followers.

Steven in Falls Church said...

Can I assume from the non-sequitur that you've given up trying to find something that validates your unsubstantiated claims against the judge?