DC CAUSE NO.

Transcription

1 CAUSE NO. DC FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, INC., OF GATESVILLE, TEXAS v. Plaintiff, GRACE PRESBYTERY, INC. Defendant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS 440TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Plaintiff First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas ( FPC ) files this Verified Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary and Permanent Injunction ( the Petition ) against Defendant Grace Presbytery, Inc. ( Presbytery ), and in support shows the Court the following: I. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. This lawsuit relates to ownership of real and personal property in Gatesville, Coryell County, Texas. FPC seeks a declaratory judgment recognizing its complete ownership of and right to determine the use and control of those assets and properties held in the name of FPC or by and for the congregation of FPC, free of any claimed trust interest of any kind in favor of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), alleged to be enforceable by the denomination s district agency, Grace Presbytery. 2. FPC further seeks a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending a final judgment on the merits. Grace Presbytery has formed PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 1 Electronically Filed 1/27/ :15:19 AM Janice M. Gray, District Clerk Coryell County, Texas

2 administrative commissions that have seized control of similar congregations and gutted them from the inside. Absent such injunctive relief, Presbytery can form an administrative commission to take managerial control of FPC, to fire FPC s staff, and to seize FPC s assets solely because FPC seeks to have its rights declared. For this reason, FPC seeks to restrain the Presbytery and any of its agents or representatives from taking any action of any kind that would alter, abridge or impact the rights of FPC as a Texas non-profit corporation or any action what would alter, abridge or impact the property rights of FPC as they now stand pending determination by this Court. II. PARTIES 3. FPC is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas and located in Gatesville, Texas. 4. Defendant Grace Presbytery, Inc. is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas. Presbytery may be served with citation through its registered agent Gerald L. Tyer at 6100 Colwell Blvd, Suite 110, Irving, Texas III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction under the laws of the State of Texas and these claims are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Presbytery, which is a Texas non-profit corporation doing business in the State of Texas. FPC seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief. 6. Venue is proper in Coryell County under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE because this suit contains, in part, an action to quiet title to real property situated in Coryell County, Texas. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 2

3 IV. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL 3 7. FPC moves this Court to order that discovery in this matter be conducted in accordance with TEX. R., CIV. P V. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 8. FPC requests Presbytery to disclose, within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule Copies of any documents produced in response to these requests must be produced before the expiration of fifty days of the service hereof at the office of the undersigned counsel or at a place otherwise agreed upon by counsel. A. Background on FPC VI. FACTS 9. FPC was organized in 1885 with sixteen members. The church was organized as an affiliated congregation of the Presbyterian Church in the United States ( PCUS ). This was the southern Presbyterian denomination that was created when the denomination divided along Civil War boundaries in the 1860 s. FPC was part of PCUS denomination for over 97 years. 10. In 1899, it acquired the land for its current location at 1110 East Main Street, Gatesville, Texas (the Church Campus ). In the 1950s is built a new building at the same location. Later, in the 1980s, FPC built an expansion of the Church Campus. A list of the relevant properties held by FPC are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein for all purposes. 11. FPC was an unincorporated association until June 30, 1978, when it was incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas as a Non-Profit Corporation. A copy of the PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 3

4 Articles of Incorporation of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas is attached as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated herein for all purposes. 12. In or about March 1989, the church adopted By-Laws of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas. A true and correct copy of the by-laws is attached as Exhibit 3 and is incorporated herein for all purposes. 13. In the 28 years since FPC adopted the original by-laws, it has never sought or obtained the approval of Presbytery to buy or sell its property. Upon information and belief, Presbytery has never objected to the purchase or sale of real property by FPC. Both parties have thereby acknowledged the right of FPC to hold and control its own property. 14. In 1983, the PCUS formally united with the UPCUSA to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ( PCUSA ). FPC has been affiliated with the PCUSA denomination for approximately 34 years of its 132 year history. B. Background on the Presbytery and PCUSA 15. Grace Presbytery is a district administrative unit of the PCUSA, whose membership includes 185 Presbyterian congregation in northeast Texas. Under the governing constitution of the PCUSA, the district presbytery is responsible for waiving or seeking enforcement of any trust claim of the denomination against a local congregation. See Exhibit 4 at 2, PCUSA Const. G The different administrative units in the Presbyterian denomination are variously called courts, councils, or governing bodies. They are of four types, each of widening geographic scope: sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. Individual Presbyterian congregations operate through their sessions, which are comprised of members of the congregation elected by the congregation as elders to govern and act on behalf of the PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 4

5 congregations. 173 district presbyteries oversee the spiritual and moral life of local congregations, and the presbyteries are in turn overseen by the 16 geographically-organized regional synods. Last, the General Assembly, a body that convenes every other year and operates on a national level, reviews the work of regional synods, addresses spiritual controversies, and otherwise performs those acts delegated to it by the PCUSA Constitution. The PCUSA Constitution, which is the governing document of the PCUSA, is divided into two parts: (1) Part 1 the Book of Confessions, and (2) Part 2 the Book of Order, which was called the Book of Church Order in the PCUS. C. Property Trusts in the PCUSA 17. Property disputes between PCUSA presbyteries and PCUSA congregations are not uncommon. In nearly all cases, the dispute centers around the existence or lack thereof of a trust, which the PCUSA alleges to exist for its benefit over all property held by the individual (particular) churches. See, e.g., Windwood Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. Presbyterian Church (USA.), 438 S.W.3d. 597 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.], 2014); Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of S. Louisiana of Presbyterian Church. (USA), 77 So. 3d 975 (La, Ct. App. 2011), Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church, 364 S.W.3d 575, 593 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012); First Presbyterian Church of Houston v. Presbytery of New Covenant, Inc., Cause No , in the 234th District Court, Harris County, Texas; Highland Park Presbyterian Church Inc. v. Grace Presbytery, Inc.; Cause No. DC ; 298th District Court, Dallas County, Texas. 18. From the first General Assembly convened in 1789 through 1981, no Presbyterian constitution contained any express reference to a trust. However, in 1982, in response to the Jones v. Wolf case, the PCUS Constitution was amended to add a trust clause. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 5

6 19. The trust clause adopted by the PCUS in 1982 stated: All property held by or for a particular church, whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of the particular church or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the [PCUS]. See Exhibit 5, 1982/1983 PCUS Book of Church Order, Chapter 6 Church Property. 20. Although this trust clause forms the basis of contemporary PCUSA claims to local church property, the PCUS repeatedly assured local congregations in 1981 and 1982 that the amendments then under consideration at the national and district level, including the trust clause changed nothing. Local congregations were assured the purpose of these amendments was to remain unchanged in its application to specific cases the system of control of church property that our Church has consistently followed through the years. Exhibit 6, Minutes, 1981 PCUS General Assembly, Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Church Property and Report of Subcommittee on Revision of Chapter 6, at The addition of the PCUS trust clause to the denominational constitution in 1982 was accomplished without the assent of individual congregations and their civil corporations who actually owned property. 1 Presbyteries not individual congregations, their sessions, their civil corporations, or their governing boards voted to approve the new trust clause under the representation that the new property trust provisions were merely declaratory of principles to 1 See, e.g., Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of S. Louisiana of Presbyterian Church (USA), 77 So. 3d 975, 981 (La. Ct. App. 9/14/11); Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church, 364 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012); Presbytery of Hudson River of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. Trustees of First Presbyterian Church & Congregation of Ridgebeny, 72 A.D.3d 78, 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010); Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc., 973 N.E2d 1099, 1103 (Ind. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct (U.S. 2013). PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 6

7 which the [PCUS] and its antecedent church bodies have adhered from the inception of the presbyterian form of church government. Exhibit 6 at The PCUS s own internal analysis of its property rights demonstrates the longstanding exclusivity of individual member church s property rights. In the official Ad Interim Church Property Committee report of the 1981 PCUS General Assembly the report which recommended the addition of the trust clause to the denominational constitution the PCUS committee candidly admits that the PCUS Constitution and its predecessor document said nothing specific about church property until Exhibit 6 at 233. Even then, the question of property ownership did not emerge as an issue until sometime between 1944 and 1950, when the PCUS General Assembly authorized a committee to study the matter of church property. Id. at The resulting report issued by the 1951 Committee To Study the Whole Question of Church Property as Related to the Presbytery and Other Church Courts concluded: 1. The legal title to property of a particular church is in its trustees on the behalf of that congregation. Therefore, the property is actually controlled by that congregation. This is recognized by both Civil and Ecclesiastical courts. The right to hold and dispose of property is granted by the State In such cases where a right of property asserted in a civil court is dependent solely on a question of doctrinal discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule, or church government, and that question has been decided by the highest tribunal within the organization, the civil courts will ordinarily accept that decision If trustees or members of a particular church undertake to withdraw and attempt to take their church property with them, it may subject all questions of ownership and control to a decision by the civil courts. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 7

8 Exhibit 6 at 235 (emphasis added). 24. In 1953, the General Assembly adopted a declaratory statement as an Assembly interpretation of what the Book of Church Order means. Exhibit 6 at 235. According to that official PCUS declaratory statement, The beneficial ownership of the property of a particular church of the [PCUSJ is in the congregation of such church and title may properly be held in any form, corporate or otherwise, consistent with the provisions of civil law in the jurisdiction in which the property is situated. The congregation, with respect to such property, may properly exercise any privilege of ownership possessed by property owners in such jurisdiction. In every instance nothing in the manner of tenure of such property or the use thereof shall be in violation of the obligation of such congregation to the body of the [PCUS] as established by the Constitution of such church. Exhibit 6 at 235 (emphasis added). The exact language of this statement was reaffirmed in 1967, reaffirmed again in 1971, and remained part of the official statement of the PCUS until at least Exhibit 6 at In 1981, although the merger with the UPCUSA was fast approaching, the PCUS began an attempt to overhaul its own property provisions. The proposed revisions, which included the new trust clause, were accompanied by a PCUS report expressly insisting, however, that the new trust clause d[id] not represent a change but simply sets forth in the... chapter on property what preceding General Assemblies have declared the existing language to mean. See Exhibit 6 at 237. This PCUS admission an admission on which local churches relied can only be squared with the denomination s many prior official statements that the PCUS trust clause did not vest the denomination with any property interest. Further, any present assertion that an enforceable trust has always existed in favor of the PCUSA is categorically irreconcilable with the unambiguous historical vestment of the beneficial interest in the congregation of such church. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 8

9 26. The very next year, 1983, the southern PCUS denomination merged with the northern UPCUSA denomination to form the PCUSA. The new PCUSA Constitution contained a trust clause akin to the one added to the PCUS Constitution in the final year of its 118-year existence Despite the historical treatment of property ownership in the PCUS and the fact that FPC has never made any act to grant any Presbyterian denomination property rights, the trust clauses added to the PCUS and PCUSA constitutions purportedly gave rise to a trust clause on all congregational property. 28. All of the deeds show title for the benefit of First Presbyterian Church of Gatesville, Texas or Gatesville First Presbyterian Church of Gatesville, Texas if the conveyance was before FPC s incorporation, or to First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas if the conveyance was after incorporation. None of the deeds makes any reference to a trust for the benefit of the PCUSA or Presbytery. Indeed, most of the deeds transferred title to the church property before the PCUSA existed. Upon information and belief, neither Presbytery nor any council within the PCUSA has ever (i) contributed any funds toward the purchase or maintenance of FPC s real property or fixtures or appurtenances or (ii) made monetary contributions to FPC. 2 The PCUSA trust clause stated: All property held by or for a congregation, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a congregation or of a higher council or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (US.A.). Exhibit 4, PCUSA Book of Order at G PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 9

10 29. All of the church s bank accounts and investments accounts are held in the name of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas. None of the accounts is a trust account held for the benefit of PCUSA or Presbytery. FPC has, at all times, operated as a self-sustaining, separate entity for the benefit of the local congregation, consistent with the historical practices of the PCUS. VII. CIVIL JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW 30. It is well-settled that civil courts cannot intrude upon the realm of religion by attempting to resolve matters of theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of a church to the standard of morals required of them. See Masterson v, Diocese of Nw. Texas, 422 S.W.3d 594, 601 (Tex. 2013). However, the mere fact that a dispute concerns a church or churches does not insulate it from judicial review. See id. at In fact, Texas courts are bound to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by the Texas Constitution and cannot delegate their judicial prerogative where jurisdiction exists. Id. at As courts have almost unanimously recognized, property disputes between local Presbyterian congregations and their presbyteries are precisely the type of secular controversies that courts are allowed to address. See, e.g., Jones v, Wolf; 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) ( There can be little doubt about the general authority of civil courts to resolve this question. ); Windwood Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 438 S.W.3d 597, 606 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.], no pet.); Arkansas Presbytery of Cumberland Presbyterian Church v. Hudson, 40 S.W.3d 301, 307 (Ark. 2001); Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River v. Presbyterian Church (USA.), 291 P.3d 711, 718 (Ore. 2012). PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 10

11 32. Starting with these principles, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the neutral principles method was the mandatory analysis for resolving church property disputes in Texas in Masterson v. Diocese of Nw. Texas, 422 S.W.3d 594, 607 (Tex. 2013). Under the neutral principles methodology, - ownership of disputed property is determined by applying generally applicable law and legal principles. That application will usually include considering evidence such as deeds to the properties, terms of the local church charter (including articles of incorporation and by-laws, if any), and relevant provisions of governing documents of the general church. Id. at 603. Importantly, the neutral principles method relies exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges [and] thereby promises to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity, and practice. Jones, 443 U.S. at 603. Unless the resolution of the property dispute is necessarily dependent upon a distinctly religious precept, church and presbytery are treated as any other parties to a lawsuit: equal entities whose claims are subject to the applicable state law of contracts, trusts, property, and corporations, See id. at Under this neutral approach to church property disputes, churches and denominations can modify the deeds or the corporate charter to include a right of reversion or trust in favor of the general church, [or] the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church [a]nd the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form. Id. at 606 (emphasis added). With this backdrop, courts applying the neutral principles method should examine: a. (a) legal documents of title (deeds); b. The terms of the local church charters (articles of incorporation and bylaws); PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 11

