Naked Ambition on Display?: Bishop Sauls' Memo on Deposition Procedures

Brad Drell has posted the most recent episode in the ongoing "dispute" over whether the Presiding Oceanographer and her Chief Shark violated Canon Law in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox - a memorandum by DioLex Bishop Stacy Sauls in which he argues that the procedure used was appropriate.  +Sauls, who has seemingly long been the lawyer-shadow of Beers acting from within the HOB, has in this memorandum drawn back the curtain on what many people in this Diocese believe is his long-held ambition to advance his personal career well past a "backwater" diocese in eastern Kentucky, and he has unequivocally aligned himself with the P.O. in his quest for power, position and advancement.

For a little more insight on the source of this legal memorandum and his standing in his own Diocese, please take a peek at my posts from a few months ago, here and here .

As an attorney I would have hoped +Sauls would have known better than to peddle this weak analysis and in so doing provide reinforcement to the P.O.'s intransigent insistence that no Canons have been violated.  This is the kind of thing some attorneys all too often do - they tell the "client" what the "client" wants to hear, as opposed to speaking truth to power.  The better thing to do in this instance would be to candidly say, "Kate, ya screwed this one up.  Badly.  Admit it, set aside the depositions, and do these things right in the future."  But any lawyer who has been around the block a few times also knows that lawyers who have the moral courage to do this often find themselves fired by the same "client" to whom they just spoke the truth (especially when the client has demonstrated a tendency to lash out in anger at those who disagree with her), thus defeating their own ambitions for success and advancement.

+Sauls' analysis of the history of the deposition Canon is couched in weak and speculative language, and finds what one law professor of mine would have called "distinctions without differences."  None of the various versions of the language of Canon IV.9 are stated in terms of the number of Bishops present.  They all speak in terms of the number of Bishops entitled to vote - even the 1904 amended language, "entitled to vote at that meeting," clearly refers to the Bishops entitled to vote at that point in time, not those Bishops present at the meeting.  Canon IV.9 has never, so far as I can tell, been expressed in terms of the number of Bishops present.

The analysis in this memo is legally weak in terms of the legal methods of statutory interpretation.  In the analysis of any law, ordinance or statute, the Courts will typically first look to the plain meaning of the law as it is written.  If the law includes definitions, those will be used, but otherwise the everyday, ordinary meaning of words is used.  In this instance, Canon IV.9 does not in any way refer to the number of Bishops present, but plainly states "If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry..." .  The plain meaning of the Canon is clear - there is no reason to conduct the analysis +Sauls has done, unless, of course, one is looking for a way around the plain meaning.

If "plain meaning" analysis does not solve the issue, the next step of analysis is typically to compare the law in question to other existing laws to see if some answer may be found.  In comparing Canon IV.9 to several other Canons where language referring to a vote by a majority of the Bishops "present" is found, it should be abundantly clear at this level of analysis that "by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" has a different meaning, i.e., the majority of the entire HOB.

Going all the way to what lawyers refer to as "legislative history" as has +Sauls is therefore unnecessary and not proper legal analysis in this instance, again, unless one is trying to end-run the "plain meaning" of the words.  This is particularly true when there is no reference to the actual debates and discussions taken at the time, but merely speculation about what the legislators had in mind when they acted.  This kind of speculation and parsing of words done by conventions and committees that met and voted long ago is simply without foundation and has no merit.

+Sauls argument about "we did it that way before" is, well, silly.  Two wrongs, or in this case, four wrongs, do not make it right.  One cannot change the rule of law by repeatedly breaking it.  The fact that others did not challenge the wrong before is irrelevant.  There is a legal concept called estoppel, which prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions, but that is not applicable here.  It might be applicable AGAINST TEO, to prevent it from asserting technical Canonical requirements.  But estoppel has no application offensively by TEO - it cannot assert its own mistakes in support of additional mistakes.

Lastly, the "procedural safeguards" argument +Sauls puts forth is truly circular.  How can preliminary procedures for inhibition, consent of a few Bishops for preliminary steps, etc., trump the ultimate safeguard that a vote of deposition, probably the most serious form of ecclesiastical discipline since burning at the stake was outlawed, must be taken by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote?  The Canon is plainly written so that the only time this heavy penalty may be paid by a Bishop is when the majority of the entire group of his/her peers deems it necessary.  I doubt +Sauls would want to face deposition by less than a full vote of the HOB - how can he opine that Bishops Schofield and Cox are entitled to any less "procedural safeguards"?

This kind of maneuver is precisely the kind of action which has destroyed any remaining vestiges of TEO's credibility as a religious denomination.  TEO has denied the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, and then arbitrarily and capriciously used its own Constitution and Canons, with the most loose and fallacious interpretations, to persecute those who have called them to account for their denial of Christianity.  Then, when caught with their collective pants down, TEO goes to great lengths to justify their improper actions rather than admitting an error of judgment or commission. What is there left in TEO for the faithful to trust or rely upon?  IMNSHO, nothing.

Comments

[Matthew]

I don't think he wrote his memo to persuade anyone. It is only out there to provide cover for his fellow bishops when they are asked about whether the depositions were valid.

[Wilbur.K.]

Forex markt grenzeloze mogelijkheden opent, laat u op oneindig verhoging van het kapitaal, te ontvangen van de onafhankelijkheid,
vrijheid. Onze [url=http://forexsignalshop.com]
trading signalen[/url]-een van de manieren om dit te . Details op forexsignalshop.com
[b]New Launch soon! come on forexsignalshop.com[/b]