12 c. The provisions of the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property (Book of Order), and d. State statutes (including, without limitation, the Texas Trust Code) governing the holding of church property with the focus of the inquiry being whether the asserted property interest is embodied in a legally cognizable form enforceable under state law. See Jones, 443 U.S. at ; Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 603; Windwood, 438 S.W.3d at 606. As an examination of these items demonstrates, FPC holds its property free and clear of any trust or property interest the PCUSA claims in favor of itself. A. Documents of Title 33. Because a written instrument of conveyance is required to transfer ownership of land under Texas law, the relevant deeds form the starting point in the neutral principles analysis. See TEX. PROP. CODE Although a property trust might be evidenced by an agreement made outside the conveyance instrument, the absence of any such language in the deeds operates to transfer the property to the purchaser in absolute, fee simple ownership. Brown v. Clark, 116 S.W. 360, (Tex. 1909) ( It follows, we think, as a natural and proper conclusion, that the church to which the deed was made still owns the property, and that whatever body is identified as being the church to which the deed was made must still hold the title. ) (cited for this proposition by Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at (Tex. 2014); TEX. PROP. CODE ( An estate in land that is conveyed or devised is a fee simple unless the estate is limited by express words. ). 34. According to the official deeds recorded in the Coryell County real property records, none of FPC s properties were conveyed to the church to hold in trust for the benefit of the Presbytery, the PCUS, or the PCUSA. FPC never once purported to purchase or sell property for the benefit of the PCUS or the PCUSA. Further, FPC holds title to all of its accounts in its individual capacity and not in trust for the benefit of the PCUSA or Presbytery. Accordingly, FPC PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 12

13 holds all property in its own name without any encumbrance or beneficial interest in the name of anyone else or for the benefit of anyone else. B. Terms of the Local Church Charter 35. Similarly, the charter makes no reference to a trust to the PCUSA or PCUS. Because the corporate charter forms the foundational statement of a church corporation s purpose and powers, courts often look to their language to evaluate the existence of a denominational trust. Ordinarily, intent to own property on behalf of a specific denomination is manifested by express language to that effect. See, e.g., Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 255 P.3d 645, 649 (Ore. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that addition of trust clause to articles of incorporation created a trust). 36. FPC s charter, filed June 30, 1978, contains no such trust. See Exhibit 2. If fact, the Articles of Incorporation for FPC do not even mention the Presbyterian faith specifically. 37. Further, the bylaws, revised in 1989 make no mention of a trust. See Exhibit 3. While the bylaws state that they are a member of the PCUSA, they do not reference the trust clause or even the Book of Order. C. Denominational Constitution 38. The provisions of the PCUSA Constitution do not create a trust for the benefit of the PCUSA. Nowhere in the PCUSA Constitution are local churches required to adopt a denominational identifier, amend their corporate charters to create a trust, dedicate their property in trust, subject their corporate powers to denominational control, or otherwise do any of the various acts that might create a trust under Texas law. 39. The PCUSA s own denominational constitution further confirms the absence of any trust in favor of the PCUSA. While the denominational constitution obviously contains the trust PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 13

14 clause, that provision cannot be read in isolation. It is presumed that the creator of a writing intend[s] every clause to have some effect and each clause is given its plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning. Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). For this reason, courts have unequivocally found that a party s express declaration that a document is not to be binding means just what it says: the document is not to be binding. See, e.g., PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 277 (Tex. 2012) (finding that Texas Lawyer s Creed was not legally enforceable where creed stated that the rules are primarily aspirational); Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338, 273 S.W.3d 659, 670 (Tex. 2008) (finding that a grievance resolution panel s recommendation was not legally enforceable where the applicable manual stated that it shall not be binding ). 40. Multiple provisions in the PCUSA Constitution s disclaim its legal force or effect. For instance, F of the PCUSA Constitution, which is identified as a Historic Principle of Church Order, states: [A]ll church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or in the way of representation by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative;... that no church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority;.... Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of [God]. Exhibit 4, PCUSA Book of Order at F (emphasis added). Another Historic Principle of Church Order found in the constitution states: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others. Exhibit 4, PCUSA Book of Order at F PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 14

15 41. Elsewhere, the PCUSA Constitution reiterates: Councils of this church have only ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the purpose of serving Jesus Christ and declaring and obeying his will.... They may frame statements of faith, bear testimony against error in doctrine and immorality in life, resolve questions of doctrine and discipline, give counsel in matters of conscience, and decide issues properly brought before them under the provisions of this Book of Order. Exhibit 4, PCUSA Book of Order at F Indeed, these provisions of the PCUSA Constitution exhibit both a recognition and an adoption of the distinction between strictly spiritual matters and other, temporal matters. See also PCUSA LEGAL RESOURCE MANUAL FOR PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA) MIDDLE GOVERNING BODIES AND CHURCHES (expressly acknowledging that [a]lmost all property matters are governed by state law ). Unlike the PCUS/PCUSA trust clauses, the above renunciations of legal force have remained a constant theme throughout the entire history of the PCUS and PCUSA. Indeed, the wording of the historic principles excerpted above (F and F ) has existed in the PCUS and PCUSA Constitutions, and the constitution of the preceding Presbyterian denomination, essentially unaltered for more than 228 years. See Exhibit 4, PCUSA Book of Order. 42. Therefore, the PCUSA Constitution taken, as a whole, makes plain that the trust clauses that were added in 1982 and 1983 were only aspirational. Nowhere in the PCUSA Constitution are local churches required to adopt a denominational identifier, amend their corporate charters to create a trust, dedicate their property in trust, subject their corporate powers to denominational control, or otherwise do any of the various acts that might create a trust under the relevant state law. This interpretation is consistent with the civil law principle that trust clauses are only enforceable to the extent that they represented the mutual consent of the parties and were in a form that complied with generally applicable state law requirements. See Jones, 443 U.S. at PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 15

16 606 ( [C]ivil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form. ). D. State Statutes Governing the Holding of Church Property 43. Texas, like most states, does not have a statutory scheme that distinguishes between the property and contractual rights of religious and secular organizations. Church or not, Texas litigants are subject to the generally applicable provisions of Texas trust law, Texas property law, Texas remedial law, and Texas corporate law. See Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 609. In this case, a consideration of these various legal principles establish multiple, independent reasons why there is no enforceable trust over FPC s property in favor of the PCUSA. (i) Texas Trust Law 44. Texas law governs any alleged trust of Texas real property. See Toledo Soc. For Crippled. Children v. Hickok, 261 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Tex. 1953). Although Texas trust law has changed substantially over the course of FPC s 132-year history, it can still broadly be divided into two eras: (1) the historic era, which ends in 1943 and was comprised largely of decisional case law, and (2) the current era, which began in 1943 with the adoption of the Texas Trust Act. See Clarence A. Guittard, Express Oral Trusts of Land in Texas, 21 TEX, L. REV. 719, 722 (1943); Fitz-Gerald v. Hull, 237 S.W.2d 256, 265 (Tex. 1951). Because the applicable body of trust law is comprised of that which existed at the time of the relevant facts, this Petition will address both eras of law. See e.g, In re Ray Ellison Grandchildren Trust, 261 S.W.3d 111, 124 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2008). 45. In the historic era of Texas trust law, a writing was not required to create a trust over real property. See Mead v. Randolph, 8 Tex. 191 (Tex. 1852). Nevertheless, to have established an express trust in favor of the denomination over FPC s land before 1943, FPC must PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 16

17 have clearly demonstrated its intent to create such an arrangement. See Patrick v. McGaha, 164 S.W.2d 236, 241 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1942). Moreover, there must be some clear evidence of the requisite intent: [A]s distinguished from a trust arising from implications, an express trust arises either by express agreement or by direct and positive acts of the parties or by some writing or deed. Fitz-Gerald, 237 S.W.2d at 260 (citing authorities). Also, it is not necessary that the trust instrument expressly convey or devise legal title to a trustee, if the intention to create an active trust appears from the instrument. But again, such intention must be as clearly manifested as if express terms had been employed. Long v. Long, 252 S.W.2d 235, 249 (Tex. Civ. App. Texarkana 1952). As express trusts are declared by the parties, there can never be a controversy whether they exist or not. Bateman v. Ward, 93 S.W. 508, 510 (Tex, Civ. App. 1906). Importantly, if trust language is not specifically used, the intent to create a trust must otherwise be readily apparent: [The settlor] need not use any technical words or language in express terms creating or declaring a trust; but he must employ language which shows unequivocally an intention on his part to create a trust in a third person or to declare a trust in himself Sennuell v. Brooks, 207 S.W. 626, 629 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1918, no writ). 46. A corollary of the requirement of clear intent is that the party creating a trust must clearly identify and designate the trustee, the beneficiary, and the property that is to be the subject of the trust. [A]n express trust is generally created by an instrument pointing out the property, purposes and persons of the trust and a definite declaration of each is essential. Brown v. Donald, 216 S.W.2d 679, 683 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1949) (evaluating 1922 trust instrument). Accordingly, a trust is only created to the extent provided for in the trust instrument. See Bateman v. Ward, 93 S.W. 508, 510 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906) ( The appellants contend that the instruments PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 17

18 sued on constitute an express trust. If this is so, the instruments should point out directly and expressly the property, persons, and purposes of the trust. ) 47. There is no pre-1943 evidence of any intent by FPC to create a blanket trust over its real property in favor of the PCUS or PCUSA. FPC s history is wholly devoid of any reference to a trust on behalf of anyone other than First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas. For the entire 132-year history of FPC, it has bought and sold properties without any involvement by or interaction with the Presbytery or the denomination. Accordingly, the Presbytery can make no claim that a blanket trust arose over FPC s property prior to Beginning with the adoption of the Texas Trust Act in 1943, a trust over real property may be established only by a written instrument. See Mills v. Gray, 210 S.W.2d. 985, 987 (Tex. 1948). The requirement of a writing now extends to a trust of any property, real or personal. TEX. PROP. CODE Further, the trust instrument must also be signed by the settlor, or owner of the subject property. Id. Just as before 1943, [a] trust is created only if the settlor manifests an intention to create a trust. TEX. PROP. CODE Since 1983, the PCUSA has asserted that it maintains a trust interest in all member church property by virtue of the trust clause found in the 1983 PCUSA Constitution. However, the PCUS/PCUSA trust clauses, which first appeared in 1982 and 1983 when they were unilaterally added by the PCUSA for its own benefit, were never approved or ratified by FPC. In the absence of a signed writing and any evident intent by the settlor (FPC) to create a trust, the Presbytery s trust argument carries two fatal defects. 50. Even if this Court were to ignore these defects and assume that a valid blanket trust once existed, such a trust was both revocable and revoked. Under Texas law, [a] settlor may revoke the trust unless it is irrevocable by the express terms of the instrument creating it or of an PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 18

19 instrument modifying it. TEX. PROP. CODE (a). Because there is no instrument that purports to make the alleged PCUSA trust clause irrevocable, FPC can revoke any hypothetical trust at any time. (ii) Texas Corporate Law 51. Adherence to Texas corporate law is especially significant in light of the PCUSA Constitution s explicit instruction that local churches adopt a corporate form whenever permitted by civil law. See Exhibit 4, PCUSA Book of Order at G Under that provision, congregational corporations are specifically empowered to exercise all powers pertaining to church property. Id. 52. As a non-profit corporation formed under the laws of Texas, FPC has the same powers as an individual to take action necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE Among other things, Texas law specifically, empowers corporate entities to: (1) sue... in the entity s business name, (2) acquire, receive, own, hold, improve, use, and deal in and with property, or an interest in property, (3) sell convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, and otherwise dispose of property, (4) elect or appoint officers and agents of the entity, (5) adopt and amend governing documents for managing the affairs of the entity, and (6) conduct its business, locate its offices, and exercise the powers granted by this code to further its purposes. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE & Importantly, the adoption of corporate form is an unconditional assent to the limits and procedural obligations imposed by Texas law, unless modified by duly adopted governing documents were permitted by law. See TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE & Absent different governing provisions in its certificate of formation or bylaws, a non-profit corporation s governance is subject to the default provisions of the Texas Business PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 19

20 Organizations Code. Pursuant to that statutory scheme, corporate governance is vested in the corporation s Board of Directors, who must act through a majority of those present at a Board meeting. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE ; Accordingly, the corporation cannot take any action including the creation or ratification of a trust without the majority of its Board of Directors concurring in an appropriate resolution to that effect. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE 22,255 ( A corporation may convey real property of the corporation when authorized by appropriate resolution of the board of directors. ). 54. The Session of FPC has never adopted a resolution ratifying, approving, or otherwise consenting to a trust in favor of the PCUS, the PCUSA, or any other denomination. Nor has the FPC Session or congregation ever authorized the conveyance of title or a beneficial interest in the corporation s property to any other entity. Under unambiguous provisions of Texas corporate law, any purported action to the contrary is procedurally defective, ultra vires, and invalid. Indeed, it was precisely this type of disregard for default statutory-corporate procedure that the Texas Supreme Court recently condemned in Masterson. 422 S.W.3d at 610 ( [U]nder neither the former nor the current [corporate] statute is an external entity empowered to amend [the corporate bylaws] absent specific, lawful provision in the corporate documents. ). A. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT herein. VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION 55. The allegations contained in the above paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully stated 56. Under Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas, 422 S.W.3d 594, 607 (Tex. 2014), the law applicable to this dispute is clear: Texas courts must use only the neutral principles PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 20

21 construct to determine property interests when religious organizations are involved. Accordingly, FPC seeks declaratory relief recognizing that, on the basis of the language of the deeds, the terms of the local church charters, the state statutes governing the holding of church property, and the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property, all real property held by FPC or by individual trustees for the benefit of the FPC, along with all improvements thereon, and all personal property, corporeal or incorporeal, is held in fee simple and absolute ownership by FPC and for its sole and exclusive benefit, and without the burden of any trust for the use or benefit of Presbytery, Synod of the Sun, the PCUSA, or any other denomination or any of district administrative units of any other denomination. See Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 603 (1979). B. TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE 57. The allegations contained in the above paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully stated herein. 58. Pursuant to TEX. PROP. CODE , FPC has record title to parcels that make up the Church Campus, identified in Exhibit 1, through a regular chain of conveyances from the sovereignty of the soil, a superior title out of a Common source, and/or title by prior possession that has not been abandoned. 59. FPC is currently in possession of these properties, and it or its predecessor-ininterest has maintained consistent possession of these properties prior to any assertion of a proprietary or trust interest by the PCUSA. 60. Title to these properties is affected by the Presbytery and the PCUSA s claim to a trust or beneficial interest, which claims are legally invalid and unenforceable. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 21

22 C. SUIT TO QUIET TITLE 61. The allegations contained in the above Paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully stated herein. 62. FPC has record title to the parcels of real property that make up the Church Campus, identified in Exhibit FPC s right of ownership is sufficient to warrant judicial interference, and the Presbytery s claimed interest in trust is a cloud on title that is disturbing FPC s lawful possession. Because FPC holds title superior to that of any interest claimed by the Presbytery, FPC seeks to quiet title its properties. D. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 64. FPC also seeks a temporary restraining order, and temporary, permanent and final injunctive relief. 65. FPC is entitled to a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending a judicial resolution of the merits. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). A plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction must plead and prove three elements; (1) a cause of action against the defendant and a probable right to the relief sought; (2) a probable and imminent injury, and (3) an irreparable injury or inadequate remedy at law. See id. As set forth below, FPC needs injunctive relief to protect it from the imminent threat of an irreparable injury. 66. In conjunction therewith, FPC is entitled to a temporary restraining order because it will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage before a hearing can be held on its request for a temporary injunction. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 22

23 67. Further, FPC respectfully seeks an order permanently enjoining the Presbytery from taking any action that might in any way interfere with FPC s exclusive ownership, use, and control of its property as adjudicated by this Court. 68. Notwithstanding the wholly frivolous claim the Presbytery asserts over FPC s property, there is a present, real, and substantial threat that Presbytery will undertake to take over FPC if FPC simply stands on its right, as it is doing here, to seek a declaration of its property rights. The PCUSA and its district Presbytery, acting on the PCUSA s behalf, claim that the mere act of FPC seeking this adjudication authorizes the Presbytery to take over FPC remove its governing session, fire its pastors, take its bank accounts, and put its property in the PCUSA s name. Such actions, intended to pressure local congregations not to assert their rights, should not be tolerated or rewarded. To be clear, this is no mere prediction of Presbytery conduct after a final, nonappealable judicial declaration has been rendered in the Presbytery s favor. Rather, the Presbytery is threatening to take such action simply because a local congregation seeks a judicial determination of its rights. For obvious reasons, the use of such methods must be restrained and enjoined. (i) A Cause of Action against the Defendant and a Probable Right to the Relief Sought 69. To be entitled to immediate preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must first demonstrate that it is likely to be entitled to relief on a cause of action against the relevant defendant. 70. As set forth above, FPC has petitioned this Court for declaratory judgment to fully and finally adjudicate the congregation s property rights. Moreover, the legal principles that govern this dispute are both familiar and well-settled. Just as the Court would do in any other property dispute, it must now use these neutral principles of state law to determine who owns the PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 23

24 relevant property and whether that property has been encumbered with any trust interest in favor of another party. Masterson, 422 S.W.3d at 607. As established by both the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court, the factors relevant to this question include documents of title, the terms of the local church s charter, the denomination s constitution, and any applicable provisions of state law. Id.; see also Jones, 443 U.S. at 603. After conducting a neutral and secular examination of the facts and documents, the lone question for the court is whether the parties created a trust or other enforceable property interest that is embodied in some legally cognizable form under state law. Jones, 443 U.S. at As discussed at length above, there is absolutely no legal basis on which the Presbytery can claim an enforceable trust in favor of the PCUSA. FPC s corporate charter does not purport to create any such trust or otherwise serve to establish a proprietary interest in favor of the denomination. None of the deeds by which FPC acquired its current property purport to vest any beneficial interest in the denomination or anyone other than FPC. Finally, while serving as the sole basis of the alleged trust, the PCUSA s denominational constitution disclaims its own enforceability. 72. When Texas law is applied to these facts and instruments, there can be little doubt that the Presbytery s trust claim on behalf of the PCUSA is not legally cognizable, for multiple, independent reasons. Therefore, FPC can show a cause of action and probable right to relief. (ii) Probable and Imminent Injury 73. The second prerequisite to immediate injunctive relief is proof of a probable and imminent injury. 74. The infliction of a real and immediate injury is not only possible, but it is actually a standard operating procedure for PCUSA presbyteries faced with civil actions by local PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 24

25 congregations. In fact, the headquarters of the PCUSA, to whom Grace Presbytery is answerable, has issued two extreme strategy memoranda for use by lawyers representing presbyteries faced with litigation. Of particular concern is the denomination s repeated prodding of presbyteries to implement a device called an administrative commission to seize all local church assets and lake control of local church property. 75. An administrative commission is a small committee of presbytery representatives self-granted an allegedly unlimited scope of powers under the guise of spiritual emergency. Indeed, the PCUSA has even advised that [i]f the presbytery has information that declares a schism is imminent, an administrative commission should be immediately formed with the authority to assume original jurisdiction over fire and replace the entire governing session of a church. Exhibit 7, PCUSA Legal Strategy Memoranda, re: Local Church Property Expropriation (commonly called Louisville Papers ). Further, the PCUSA Book of Order unambiguously states that when there is a report that a particular church is affected with disorder, a presbytery can, without prior notice or hearing, appoint an administrative commission to indefinitely assume original jurisdiction of the local church. Although the use of an administrative commission is ordinarily intended to address spiritual matters and operate ecclesiastically to assure sound doctrine, PCUSA presbyteries have been departing from the customary and expected use of administrative commissions and have misused them for temporal, civil purposes as a device to try and impermissibly expropriate local church property in spite of civil judicial authority. 76. The PCUSA s denominational headquarters has also issued Advisory Opinion Note 19, which in part III thereof warns presbyteries that if they do not act aggressively in using administrative commissions to take control of local church property, the regional synod will PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 25

26 appoint its own administrative commission to take over control of the presbytery. See Exhibit 8, Advisory Opinions: Note 19 to enforce Trust Clause. 77. In a heavy-handed attempt to discourage congregations from expressing disagreement or asserting their legal rights, the PCUSA has made the following recommendations to presbyteries faced with litigation: See Exhibit 8. a) advocate use of administrative commissions specifically for church property disputes, and in conjunction therewith advises how to remove the local pastor and/or governing board of the local church; b) advise how to freeze local church assets and physically seize property; c) recommend placing a cloud on local church property titles by filing affidavits in property records, irrespective of state law or the facts of any property in dispute; d) recommend mailing letters concerning contested property to any banks or other financial institutions that hold accounts for the local church, which letters order that no assets be released to the local church; e) instruct presbyteries to investigate the religious background of any judge assigned to the case in order to exploit potential partiality or religious issues; f) recommend that presbyteries in their pleadings use spiritual language in order to posture themselves in a positive light, and to negatively refer to the local church in the caption and in pleadings as schismatic ; and g) recommend to presbyteries, through the use of administrative commissions, to try and keep the local church in a defensive secular legal posture, counseling Let the schismatics seek Caesar s help. 78. In response to dissent by local congregations against certain denominational actions, PCUSA presbyteries have variously: (a) taken acts intended to assert ownership or place clouds on otherwise merchantable local property titles, (b) recorded, without prior notice, affidavits or other documents in local mortgage and conveyance records that improperly assert PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 26

27 trusts on local church property in favor of the denomination, regardless of the facts of a local church s property history or the laws of the state in which local church property is situated; (c) sought to change locks on local church property without notice and otherwise seize local church assets; and (d) appointed administrative commissions to assert original jurisdiction to supplant existing congregational property control by removing, without notice and opportunity for hearing, dissenting ministers and sessions. 79. The threat of retaliation by the Presbytery is not some distant and abstract threat with which the Grace Presbytery is wholly unfamiliar. The threat of Presbytery action is imminent. Grace Presbytery has misused administrative commissions in the past. On May 21, 2012, one day after the congregation of First Presbyterian Church of Longview, Texas voted by over a 70 percent margin to seek dismissal from the PCUSA, an administrative commission appointed by Grace Presbytery assumed original jurisdiction over the Longview congregation s property. Exhibits In disregard of the corporate and property rights of the church s members, the administrative commission substituted itself in place of the session that had been duly elected by the congregation, and asserted ersatz authority as the new governing body of the local church in order to seize absolute control of all property Because evidence of prior conduct by Presbyteries and Grace Presbytery specifically demonstrates a probable and imminent injury to FPC, absent intervention by the Court, FPC has satisfied the second requirement for an injunction. 3 In other cases, a judicial prohibition has only inspired PCUSA presbyteries to contrive new ways to try and separate churches from their property. See Exhibit 11; Carrollton Presbyterian Church, Suit Number , 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana, Written Findings and Reasons for Judgment Imposing Sanctions, issued July 18, 2013, affirmed on appeal, 172 So. 3d 1, 10 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/9/15); see also Carrollton v. Presbytery of South Louisiana, 77 So. 3d 975 (La. App.1 Cir. 2011). In Carrollton, the same PCUSA synod that has oversight over Grace Presbytery, the Dallas-based Synod of the Sun, conspired with a presbytery to violate a court order in an attempt to take control of local church property and were fined with sanctions. See id. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 27

28 (iii) Irreparable Injury and Inadequate Remedy at Law 81. The third and final prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief is proof of an irreparable injury and inadequate remedy at law. Ordinarily, [a]n injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. See also Texas Indus, Gas v. Phoenix Metallurgical Corp., 828 S.W.2d 529, 588 (Tex. App Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (finding no adequate remedy at law when potential damages cannot be calculated). 82. Because the requested restraining order and injunction is intended to protect FPC s title to real property, the inadequacy of any legal remedy is presumed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE (4). In this case, the property implications of this matter will only be reached after the Presbytery has caused substantial non-pecuniary damage and interrupted the daily ministry of FPC. Before the Presbytery can purport to exercise any authority over FPC s property, it would have to take the extraordinary step of ousting FPC s pastoral staff, governing session, or Board of Directors, or all three. The forcible removal of every vestige of FPC leadership would not only have an incalculable effect upon those leaders cast out, but there is no way of foreseeing how such action might affect the congregation, the day care program in its building, or the ministries so dependent upon FPC. 83. FPC is a not-for-profit corporation whose sole purpose outside of religious worship is the spiritual, moral, and emotional edification of its members and non-members within its sphere of influence. Like any such organization, it is highly dependent upon continuity of membership, leadership, and fellowship. FPC is dedicated exclusively to serving those in spiritual and physical need, literally measuring its impact not in dollars and cents, but in lives and souls. Where the interruption of a business might result in lost profits, the interruption of FPC s ministry could PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 28

29 immediately deprive other charities, a needy family or individual of the flow of resources on which they have come to depend, both tangible and intangible. Moreover, because the ministries of FPC often serve those with the greatest need, the disruption of FPC s operations would be greatly magnified and disproportionately felt by those with the least means. 84. Among the ministries and philanthropic causes which depend on FPC are many that are dedicated to bettering the lives of people in the City of Gatesville and Central Texas. For a number of years, FPC has supports The Big Sting, an organization that provides resources to cancer patients, the Ministerial Association, which pays utilities and buys food for those struggling in the community, the Ronald McDonald House in Temple Texas, and Operation Stand Down, which provides aid to veterans and homeless veterans. Additionally, FPC supports local retirement homes, poor families at Christmas, and other charity events in the community. 85. As a non-profit administrator of donations and contributions, FPC is heavily dependent upon the continuous and steady flow of offerings and gifts from its members. However, the mere uncertainty caused by the pending threat of a Presbytery takeover is enough to stem the flow of resources into the church from anyone who legitimately fears the day that the Presbytery takes action. Not only is it impossible to quantify such lost contributions, but any reduction in collections could directly inhibit the ability of the session to routinely fund charities and otherwise spend discretionarily. 86. The concerns expressed above easily exceed the type of irreparable injury needed to justify preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Sonvvalkar v, St. Luke s Sugar Land P ship, L.L.P., 394 S.W.3d 186, 201 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (finding loss of interim management rights irreparable); Guardian Say. & Loan Ass n v. Williams, 731 S.W.2d 107, 108 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (finding consequences of property foreclosure PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 29

30 irreparable); Lifeguard Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Direct Aled Network Solutions, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 102, 112 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2010) (finding potential loss of goodwill, loss of reputation in the industry irreparable). 87. In light of the foregoing concerns, likelihood of success, and probability of harm, a temporary restraining order and injunction while this suit is pending is necessary to stay the hand of the Presbytery from any actions that would adversely affect FPC s longstanding control of its own property. Temporary injunctive relief would also protect the members of FPC who, under Texas nonprofit corporation law, are the members of, and in effect the shareholders of, the local church corporation. Compared to the immeasurable damages that might be experienced by the FPC congregation and those it helps if an injunction is not issued, the harm that the Presbytery might suffer because of the requested injunction is wholly immaterial. At present, the Presbytery does not own, use, enjoy, or administer any of the assets or property of FPC, which only FPC possesses, controls and operates. A temporary restraining order and temporary injunction are merely needed to preserve the status quo until such time as the question of ownership, use, and control of the property of FPC can be determined by the civil courts. 88. Due to the risk of immediate and irreparable harm that might result before a hearing can be had on this Application for Temporary Restraining Order, FPC has filed this Petition ex parte and without notice to the Presbytery. TEX. R. CIV. P FPC is willing to post a reasonable bond as directed by the Court. 90. FPC respectfully requests a hearing on its Petition for Temporary Injunction within fourteen days. PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 30

31 IX. ATTORNEYS FEES 91. FPC has retained experienced legal counsel to represent it in this action and has agreed to pay reasonable and necessary attorneys fees. FPC seeks recovery of its reasonable attorneys fees and expenses under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff, First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas prays that Defendant be required to appear and answer herein and that Plaintiff have judgment for declaratory relief and injunctive relief in its favor as follows: 1. Declaratory Relief- Declaratory relief recognizing that all personal property of any kind (including, without limitation, all accounts, funds, stocks, furnishings, art, materials, and intellectual property) and all real property and improvements thereon (as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit 1) held by or for First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas, whether corporeal or incorporeal, wherever located, movable or immovable, (collectively Personal and Real Property ), is held and owned by and for First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas, free and clear of any trust for the use or benefit of the PCUSA or any other denomination, and that all Personal and Real Property is titled in the name of First Presbyterian Church of Gatesville for its exclusive benefit, ownership and control under the laws of the State of Texas, and that neither the PCUSA nor any of its regional administrative units such as Grace Presbytery, has any right, title or interest in said Personal and Real Property nor the right to determine the ownership, use or control thereof; 2. Injunctive Relief - A. Temporary Restraining Order-entering a Temporary Restraining Order be issued against Grace Presbytery, its officers, agents, employees, and counsel, and any persons or entities in active concert or participation with the Presbytery, or acting by or through the Presbytery or on its behalf or in its stead from: (1) Filing any documents in the mortgage and conveyance records in Coryell County, or any County where FPC s property is located, the effect of which would be to place a cloud on the title of any property titled in the name of plaintiff; PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 31

32 (2) Otherwise taking any action to claim or assert ownership, use, or control of the Personal and Real Property, or a right to determine ownership, use or control of the Personal and Real Property, in the possession or control of, owned by, titled in the name of or held for the benefit of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas; (3) Asserting any rights to the property of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas, including but not limited to seeking to change the locks of the church, initiating any disciplinary action against the ministers or members of the church, appointing an administrative commission with authority to assume original jurisdiction over FPC s local governance and control of local property possessed by or titled in the name First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas or otherwise interfering, by dissolution or otherwise, in any way with the property-related rights and responsibilities of the employees of FPC, the governing body of FPC (the session), its congregation, or the governing body of its local church corporation FPC (the board of trustees); (4) Contacting any financial institution to assert a claim of interest in any account, fund, stock or other asset held in the name or for the benefit of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas; or (5) Taking action to prevent FPC from exercising the rights granted to it by the Texas Business Organizations Code, including the right to sue in its name, to elect or appoint officers and agents, to adopt and amend governing documents or to otherwise conduct its business in accordance with Texas law; or (6) Otherwise interfering with the normal duties and responsibilities of the officers, ministers, and employees of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas or any designees thereof in any way that pertains to the ownership, control, use or disposition of the Real and Personal Property held by, for or in the name of First Presbyterian Church, Inc. of Gatesville, Texas. B. Temporary Injunction - enjoining defendant during the pendency of this suit, from any of the acts described in paragraph 2(A) of this prayer; C. Permanent Injunction - permanently enjoining defendant from any of the acts described in paragraph 2(A) of this prayer; 3. Reasonable and necessary attorneys fees through trial and any appeal or application for relief to any appellate court by any party; PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 32

33 4. All costs of suit; and 5. For all such other further general and equitable relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, /S/ Kent C. Krause Kent C. Krause, Texas Bar No Heather N. Nale, Texas Bar No CRADDOCK DAVIS & KRAUSE LLP 3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 550 Dallas, Texas (fax) And Allen Place Tex. Bar No The Law Offices of Allen Place 109 South 7 th Street Gatesville, Texas Attorneys for First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 33

34 VERIFICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS CORYELL COUNTY Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Linda Davis, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to affiant, affiant testified: l. My name is Linda Davis. I am over the age of 18, of sound mind, a citizen of the United States, and fully capable of makjng this verification. 2. I have read the VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY J1JDG~NT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT.INJUNCTION, to be filed on behalf of First Presbyterian Church of Gatesville, Texas. 1 am familiar with the facts alleged therein. 3. f have actively attended First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas since I have served on the First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas session, the governing body of the church, for two terms. 5. I am currently serving as Clerk of Session, the administrative representative of that body and have responsibility for taking the minutes of the meetings of the session and congregation. 6. Because of the extensive breadth of the facts discussed in the Petition, wmch span more than 132 years. there is no one who has personal knowledge with regard to the veracity of certajn historical statements, but it is my understanding these statements are from the archives of First Presbyterian Church, lnc., of Gatesville, Texas. 7. However, due to my tenure as a member of First Presbyte1ian Church, Inc.. of Gatesville, Texas as well as my substantial involvement in the ministries of the church, its governance, and its daily activities, 1 am qualified to personally attest to the accuracy of the factual allegations made by First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas in its Petition. 8. I attest to the truthfulness of the statements and factual allegations in the Petition made with regard to first 'Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas and its governance over the past several years, its ministry, and its operations, including its current ministries. its relationship with Grace Presbytery. Inc., its relationshjp with the denomination, its renunciation of a trust, its property holdings, its corporate charter, its corporate bylaws, and its actions concerning dismissal. PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETlcnON FOR OECLAR.ATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLlCA TlON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINTNG ORDER AND TEMPORARY ANT> PERMANENT INJUNCTION P11ge 34

35 9. With regard to the remainder of the statements and factual allegations made in the Petition concerning the formation of First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas in 1885, its property transactions. its incorporation, its property deeds, the hjstorical denominational constitutions, historical denominational positions, and historical correspondence with the Grace Presbytery, Inc., I did not have the contemporaneous particular involvement that would enable me to personally attest to those events. However, I am broadly acquainted with the events and circumstances which surround and arose out of these allegations. In connection therewith, I have reviewed the source documents on which tbese statements are based, including selected session minutes; published constitutional provisions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, the PCUS, and the PCUSA; correspondence between First Presbyterian Church, Inc., of Gatesville, Texas and Grace Presbytery, Inc.; and congregational resolutions. Based upon a reasonable review of these documents, together with my own familiarity with the general subject matter, T verify that the statements and factual allegations made in the Petition are true and correct. Further affiant sayeth not. Sworn to and subscribed before me this c:<c> day of January, My Commission Expires: 3 - d. - dlo I 9 PLA.lNTJFF'S VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLAR~ TORY.JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Page 35

36 TITLE RUN TO: First Presbyterian Church 1110 E. Main Street Gatesville, Texas RE: Deed Search LEGAL: All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land In the City of Gatesville, Coryell County, Texas out of the C. Cazanoba Survey, and being Lot No. One (1) in Block Nineteen (19) of the Original Town of Gatesville, Texas. I have searched the records of CORYELL COUNTY LAND & ABSTRACT COMPANY from 1899, to September 19, 2014, and report that title to the above ref~renced property is as follows: RECORD OWNER: First Presbyterian Church of Gatesville, Texas DOCUMENTS OF RECORD: Warranty Deed dated January 9, 1899, executed by J. C. Chrisman and wife Katie D. Chrisman to R. D. Heatley, recorded -In Vol. 24, Page 106, Deed Records of Coryell County, Texas. Warranty Deed executed by R. D. Heatley to Frank Foreman, J. W. Sherrill and J. D. Shipman trustees for The Gatesville Presbyterian Church of Gatesville, recorded in Vol. 24, Page 142 and recorded March 1, 1899 In the Coryell County Deed Records. Affidavit of Identity and Limitation, executed by Frank Kelso to First Presbyterian Church of Gatesville, recorded in Vol. 178, Page 98, Deed Records of Coryell County, Texas. This report is neither a guaranty or warranty of title and liability of the company for mistakes or errors is expressly li~ted to the fee, if any, paid to the company for this report. Dated this the 1911t of September, 2014 Coryell County Land & Abstract Co. 620 E. Leon St. Gatesville, Texas by: Trina Jeter Pg.1 t I EXHIBIT 1

37 GF# 14-Prcsbyterlan DISCLAIMEROFLIABILlTYANDCOVENANTNOTTOSUE The porty requestio~ this title ran oclmowledgcs by their signatures below that lb.is is au information report only and this report is not a title policy of insurance, aor is it a GtJe opinion by any officer or employee of Coryell Cow1ty Land and Abstraet Company, nor any atto01ey associated with said company. The requesting party further agrees that Coryell County Land and Abstract Company has no interest in any transaction involving the subject property Clther than providing the information requested in return ror the fee paid for such report and thnt any liability of CoryeJJ Counly Land and Abstract O>mpany is limited to the amount paid for this report. The requesting party further admowledgcs that title insurance may be pu.rcbased for the fee prescn'bed by the Texas Department oflnsura11ce, but that neither title insurance nor a commitment for.- title idsw-ance has been requested. The requesting party hereby agrees that as additional consideration for this report not to file suit in any court of this st.ate, another state or the United States for damages alleged to be caused by any inf<1rmation contained in or omitted from this report, nor shall any third party have any right to rely on or make any claim for damages based on this report. Acceptance of this disclaimer:' and agreement js effective Uj)Qll the receipt of and payme.ot for this title run. RequestiDg Party's Signature Pg.~

38 r I~ I ~ k fie =. h ::! [ i I ti. a ~ JI ~ Ii ~ l -! J.'"t l & 8 1 l i i l ~ " e.. L> -1 t n l l " I 'I r,. ~l ll t;ir.j! r.i ~-l '.! r r t f [ l] i ~ r " ~ J r 2, t J! L r I i l ' I r1 ~ t ' R ~ ~ I 1 "'' l.: t I [ ~ ~ t I ~ ~ t l 1 1! I fr i! I 1 l ii [.- f ~J f ~ Ji ~ '\.ti n'. r; ' lt J i I. ~'.i t l..,.; 'i I t1 f f I - ~ t l t ~it { ' (.. H I. r I. f ~ q -.J.A rl ~ lj l f 1 l I 'hi tt. ~i rs l '"'!.t I~!I I l ~ i f f 5 I I r : t I l I -. ' I :. I. : ~ I ' i :! I.! : I r- ~ (]).a>- 0 <t.. r J I J 1.J

39 - I m ) ; ; 7 I,,- ~ ~ _:II... \ I f I ',

40 ; Witness our hands this Z?th day or April, AD t.s. 50 Fede:ral Revanue Stampe canoelled. The State of Texas Oounty or Coryell Ben H.Roblneon Glennie Hay.Robinson Detore me, the undersigned authority, ~n and for Coryell Cbunty,Texaa, on th1.s day personally appeared Ben H.Rob1niron and G1ennJ.e May Rob1naon, h1. wife, both knoim to tue to be the persons vhoee names are subsor1bed to the foregoing 1natrwaent, &o~nowledged to me tb&t they eaoh executed the same for the purposes and oona1derat1on therein e pressed, and tbe aa1d Olenn1e HllJ' Robinson ~lfe or the ea.id B6n a.robi.nson having been OXB.lllined ' b:j roe pri'lr1.l,. and apart t"r-011 her husband, and having the same fully e xpl111ned to her, she, the sai d Glennie May Robtneon aoknowl e<lgad such l n~trumont to be her act and deed, end she declared that ahe had wll llngly s1gned the same ~o~ the purposes and ooneideratlon the:re1n expressed, and that she did not ldah to retract it. Given under my hand and seal of of1'1ce, thla 27th day o.f Apl'll, A. D. 19!)1. (Beal) Franoes Beel!llln 1 Notary Public, Oo~yell County.Texas. Filed t or reoord Hay at Z: 20 o 1 olook P.K. Raoorded Ma:r at 9:15 o 1 olook A. K, u:;;.... ~Q~.<nQ'.\D... ty ~ Aff ld&v1 t or Idenut ;r & Llmltation P.r""1\k Kelso, et al To #7850 F1rst Presbyterian Ohurch,Gatesv111e A.lf. Ellie, Olerk Oou,nty Oourt, 0ol"1ell Oounty,Texae. nd The State of Texae, Oonnty ot Coryell Before me, t he undersigned authorit y, on thle.day personally appeared Frank Kelso and Mrs. j,p. (Marie) Kendrlok, a w1dov, affiante, and on their oaths aay and depoee as follows: At'fiant Frank Kelso says he ie e.1.xty eight (60) years of age; that be has rea1ded cont1.nuouely ln the Oity of Oateaville,Coryell Oount;r, Te.irae, for the past forty eight (46) yeare: that he le pe.raonally acquainted with t he First Presbyterian Church of Gate11ville,'l'exae, and has been a member of said church oont1nuoua1y t or the past rorty ei ght l4b) y eamj. Af't.1ant Mrs. J.P. Kend'1'1ok ea.ye oho le seventy e1x ( 76) yoare o~ age; that aho has raelded oontlnuoualy ln t he Oi ty or Gateeville,Ocryell Oounty, Texas, for the past forty nine (49 ara; that ehe is personally acqualn~ ed with t~e First Presbyterian Ohuroh ot Oateeville,Texaa, and hae been a member or aa1d church cont1nuouely for the paet elxty (60) years. Affiant Mrs. J. P. Kendrick says that she ~e personally a oqualnted -1th Frank Forman, J,\f.8herrill. and J,l>, 5h1l>l1l1tn, the Trustees!or the Oatell'Ville Preab;yter!Bn Oburah of Oatesv!.11e

41 ... - (~\ Trustees, and with eai.d above property and church. Both aft1ant s say that the Gateev~l1e Preabyte~1an Obur9h of aateeville, Te~a e, t h e named gyoantee 1.n Ba1d deed, ls the cnuroh body or Which they have al...afb been member during ihe respective years above mentioned. and personally Know that it. 1e the one and satne church body preeentlt known ae First Presbyterian Church or Oo.teov~lle,Texas, the name of said ohuroh on the date or th1e affidavit. Further, botn ai't'lan ts say that the said First Presbyterlan Chul'cli. ot Gatesville, Texas, grantee of said property ~ndar said deed 1 h.a.e owned, occupied, used and poeaeesed aa.~d above descri bed property conti nuously rrom the date of said deed to the date of' th1.a affidavit. claiming title t~ suoh property as 1te own under auoh deed: that w~ personally kno~ t;he location and 4lmene1one on the ground ao now poeeeased by said church t o be ldentical and the eame with t hat cal.led ror in s&.td deed; that during all such period. to-wit: Crom Haroh 1st, 1899i to date ot th~e &'f~idavit, such paeaeeaion or the said F1ret Presbyterian Ohu~ah of Oatea'Vil~e, Texas, hae been open and notorl oua in th community ana the possessi on was peaceable, not being interrupted by adverse suit t o recover said above de~orlbed property or otherwise interrupted by advel;'s e claim or ueer, end tba1j thel"e are no't, on the date or this 11.ffldaYlt, an1 outstanding l 1ena or. enoumberanees whatsoever agalnat said property and that there ts no person ln poseession or the above deaorib&d prem191i.e claiming title ad ereel.y' to said record owner.. Frank Ielee Mrs ; J. P. Kendrick Sworn to W1d eubscrl~ ed before me, by the aa1d Frank Ke+eo and Hrs. J. P. ~endrl6k tble 7th day or May A..D. 1951, to oert14 l'fhioh, witness rq hand and seal or off.1.ce, (Se&l) The State or Texaa. \ Count y of Coryell Batley Curry, Notary Publ1o, Oor yell Oaunty,Texae. Before me, the undereigoed authority, a Notary Publ1 in Bild ror said Gounty,Texaa, an this day peraona1ly appeared Frank Kelso and HrB. J.P.Kendr1ok a widow, knowa to me to be the pereona whos.e names are subscribed to tlle foregoing 1netrument, an. acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the purposes and conaldei::-auon therein expresa ( Given under my band. and seal of office, tb1e?th day of May (Sea.1) Bailey Curry, Notary Public, Ooryel l Co~nty,Texaa. Fll ed for record.may 8, 1951 at 10: '5 0 1 clock A, M. Reoor ded May 8, 1951 at 2:00 o'alock P.M. By{l,MU ~ ~ 4 'Ck4c Deputy.. A. 'If. Ell1.a 1 Olerk County Oourt, Oor)'el 1 Oounty, Texas. llelebae The Nati onal Bank o~ Gatesville To #7851 John T.Dyche The State of Texas

42 '.. Corporations Section P.O.Box Austin. Te.us Carlos Cascos Secretaiy of State Office of the Secretary of State The undersigned, as Secretary of State of Texas, does hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of each document on file in this office as described below: FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, INC., OF GATESVILLE, TEXAS Filing Number: Articles of Incorporation Miscellaneous June 30, 1978 June 30, 1978 In testimony whereof: I have hereunto signed my name officially and caused to be impressed hereon the Seal of State at my office in Austin, Texas on March 30, Carlos Cascos Secretary of State Phone: (512) Prepared by: SOS-WEB Come visit us on the lnlemet al ro.v.stale.tx.usl Fax: (512) Dial: for Relay Services TID: Document EXHIBIT 2

43 nl P ts. lbe <>Glee the ~of of Toa ARTICLES 07 IMCORPORATION OP JUN 30 '878 PIRS'r PRBSBY'l'!RIAl'f CHURCH!HC., We, the underaigned. natural persons or the ap of twenty one years or llox"lt. ai: lea.at two Of wholl an cithana or 'the State or T xaa. acting as incorporatora or a corpora.tlon under the 'l'azas Non-Prot"it Corporation.Act 1 do bar.by adopt "the following Artlclea of lngorporation f'or suoh cai-poratlon1 ARTICLE ONE The name ot the col"t>orat.lan is Plrst Preabyterlao Church, Inc of ~at svllle. Texas. ara1 ARTICLE TffO The corporation ls a non-profit corporation. ARTICLE THREE The period of 1 ta dura.tion is perpetual. AR'l'ICLE FOUR The purpose or purposea ror which the corporation is organ~ed To be a rel.iglous organisation and a comaunity of Christians in which God 1a worsbijjped through the pmaobj..n«of tbe Word and -the adainistratlon or 'the saoramenta ot Baptl and the Lord's S\Qlpel' tor the spiritual growth of all people. in Which Christian education ie provided th.rough Sm1da.Y Church School and activities f'ol" all ages, eapeolally Jouth, and in which persona in phyaical and spiritual naed race be care and nurture. AR'.PlCLB PIYB The oorpora1iion formed hereby shall have no capital atoclc. It shall be ocmposed of 1118iabel'S rather than &hareholdel'b. The aoncutiona end regulations ot membel"8h1p and 'the richta or other privileges of' the classes ot members shall be datenai.ned and!'ixed by the b,vlawa. ARTICLE SIX The m.anapuent and a.traits ot the corporation llball be 11WUlPd b1' a ~ of Trua1:" u governad by "the By-.Laws ot the corporation.!he Trvateea oonstltutita& 'tb lnltial Board of Tl'Uatee11 ia three ()} and the aamea and addrahh ot the persana who are to serve as 1:be initlal. Trustees are1 RAJIIB RONHll DIXOM DR. O. W. LOWRBY 'l'. V. FOOTE ADDRBSS cm Route l Gatesville, '!uaa Grand.dew Gat911Ville, Texas 76528?18 E. X.on St~t Oatenllle, 'texae?6528

44 ARflCLE SEVEN The street address of the illltial.re~istared office o~ the corporation is P. O. Box 26, Gateeville, Texas 76528, and the name of' ita ln1 tia1 re'liatared ~nt at such addt"esa is 'r. v. Foote. ARTICLE BIGHT The rume and street address of each 1ncorporator 1st tt.amb ADDRESS CITY RONNI! DIXON Rou'ta 1 GatettS.lle, '1'9Xall 76S2A DR. O. ':I, U>nEr U.06 Grandview ~atesville, Te%ae 76S2R T. V. FOOTE 7lfl E. lean Stnet GatasTilla, Texas 7652" I?1 NI'!:-IESS ~BREOP. we have hereuntn ~et our hand a, thb 27th day or June, T. v Tim STJ.!E OF 'l'bxas, COUNTY DP C~RYBI.la. I, fn.n$es J!temaG., a lfotvy Pub1io, do bereby certlf,- that on this 27th day ot June, l.918, personally appeared be.tol'e n, Ronnie Dixon, Dr. o. W. Lowre.r and rt. V. Foote.mo each being by me i'irst duly swom. snerall.j' declared tba"t the7 an the pe.rsoj\8 who signed the.foregoing documnt as inoorporato~, and that the eta'tatlents therein contained are 'tl'ue. IN WITNESS WHBRBOP I r have hereunto set a,y band add seal the day and y.ar above written.

45 EXHIBIT 3

46 b. Secreta:i;;y of the meetings shall be the Clerk of the Session. If )i\e~, or,!.;le~,. is ynable to _p.ttei;;d then t.ae.-moder9t.or may app<i>,;\ij.t.a mej!lbe:i;, Ji>;IJesent. to ac:j:.. as Secre;ta:i;:y.,. Minutes of the meeting shall be attested by the Session and entered in the minute b6ok of the Sessibri. ~1.. ' c. A quo~um consisting of not less than twenty-five (25) members,. shall be: present ''fbr a "tneetibg:.,.,,._. ~,. J,,- d.. 4ny active l;!,lemli'ler i)cs eligiple,to v"'te.ex}:!ept :on,matters requiring qne to,,lqe <qf -.le99l <Ji9e. ;. P"i'Ox is not permitted.. VI I. COV!MI 'l''l'e,es Committees of this Chm;-cp,,.spaLJ- be.responsible ;f0i:-:,warship., Educat; ion, Out-ReC\\1h,. )'oi;th PJ."ogram,!llominp.t;ing, Building I Finance and Budget. a. The Nominating Committee to- select neminees for new Church Officers is to be elected annually. The Committee shall consist of two members of the Sess.ion elected. by the. Session and three members of the. Congregati on to be electeu by the Congreg\3.tion at a c.alled meeting.. The Committee shall meet, appoint an Elder as Chairperson, and select act:lve members, with their consent, as nominees f.or the offices of Elder and Trustee. b. Other Committees shall consist of, at least, one Elder and two members of the Congregation. They shall be selected, with the approval of :the member, by. the Pastor, or, an Elder appointed by the Session, and approved by the Session. c. Ad Hoc Committees for a specific purpose shall.. be se1ected and approved as under :~rt icile-'ii Ib. above. VIII. CHURCH OFFICERS The Officers of this Church shall of Elders (Session and Trustees). stated in the Book of Order. consist of: Pastor, Board Their duties shall be as a. The Pastor. shall be' ca.lleo, by the Congregation subject to the provisions of the Book of Order and the approval of the Presbytery. If needed, for the development of the Church, more than one Minister may be called as Assist.ant Pastor. b. The Session shall consist of three. ( 3) classes of four ( 4) Elders. Each class shall serve a Jlerm of three ( 3 years. An Elder is not eligible f?r re-elec (ion until.he, or she, has been inactive fora period of one (1) year. Exception: if the Elder has been elected to fill an unexpire.d term then that Elder may be re-elected to serve a.full term;. c. Trustees shall be three (3) in number and shall serve and/ or be re-elected as applies i:o the Elders.

47 i: /.. v,,.. -,.,,~;j..,#' ~ By-Laws Page 3 OI 3 d. Elders and Trustees shall be elected by the Congregation from the nominees as pres.ented by the Noni1nating Committee, or may be nominated for e-lection from the floor. e. A majority of the vote-eligible members present shall be required to elect. f. Elders and Trustees elect shall participate in Church Officer Training Classes. to be conducted by a Mj.nister of the Presbyterian Church (USA) prior to being ordained and/or installed. Those who have had prior training may be. _excused by the Session. XIX. AM:ENDMENTl3 These By-Laws. may be amen.ded b.y the Session as needed and present_ed to the Congregation for their information. ',.,.

48 EXHIBIT 4 BOOK OF ORDER201S-2017 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S A) Part II.... ".. ::.. >cjik lf.. "

49 F-3.01 F F CHAPTER THREE PRINCIPLES OF ORDER AND GOVERNMENT F-3.01 HISTORIC PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH ORDER 1 In setting forth this Book of Order, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reaffirms the historic principles of church order, which have been a part of our common heritage and which are basic to our Presbyterian concept and system of church government, namely: F God Is Lord of the Conscience a. That God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men 2 which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. 3 b. Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others. F Corporate Judgment That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own. F Officers That our blessed Savior, for the edification of the visible Church, which is his body, hath appointed officers, 4 not only to preach the gospel and administer the Sacraments, but 1 This section, with the exception of the first paragraph, was first drawn up by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, and prefixed to the Form of Government as published by that body in In that year, the synod was divided into four synods and gave place to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which held its first meeting the following year. The four synods formed were the Synod of New York and New Jersey, the Synod of Philadelphia, the Synod of Virginia, and the Synod of the Carolinas. The presbyteries of these four synods were represented in the first General Assembly, which met in Philadelphia on May 21, The general plan drawn up in 1788 became that by which the Presbyterian Church in the United States and The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America were subsequently governed. 2 The words men and man s throughout this quotation from the eighteenth century should be understood as applying to all persons. 3 See the Westminster Confession of Faith (The Book of Confessions, 6.109). 4 The terms officers and office are preserved here as part of the historic language of the Principles. Elsewhere in the Form of Government the terms ordered minister and ordered ministry are used in place of officer and office. Book of Order 2015/

50 Principles of Order and Government F-3.01 F-3.02 F F F The Value of Ecclesiastical Discipline Lastly, that if the preceding scriptural and rational principles be steadfastly adhered to, the vigor and strictness of its discipline will contribute to the glory and happiness of any church. Since ecclesiastical discipline must be purely moral or spiritual in its object, b and not attended with any civil effects, it can derive no force whatever but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church universal. F-3.02 PRINCIPLES OF PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT 6 The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reaffirms, within the context of its commitment to the Church universal, a special commitment to basic principles of Presbyterian polity: F One Church The particular congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) wherever they are, taken collectively, constitute one church, called the church. F Governed by Presbyters This church shall be governed by presbyters, that is, ruling elders and teaching elders. Ruling elders are so named not because they lord it over the congregation (Matt. 20:25), but because they are chosen by the congregation to discern and measure its fidelity to the Word of God, and to strengthen and nurture its faith and life. Teaching elders shall be committed in all their work to equipping the people of God for their ministry and witness. F Gathered in Councils These presbyters shall come together in councils in regular gradation. These councils are sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it 6 This provision is derived from and intended to restate the Historic Principles of Church Government, which were adopted in 1797 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the Principles of Presbyterian Government. In this quotation, the word radical is used in its primary meaning of fundamental and basic, and the word appeals is used in a general sense rather than with reference to a case involved in judicial process: The radical c principles of Presbyterian church government and discipline are: That the several different congregations of believers, taken collectively, constitute one Church of Christ, called emphatically the Church; that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united: that is, that a majority shall govern; and consequently that appeals may be carried from lower to higher governing bodies [councils], till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church. For these principles and this procedure, the example of the apostles and the practice of the primitive Church are considered as authority. Book of Order 2015/

51 G-4.01 G-4.02 G G CHAPTER FOUR THE CHURCH AND CIVIL AUTHORITY G-4.01 INCORPORATION AND TRUSTEES G Incorporation and Power Where permitted by civil law, each congregation shall cause a corporation to be formed and maintained. If incorporation is not permitted, individual trustees shall be elected by the congregation. Any such individual trustees shall be elected from the congregation s members in the same manner as those elected to the ordered ministries of deacon and ruling elder. Terms of service shall be governed by the provisions of G The corporation so formed, or the individual trustees, shall have the following powers: to receive, hold, encumber, manage, and transfer property, real or personal, for the congregation, provided that in buying, selling, and mortgaging real property, the trustees shall act only after the approval of the congregation, granted in a duly constituted meeting; to accept and execute deeds of title to such property; to hold and defend title to such property; to manage any permanent special funds for the furtherance of the purposes of the congregation, all subject to the authority of the session and under the provisions of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The powers and duties of the trustees shall not infringe upon the powers and duties of the session or the board of deacons. Where permitted by civil law, each presbytery, synod, and the General Assembly shall cause a corporation to be formed and maintained and shall determine a method to constitute the board of trustees by its own rule. The corporation so formed, or individual trustees, shall have the following powers: to receive, hold, encumber, manage, and transfer property, real or personal, for and at the direction of the council. G Members of the Corporation Only persons eligible for membership in the congregation or council shall be eligible to be members of the corporation and to be elected as trustees. The ruling elders on the session of a congregation, who are eligible under the civil law, shall be the trustees of the corporation, unless the corporation shall determine another method for electing its trustees. Presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly shall provide by rule for the election of trustees from among persons eligible for membership in the council. G-4.02 CHURCH PROPERTY G Property as a Tool for Mission The property of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), of its councils and entities, and of its congregations, is a tool for the accomplishment of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world. Book of Order 2015/

52 G-4.02 G G Form of Government G Decisions Concerning Property The provisions of this Constitution prescribing the manner in which decisions are made, reviewed, and corrected within this church are applicable to all matters pertaining to property. G Church Property Held in Trust All property held by or for a congregation, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a congregation or of a higher council or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). G Property Used Contrary to the Constitution Whenever property of, or held for, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ceases to be used by that congregation as a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in accordance with this Constitution, such property shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery. G Property of a Dissolved or Extinct Congregation Whenever a congregation is formally dissolved by the presbytery, or has become extinct by reason of the dispersal of its members, the abandonment of its work, or other cause, such property as it may have shall be held, used, and applied for such uses, purposes, and trusts as the presbytery may direct, limit, and appoint, or such property may be sold or disposed of as the presbytery may direct, in conformity with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). G Selling, Encumbering, or Leasing Church Property a. Selling or Encumbering Congregational Property A congregation shall not sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber any of its real property and it shall not acquire real property subject to an encumbrance or condition without the written permission of the presbytery transmitted through the session of the congregation. b. Leasing Congregational Property A congregation shall not lease its real property used for purposes of worship, or lease for more than five years any of its other real property, without the written permission of the presbytery transmitted through the session of the congregation. G Property of Congregation in Schism The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a congregation can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery (G b). If there is a 62 Book of Order 2015/2017

53 The Church and Civil Authority G-4.02 G-4.03 G G schism within the membership of a congregation and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate congregations within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the congregation at the time of the schism. G Exceptions The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) except that any congregation which was not subject to a similar provision of the constitution of the church of which it was a part, prior to the reunion of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), has been excused from that provision of this chapter if the congregation, within a period of eight years following the establishment of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), voted to be exempt from such provision in a regularly called meeting and thereafter notified the presbytery of which it was a constituent congregation of such vote. The congregation voting to be so exempt shall hold title to its property and exercise its privileges of incorporation and property ownership under the provisions of the Constitution to which it was subject immediately prior to the establishment of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This paragraph may not be amended (G-6.05). G-4.03 CONFIDENCE AND PRIVILEGE G Trust and Confidentiality In the exercise of pastoral care, teaching elders (also called ministers of the Word and Sacrament) and ruling elders who have been commissioned by a presbytery to limited pastoral service (G-2.10), shall maintain a relationship of trust and confidentiality, and shall hold in confidence all information revealed to them in the course of providing care and all information relating to the exercise of such care. When the person whose confidences are at issue gives express consent to reveal confidential information, then a teaching elder or a ruling elder commissioned to pastoral service may, but cannot be compelled to, reveal confidential information. A teaching elder or a ruling elder commissioned to pastoral service may reveal confidential information when she or he reasonably believes that there is risk of imminent bodily harm to any person. G Mandatory Reporting Any member of this church engaged in ordered ministry and any certified Christian educator employed by this church or its congregations, shall report to ecclesiastical and civil legal authorities knowledge of harm, or the risk of harm, related to the physical abuse, neglect, and/or sexual molestation or abuse of a minor or an adult who lacks Book of Order 2015/

54 A.405 THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT If a particular church is incorporated, the provisions of its charter and bylaws must be in accord with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. All of its confirmed members on the active roll are members of the corporation. The officers of the corporation, by whatever name they are given, shall be elected from the confirmed members of the corporation in a regularly constituted congregational meeting. The officers of the corporation may be given any or all of the following responsibilities: holding title to church property for the benefit of the corporation and the Presbyterian Church in the United States; acquiring and conveying title to the property; buying, selling and mortgaging the property of the church; and managing any permanent special funds entrusted to them for church purposes. In buying, selling and mortgaging real property, the officers shall act under the authority of the corporation granted in a duly constituted meeting of the corporation. Powers and duties of the officers cannot infringe upon the powers and duties of the Session or the Board of Deacons, who maintain control and disbursement of all funds collected for the support and expense of the church and for the benevolent purposes of the church. All property held by or for a particular church, whether legal title is lodg_ed in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and. whether the property is used in programs of the particular church or. retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. If a particular church is dissolved by the Presbytery, attempts by either majority or unanimous vote to withdraw from the Presbyterian Church in the United States or othenvise ceases to exist or function as a member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, any property that it may have shall be within the control of the Presbytery and may be held for designated purposes or sold or disposed of in such manner as the Presbytery, in its discretion, may direct. The relationship to the Presbyterian Church in the United States of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the Presbytery (4-2). If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the Presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church in the United States (see 16-7), the Presbytery shall?etermine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the Presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church in the United States. This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to render a particular church, church court, or its property liable for the debt or obligations of any other church court. Nothing in this chapter shall be cons.trued to limit the power of Presbytery to receive and dismiss churches with their property, provided such requests are made in proper order. 19 EXHIBIT 5

55 A lQ THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER 6-8. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a particular church to seek or obtain the consent or approval of any church court above the level of the particular church in order to buy, sell or mortgage the property of that particular church in the conduct of its affairs as a church of the PCUS The provisions of 14-5 and 14-6, and of other sections in this Constitution setting forth the manner in which decisions are made, reviewed and corrected within the Presbyterian Church in the United States, are applicable to all matters relating to property This Chapter is declaratory of principles to which the Presbyterian Church in the United States and its antecedent church bodies have adhered from the inception of the presbyterian form of church government. 20

56 1 l. Mi:p: te1s of the l2l st Ge era...semb ~ r ~res ~yt.erilu!l Chatch tn thhe- rtnitced Statetf PA.RT! ;JO tj ft.naji.. with Dh'e~~ ~ Appendii Mmy q, 19'81 Heueto~ Te~ +e EXHIBIT 6

57 MIKlJTES OP THB GENERAL AISEMBLY Oloder to obtain a qlld?wll th Jfodanltor ot the eleciu. cowt hill eppo&nt to the Com111i.ID11 tor t.m po!\)olle of t7yfjir ~t aae llldftcan1 numti. ot former Pll'lllanant IDdlalal Com111lulocl members w'-8 t9naa t.ye nplred w1tbltl tbe last m Je&l9 ot, 1f AOne v. avlllable, UlCll IUIY pet'solls who would be el1glbje fdf' eleetiql'i tit ~ co-i.mloe. Tiie C.om imion so eomtittited an p.oceed to tile trial or the cue. S 2H. I inm. I 2CMI. Tbe JudlpRent oc P manent J\Klct.al Commisafoo hell~ tfle jlqment ot the ~ court. 11le Stated Cl.tc o! the Oe!Mral Aaeemb]1 llwlll relff to tilt Ptrma.nent ludl4lal Commillioo ot the Oeoanl ~rnbl1 an quatigllll ~ trom courts of tile Ctlta'cll or ffom indilliduab requlrblf an mterpreuttae. of the Book of Church Order tr; the Ganeral Aaambly ed an ov t '*l\m8\inr M1end11umt ~ tbe Bodt of Churcl:t Order. a. On ~UCllW ot tntet"ppetatlon or the Book ot ClnlreJI Order llolllflt trom the o.n...i AwemNJ, the Co111tnla8fon 8hlll act u a Committee. It llhall report to U'8 Generll Altembly reoomm~ tba Jntwpntatiof! it thfnb corr.eat and~ the reuom fe;, ita ~on. b. On questt~ ol am~ the COIWQtutioa, the Cornruiaai0n shall act u a C0tnmJttee. It 8haD repcrt to the Gerun.I. Auembl,v ell pertinent facts, pml'licndarly thah aoaclll'lli,., the relation of the {ll'(l(>om4 &m dment to tbe eon.tttutlm ea whol" 111.d lhall reoocnmend to the G1nvel Al!lll:fllbly -~ the pt'qpomd amendment. T.lle 41Rmbb' cannot COM1der an amendment undl there has been opportuntty for a NpOl't from the Co111m'8sfon. Ti. PermaJllllll Jlld1C!lal CommlM!Oll lb8ll meet u directed by tn. G IU!ral Aaeembly, provided that, lt b11121leaa bu arjhn wbieh It mlllt trensaot fof' tfte Aaaeinbb, the Com111ielllon bill meet in ample Ume to make lb report. Q. That I be amended by deleting the wordl "u provided 1n tl1e Rules.ol Dbclpline" from tu first een1ence and by ~tilllf the raterenoet1 to 1101-f at U11 end, R. That 5 ~ be amended by deletfnc U111 IAst MDte1u:o and all reftte11e119 and by nddtng the following sentedeec When so aot.ing the Commlaskc on the MinlStu hall al lly* bald ~ wflich e!fotd lll'oc'tdural atepardl o! the Jlules of DDatpUne 111 fv 111 they are apprqwlate. & Tblt Chl()tet Ill, "Pll'lll8Mnt JaclclaJ Commiallcaa of 9Jnod, be dlilet.d In ttll entirety. T. That 5 2H be amomdlld by deleting tl!e retarenn to S 101"'8 at the and of the -.rtlon. o. That 5 H-t be &JatDdad bf deleting the phase ftu in a-of p~ ln the Udrd line and ~ die pr.t "aud due proe$8b u In remedial and ddclpllnary aaes" and fli deletl,., the refervt1ee to I lm at the ead or the sectjon. 0.0TBa 'nlc above uneodlnertta wm. It t~ enact-4, tue e;t!ect on 1111uuy l of the yeor followi~ their rlnal IP{lf'O'f/ll end a.ctment pllj'swjt t4 S 30-l of t,lje Book ot Clil-Reh. Order. Putther, that the Rllle. bereln b;ell p.m an _ptoc~ lldcl aotioo& brought after tr_, f.8lte effect, and ajbo an Cllrth ~ and al!tiodi then peadlrg, esoept to Uie aiant that Jn the opinion of the eourt baftnc juriedictlon, t11cir -opllcetjon In ()UtJoular aouoll ~ wben the R.Ues take ett ct wod.d not be feaaible or would work lnjusttoe, IA wbloh e'\ltnt tile formu proced\lre eppues. -Btated CJAdc.) B. MUtfDMJtM'nl DEALING WlTK CHURCH PROPEilTY. Thet tlle present Ohapter e b e- deleted AliPd Ult new Cbepter 6 be adopted! CllAPT!.R 8 U-1 CJIORCB ~PDTI Jf e putlmllar church ls not ineorpora~ It m~, at rqular'ly constituted conpefauollal me.et:uig, elect cvteln of its coaflrmed memben tnist-, to hold thle to propercy fn t1'115l for the btmefit at the partioular cl!uroh,:id or t!le Prea,,t.-ian Clwrah In th.e Untted Stlt91. The t rust.e have..pqllfei' and authority t.o buy 1 sell or mcrtg.,e property for the cbl.il'oh, to accept and eacute de6 end to manage eny petmanent.op9c!i4l funds antruated to them for churcb ~ fjl bujhlf, ~ ar ~ r.i property, the tnstees llnll act Ullder Ure m.truotsons of ttie ~tion adopted In a rl!ib'l)uly coiutituted rn.. Uq. Tb.U power11 md dvtieii cannot intmdge upon the pol'l'«w or duties at the Sellion or Ule Boerd ot D1acom. 11la trustea do not hold tlt:le1o ()8nlONll pr~ or hn11'81pc11\11.bilty few it ueept to the uteat ~ llv911 to~... Jt a p&rt1gu1ar.chiircm la taoorporated, the provtsi0111 of its C!harter and bylaws a1111t ~ In aecord with the Cocwtitu:tlon <11 the PretDyterian Chureh Jn the United Stat-. All ol its cont1rmed llui1111bw1 co the active roll &r11 m1mbenl of tlie eoj"pontfon. The offtcgn of l2ie ~t1on, by "llllt..ee na- they ere Ciffn. lfm11 be el ote4 from the CU\Clrined members oi the corpo1'8tlon In a regwu1y conatttlrted ooarreptiooal mee~. 22'

58 I &-3 S 6-4 S U S IHI APl'J!NDlX Tiii! oltleers Of the corporation may be giv )' or all of file tollo1ma' f'lllponalbjlitjes holdirwt UUe to ahllreh ~ far t~ benefit ot the c<lqior tfon and the Pretbyterian Ch\IT'Ob in the United states, acquiring llnl! C'OJIYeyVJa title to tbe prqiert.y; ~..W,. tldd mortglltrlng the propercy ot I.be ohw-chl end mluleefni «llj Pel'llWl llt apeolal funds entrusted to them fol' ehllr'oll purpoeee. bl bi&>illl', ~ and m~ Niii proper.~>, the offlc«ll lhall act UDcler tho autb.o11ty of. the C!C11>Cn'&tion creotsd in a ct.lly ~titllted mectinig o( tlle norpcration. Powen and dutjea of the ottlc!era eaneot ~ ~ tba powers alld dlitfes or tbe 8-ion or tile Boac! or Dee.eOllS, wflo.maintain COOtrOl lllld 41bunement of all tudds eollected few tti. 1114JPOrt and upeme or the churcb BDd rw ttie benevolent I>u:r' of. tbe ahlreh. All p.roperty held by w far a Pattteular d!u?el\ tfhetber. tec&l title is JD~ In a eorporetioo, a t1'111itee or tri.tca, or an lllllnoorporated uaoai'1ion. and whetlwr the pl'oper ty Is uaed ill pl'ogl'mla of the partil!lllar cburc!h ot foetained f~ the prodl.tction ot IJ\comv, Is held in trut nsverthtle.s IM the UM and bfnelit ot th& PNabyteriQ Churob in tile United St.tu. lf e puticaler church la dla&olyed bj tlle Preebytery, attempts by ritha major!~ or unanimom vote to wfthclraw {rom tile Pre.bflerj11n Church fn ~ United St.tel or otherwise cee.ms to CIUt or f\j.nction as a member ol. tlle PN!lbyter!an Chureh In th' United St11t91, 11113' property tbat it llll\y have did be wit.hill ~ oon trqi or the Pr&11b~ry and mar be held f«designated Pllrl>Ol88 or aold or ~ of J:I lllloh 11Wl118t IS the Ptwbytery 1 In Its ~euon, may dij'ect. 'fb relationship t.o the PrNbyterian Cbureb. In the United States o( pertle\llu ch1jrol1 «;ft.i' be severed only by CO!lltitulional «tlon Oil the Plll'1 ot.. me.prosbyt ry (4-ll). If thwe.ii IChtam within the m mberahip of a putlaular ollu:tcll and th Precibytuy Is uoa~ to fflfeet a reconeillatfon or a dmslon lnto separete el'>urohcs within ihe Pre$byterian Church ill the Uni ted Stat.811 (!lee ls.-7), the l'retbytery shall determine l! Olte of the factions ia antitled to the property bec8.u!!e Jt Is ldemtrted by the Prmbfter1 as the true eburt\h within the Prubfterlan Ohureh In ~ United States. This d9term.iaatlon doel not dec>end upon which faotioll ~eived the maj«ity vote within the particular ahuttb at the time at. the sel1iam. Noth!~ in ttdl ehapter lllall be corw1trued to re!lder a putlcrular cjlur(!h, et.jreh court. or its pniperty liable for tfl debt or ol>ll«at\om or any other clwrc.b court. 5 1-'1 N~ In Ulla clw.pter lliai! be C!U'IStrued to limit the powe ~ ot P~teey to reoelve and &ml.sa l!bul'ehs wttll lite! PrCQerty, pro~ SUC".h r8cl'lest5 are made In ~ aeder. S 6-8 I H i 6-10 Ho~ In tba. chapter lha1l be comtrut'd to require pertfoahr ohurdl to Hele or obtain the CCllM!llt ' apl/l'0 11 ot any t!hurch oourt a.bofe tbe l4mll of tha partio&llar cburah ln ordc!i' to bl " mortgage the prilpeny ot tllat parttll!\allr ehllrah In tb9 CODduct at.!ts at!afl'i u a ct111rch or ttie J>COS. The pro'ftslms of ~ e1ld a.pd of other aeetloi. in thla Conatihdlon set~ fet>ui the m11mer bl wtuh cleciliooa a.re made. revi.wed and QOm!Cted "!thin 1h8 PrMJtcian Church In the Unlteil Btatea, are appijc1bl to all mattws-relattng to i;nooperty. Thia Ot.ptm: is declarataey ot prfnl!jpll!tl to Wbloh tjie PresbJterl111 Churcll In the United Blatti and Its enlocedertt churda bodies hlrva &dhered from the Inception ot the pl'ftbytarlail fc:rm of church govtrrunent. {~OTll Per tile Report ot the Subconultittee on Chureh Property and the APS*ldlceis, which ue to i,. Included oo the bellot, eee ~ ~ 000-Slftcd cl!rk.) C. AXBNDlllERTB DULDIG wtrji A 9Dl90!fA'DOlf PJ.ARW 10.B A TEllPOJU.JlY PABtOBAL OF.PlCB. 1. Tha.t s~uon Zli-1 be amended by the &4clitlon or tbe fodow!llf ltalicized worde so that the llttd para;raph l'mds1 I!. T.b1 tempoftl'y putorel r-1atio111 whtoh m~ eldat between a M!niltar ot the Word ud l>c'ucular ohuroh arer P~, wften called tl1lder the D~t0J1 Plan for nomfnat:lng a Paator, Stated Suppb'I lnter1111 Supply; IJ\d Oeouianal 8Upply. That Section 28 3 be amended by addlqc the following ~bl I I l A ~atiori llllly 'oan a Putor to serve. for a limited tetlll ot Ml'Vfoe or not las t han two, 11or more than four ~an. Oftl:Y if it is participating in the D~Uon Plan!Of' Nominatinl a Paruir. Tbl& plan pro fdee tbat the Putor aba1l be nominated b)' the eorcr~~c 1'i Pastor Nomin.m. Commit* on])' t1010 ll!dqq( those designated by the Commission oa tjie Minlllter ot t~ PreabytOl')'. Concregations atld Mlntrt.s. ot Uie Word who parti oipflte In the pj.in Bhall do llo voluntarily and only after gr!or collc\lrntlce ot die Presbytery. A P tor er Candidate oalled in ttdl WQ ahsll be ejeeteod by the COJ~ Ptfot\, and t.h tcrm1 oc call llhall be approhd by Prabytary. A.Putor I~ a limited term Wll be ejlcltlle tor SJ10ther llrolted term or t or perjnanent ellll!ouowtn( the eo1111titutlodl!.llj ~bed proe- of BCO H -1 and 18-S..U!I

59 MIMUTBS or TMI GElfBaAL ASSEMBLY D. AMDl>IOlml namtllfg A COMCDIB04TIOJlf TO BA'B.KOllB Tll.A1' OKI DQT.&.u.ED P6Sl'O&. (!tot.a 'l1le ljlll a...i A.uembly did not l'*tuin ttie Pl'dlytertea to eolllllcsar the followinc ameftdlllenta u uolt. However, thej' are ~y related and "-ld be~ or rfdeeted ~~ SS!ted Cleric.) 1. Tbat leeuop be ameded by imel'titjc ~ itaudnd woig llo that It rmdp 2H. lh ftch llflwch ttier. stlauld be. J'utQJ' wbo bas 1JJe chlty ot olterlnj the Ml Mmilt:7 ot'tbe Ward end laanments. Chllreh&a 1nay choo to c:aa "' ' Chan one l'utor. WIWn there ars two or mar. l'aacan, thq topu- hove th~ of a((ffrlng the full~ of thl WQr(l.-S Soaramentt. With the s..ian, u. Pastor or lutcn ai.d ~ thet the Ol'dlr and dllelpjtae ot Ule ClllU'Cb lhder Cfrlst tba ILled are prapcr!y obeeryed. 3. Tr.t the first ffl\tence of Se.)tion 2s~s be Pl ended bf hlaectjna- 'the Italicized wol'd!l 80 that lt ruds u followll1 ll A. ehljrch may call ol.hel: Mirdatata ot the Ward to labor with the Putor ar Pur.or. 1n pwtormmr euch (IMtOral cllti as are needful tor the ecl.ltioadon ot that eburch. O>elet8 Wit lel'lt4neaj Ttiat., new Section 25-3(8) be adopted to reaci: 1111-t(a). W.btln tbe conrrecatjan. ~es the right of eallinl two or more Paetan, lhe P ston lball be ~ed l{jeclflcally wlth the apecw respolllibluty oonl'tantly to malataln open Ind areative eommumc.tlan in thll clalieate relation&~ 4. Ti.t pr..,1t 2H(a) ~eoome 2&-3(b), s. 'l'jlat pn1161t 2S-3(b) l>ooome 25-ll{e). e. n.t Book ~ Clnll'Cb Order ~ be &mtirlded by in.mr~ the italfcih4 WD\'dl 90 U.t lt 1'91.cW _. foljolpi lh, '1ba dn.ftll llmllon comista ol fhe Putar " Patt.or&, any Aaeoclate Pastora, me! the 4l1y el~ and in&wled RW.lllg Blderl currently on actlwe 9et"/Jee In U.t eoaiv... tion. Tbe Putor ls tilt Moderator of the!enton. bl ccwigr~ Wiler thllni are PtllUWs flznodonllta /otnay, t>i.y ahal!,,..,.., pre1$1t, altunatety rnocterou tjw S.llllon: the Pretflytry, o/tllr CG'Wl&actcln Uh #le s..lon. ont of tile Putor to Hr\le u MOlftl"GJrlf' for 11 term to be Mtotllfart.d l1y the se.lort. An Aalociate Put«ia allo a lllulbar of the!esdod and.111a, ~bite!«the l'utor u tile M.oderetxlr of the Session l the dltcrotklo ol U.. l'utor Ul4 Seaioo. All menlnn of the 8-Jon, lncludinir the Putcw ud '-fate Putoz., &l"e... titled to vote. B..AMDIDIDl1frll'BCI1DlfG SB'llBlOB WBPOJllllBILITt TO J.A Y AND lldoitllldal ll'l'al'i'. L Tbat ho1ian m~ be amended by U. addlt!on of a nuv llull!l'apll u lollowa: r. o. (1'1) -To!UllilJ. or~ throuih com1111tt.., t1le ~d rapcjlllllbwtit:s to ita 1t&ff, lay and 111W.tera. AMmlDll8Jl1.' BBDOCUJG 1'88 Qll'ORUll OJ sylfod. L -'l'he.t Boot at Cburch Order Section 1'1-3 be clad to rq,d.. 101l9ws The Synod shall meet et laut anoe every two years. The quorum tor a meeullg ot S,nod aliall consist of on.-to~ut o.t Uw tint one hundred eligible plll'tlcipanta and one-tenth of an eligible partlclpantl fn exeem of one ftllndnd. pt0yidinc one?4inlatcr and ON Rulint Ellie~ are present troltl each Pl'esbytet)' of the Synod (he Seetl.Qllll )3-6; 1&-111.) AJIBlfl>KU'T Dl!.ALDrO,rrra TQ Nl1JlTIJ&J! 01' BA.P'JT'AllD CRQ.DJ!IM. L 1'1'1at a MW Section 109-!I be approved U fallows 2Di ll. ~ childr n are taurht ll!ld nurtured in tile faltll by their ptlrcflu or ~ md the clwtcbt in Mtlllment ot beptillinal vows, to Ua~ ~ly td tbt Word of Ood Ill wol'll\lp, lhay em and hould be tuoowapd to participate l'efi1'00slbl,y in tbe!ecrament of the Lord's Supper. I I J

60 APPBlmU ltlt'pollt OY 'l1jb AP lntebim COIOll1'TBB Off CHURCR PaOPBllTY 'l'im Coou11lttee en Chweh Prcpetfy was estedulhed in Jf75 to pto'lidl ad\ltce and~ to J'Nllbjtmrl.m ad pvtig\ller cbureha in 1ltu1tiOC11 where ettoru t.rere l>eins made to «ea.le lehl4ma wiulla c~adoa1, or to take lly die proper~ rtiht. of pel'aons who wllbelt to l'emain nunnbera al tha ~id Cl'!lrcll In the U.S. Tb major wc:dc ol th C!Ommlttee hub_, an Ol1(folng nniew of.the 1.,.i ait.uatioo with r,prd t.o Churah ~la the..ver&j States. to maintain a FCMUr'09 me of leistl matwwi In t.b O!tiae ol the Stat.cl Ctn, and W publilb doo11u1ent1 t.or ttie asailtaoce af penoaa who t«lt tbe1rr.lfrlts.. PCUS 1a.mbert "-belnr Yialai.4 At lta laal meetin( on Allgll&t 'I, Jt7t, the Comm!ttee on Church Prop.lily ~ to -.re a N'rinl of Ole C!Ult'eilt lepl lltuatlcan, and Ul etteot on the CollsUtution CIC ih Pr~ Cl'llrab ln the ljnlted Stat.el al. dec!llolll bf the l~reme Cowt ol the United Statca In Chlreh ~ Ullptiari ortplating In ~ 1tatt1. The follow!tt8 ~ all of them &ttorne11 pruently at' rorinerl,y on the PSINJ'lmt Jldallil Commi.lon o.r the O..r$.I Aalembly,.llll'Md to joiln Cburoll Propai1y Committee Cbafrpatson J. a.ton l@li111110d in "'9i11& oa Subcotnmlttw on ~.;in of Cht()ter e, JJ'«Ql of Government: Mr. Joeepl1 O!;'ier, CMl'lotte, N,9- M1o EliJlabath 'E'errlfin. Columbia, Mo. Mr. Dayfd Qu.ttlebaum, Oree:nYille, 8.C. Mr. 1-8mitJI, Dlllaa; TX Dr.John W, Wada, Naslmlle, 'l'n 'Jibe IUtK!ommlttee mat twiae Jn fulfilling its Ulfpment, Ind ~ m Olbv ot the ad Interim Committee an Cbureh Prop1rty have revftwtd Its nport 1nd present It to the IJlllt a.nwat 6-lembly wt th the reeo dat.ic1111 at the '1ld ot thl8 report. Tl1e Ad lntarim CommlttM OJI C.huroh Property hlis t- amtlc11141 roatren to N(IOl't to the Aasembly. Pint, two new tnedlbera, appo!tlted by the Moderator ol U'8 ll8tt\ Oenaral ~. U\e Rftll'll\4 Dr. Albert O. Wiriai have ~ to abare 1n the work ol Ula ecnmittm. They ve Mr. P.ul C&dlnlleJd ot Atl«IJU. GA, ud tht ll8'1nnd Kr. WiWara ll. Klehl cl ltouloke, VA. &e~ tl>e eonunittff hu. reviewed and ll(lpl'oved a N ialon ol the - i.w NCtiOA of the panlpll1et "A 1Apl MelDOl'#l<linl on Church ProperiiJ," RDd aa9" ediw. of that ~lion la in pnpwation 8lld will be malled at an evly data to the aecudyt offlearand ~ ol Ute fnilb;ykl'f-. 'Ille Ad fnt.arhn Connnlttea on Ch1"1) Property espr- Ua patltudg to Prof- lobn W. Wade, DUA Emerita ol t11e V1111dltbllt tl'nlnnity School of Law, and a fotmllf obwpereon ol tlle Perman.nt ludiolal Co '1loo, for the r-.roh and 41'aldns of the ma.lot' portion of t!1'j report ot tha Subeoll11nltt.. on Jl.willGa ot et.pt I, PCll'm ot GonrnnlentJ end to KL JWZabatri P~ lfteniber of the ftll!wj:y od law llbl'lllwi of tbe Sehool of Law of l1'e Vnlnni~ ot Mblourt, for lier r-..reh end c!ra1'.unl ot tne lff>"14x 1311 lltpl rtudias a1taohed td Ula llll>aommlttee' 1'epor1. and f'ot' the texf of the NVfMd o'ale law MC!tioa o! "A Lefel MOJ11cnndU111 on Chllrdl ~l1 " Tiie CommJttae on Clnl!'oll Prq>al"t,J recoinmeadl chat the!21st 0---1~0910 take the Collowfnr ectigdi L. Tba ljlat Oeneral Aaaembly (l.ffl) "1C'l'CIV'U the pl"opolecl rerision of 'c1111ptw 8, Form of 00Yem111eat, an.ct recommodcll it to the Pretbyt8l'ias for advics and eoamnt. t. The 12lat Ganer.I Aalembly UHi) approyes the reoort of tbe lluboomnalttee on ltevlalon af Cllept.er s, Form ol. Government, with lts 11PpeodiaH and direets-tba Stated Cleft to Jnc:i)llct. the report and ~dlaae in ti. printed ballot dlttributell to the Pr811b)'tenes ln CQMa!tiOll with tile vote on tho pr.apond re11wotl or Chlpter e, llorm o( Gov&1'41J1tnt. a. The Dlat General AM8~ aicptaeh ita l!(jpl'~tiod foll Ulie 10IJC and feithflll...,joe ol the Ad lntmim Co111mlttee Ol'I Church Protetty, OOQlmenda ~ eommjttee ror fu 1Ulcfent.,,d eoc:inomjcal " "' tjle, llld continues the oommittee few a period of thr y..,._ 'I

61 MINUTJ!B 011 Tlill GIN'BBAL.AB811dBLY BBPOllT OP 'lllb SUBCOauaJ"l'D 01J lllmismb OP CllAPTBll G, POOi OP GOVBIUIMBJfr 'nlil lllp«'t N0011l111andl tlla adaption ot oenaln amendments ta the Form of Oonm1r11nt ln tlmi Book of Chllrob Order ot ow Ctuch, tr. ""->yurlan Cl!Qreh In the 17aited Stat.es (PCllS). SuccllloUy 1tatedi tbe pvlpcllle of tllme amendments Ill to keep-~ ftl Its &gpllaatlon to ll)eclfle eaa ti 1)'9tem al ooobd or ohllrch ~rtj tbet 011r Clucll lies COOlllt«IUJ tollow.d through tile yffl's, ~it M t-ally In accol:'dlme with tbe prd>ytwiu l:ftdltlan. TNI fa boeo OD the pr#lyterlan F.aaaUoia ' "lllllnh -a. ~ from the church 1mort. to the l!fftbfte?y 1 to tbe ~ to Ula f~ a.etl\ol,1. On Churcb mattwa t:le dedlioa ol the f\!cbeet oourt to whlall a quatlon comes IS bin~ and oaltralling. Thfs PQlltion 1111.a tlffn trad!uotlally followed not odly tor ecclealutioal lam but.ao for ~ involvinir ~ intereats. Thill haa all<> bffll tbe f811411'al plllition ot the ctvll oouru ln thl1 countrj. lt tta.rted with th ludmuk decl.. on ot tbe 01\i.tea Sta tee 81Jllreme Courr ln Watson v.jone1, IO tr.a 619, 20 L. Ed (1&71), ln'iolytag a pretbjterlan ellljteh, and holdhy that when the gdyel'mlt!nw S)'llQM oc a gen«al c:borclt is hlel'lll't!h11!41 rather U1IUl oaqgr-catian.al In cbuetet- 1 the ftn.j..cleeilion of th cbwl:h court. ~ Uw buleflclal Interests In Pi'OP«'tY held In tbe name of a' particular c~h la oontrolll:n( when the local ohuroh.seelca to bre.ic awe:/ trorn the pried ahlltott or hp ao internal 111:bllm. The opinion In this oue..,.. quit. pnerally followed bf the sta.llt oourbi, not beoauae It was~ " 1~ biodinc on tl1el!i but blc&llle or ltt aourltj 111\4 peraimive relllolllllg. Aa a result of &veloplllc ~ 1n OOllltltl.IUonaJ law, maldng the Pint A1J1endlllent to the f.le<leral CoNtltution (l.nciudin«lu "free exeraih ol...u,lon" cw1h) bindinf on the Statu and state courtl, the Watlon rw8 later oilllle l:o be a rule of aomtitutional llft 1 and Ill of the 1tatu wel'e required to abide by It. Jn.luly, 1979, howfv.t, the ~eme Court rendered an important deail:ion in the cue of Jon v. Wolf, :S U.S. fi5, 99.S. Ct. SDIO, 61 L. Bd. Id '1'15 (ft'4'9) 1 a.bo illvo n( a pretbyterlan e!juretl, the PC\JS. It omtillu"'1 tq hold that tiie state or federal.colll'ts an aot permitttd wider the ConstltuUoo to decdde matt..- that require a lntell\)rei.tton of rvllgioue doou'illc. The~ rule require<! them to dec!tcle properq is~ tn a hkrarohlc-1 ellureh like UMI l>c'd's by ent«otrc tbe deol.alon er tblll Jqtlut clll.rell court, tllul not beeoraing JnYOIVed I.II qumticn8 of "~ doctrine. Ill ~ the Coort held that a state court qht 1till aoostitutidnlllly fallow thll?ula; but Ot\ a 6-to-4 "tote. It Alm IMld that UDder the ConatituUon the Stetel '-llht instad decide property ~ in cue ot a brukaway clluroh or a abiam, on the blala ot "neutral pnnoiplm of law. 8 n... neut;ral princtpl.ee would lnoklde -ii inatt... u the wor~ of the datd to tbe looll cfulrah, of a stat. 1tatute, of tb charter ot the loee.l chul'oh ana a1 tht o~tltutfonal pt'o'lhlcna ot tjia ganeral church.. Twice la the 111.ajori~ cpwan., tbe Cow-t ecprellly lnvlted rmen1 o~bee wltb a pumytalm fcll'm of governlllent to make certain thact thelt '1$ttbldoflal provilsclll9 (lt'ovide 811,>liclt1 Ulat Ula g81'lmrlll olurab ~ 11 lepl or equitable int.rut in the ntal pt'gpf!tty of the tooal ehurch. l! the,._i el\urcb aoeepte t!m Invitation and &doptl appfol)c'lat '""'91G11a to thia el!ect kl ltll C<JllsdtutlO(I (OW' Form oc Govenunut, \a the Bo4* of Ctnrcb Ont.), tmll ttie c11arc-e IC constitutional law JNlde In Jol1lll v. Waif by the Saprem.e eourt wtll tiave no slpllteant efled on the outcome ol caaee lnyoiyinc cbureh pniperty. Many stat COW't. will ~edly oontinue to IOU.OW Ole oc1i1nl cule ol. Watllon v. IOU11. Bwt otlter9 will PffM(le adapt the n.eutral-prlnclplet llp(ll'oiu?h. Thia tiu aln8.dj ~ fn Geoflia, where Joncw Y. Wolf arose. The rwjommuded ct.np in the l.ajl(9ic9 ot our BOCJk oc Cburt!h Otdet ww l'eetlf1 tht matter, wen in Georgi.a, :lfnca the ~ l91.t>t9rne Cquft )\1111 alreed)' HC0 11lsed the ettect of ejqlf... prov!alona C0r I trl9t fot the IMnefit of tbe general churoti In the oon1tll11\lonal provlelom of other. dellomln&tioas. Othel' pl'd>ftel'lan deftom.lnat1on1- e, The United Pretby,terian CIU.ftl'I. In tile Onltod State& of Ameriee, Cumberland PN!lltlyt.erl&11 Clwrcll, and BOme other reform churches -are W'eiwf7 111ovi'1( tn tl!il direction, and tjlia ohurob ~ to take t1imllat action. Tbe etatement above ll quite ao~urate - pe.rtietllarly ln the conolildon that t~ pr09oce1s C01111t1tutlonel Jenruai Ja iwt inte>ded to ohaor the resulb t1usto111anty reaahed ill 1,1toper1: cll.h8.in our Ctrurcft b11t will limply ensut11 that the t.l'aditfo,ial r.111.llta will continue to be attained. Bv.t the 111tatoment MAJ.be aom wlla~ ell.iptl.o bee11111e of tts brevity, rt do89 l\ot apeli out developments In auft.f.cisnt detail to gih & oomplete widcntendln( (lf their me111lng. To clo this, tht" App.ndices ue attached to t.llts n.pott; The ran.. tit lotth an O'J)Ol!Uon ot th tredi!jonal Position cf our Tb6 aecond deplcu tae 1'cal implications more oompletel)', Ctacbli oeretujj,y the C11W'C11 Oft property matters. develop111ant$ In corwtltutjonlll law. The third.la blb.ljograpbioal in nature, cuintainirc abetl'ik!tll o! UM ra.nnt c:u8& on church ~ty In U.. Bta1 c1x1taining PCUS churel\u and some ot tile more l.mportllnt c-. 1n other '111rta of the country1 it mo cont&lna eltiitiona to 1ep11tualu ot the oue l&w. A" swdy of tbeee ~~ea ttlll mike clear tt.t tb6 reconuneocjed cbajlres are ln acoard wltb the preabyterian tracltion ln feneral lllld t.119 PCllB trecllti.an in particular, and that lm9e elllll'cee ww eil8ul'8 that tlie 21t.te eowta,,.m unifotmly P ch a rd1ult in chllroh pr.cperty ~ In accordance wlth both lhe PCUB tradition and tile lqal trmltion eatablllhe4 by " ~ '" Jone&.~.._.,.,;.. H!

62 APPENDlX CBAPl'llll6 CBllBCa PBOPDTY S 1-1 rt particular c:hurclt is nat lncofpal'ated, It may, at a MJPlar1' oonetttuted aongregalion&l meeting. elect c.j<taln of fta confirmed members ea trust--, to hold tjt1e to prcll)fll'ty ID trust for t!le beqeftt of the particular ohllroh Md oc the Presbyterian Charah In the Onited Statu The tr~eea ban pow«r and authority t o buy, aed or raorlpge pt'ope?'ty Cor u. churvh, to llll!ipt l.lld aeout.e dmds a!ld to ' ril&lll6 116' per111anent ~ fll!q entrusted to them f~ ehureh plzppoeee. - In buyfnc, seillnc or m~ PM1 ~ l't.11 the tn.11~ sjiad e.ct l.llder the tnstruct.iollll of the c~tion.adopted In regululjr oamltuted m-.tjng. 1'*" powera and dutias cannot fnfri~ upon tjie p01vet'$ or duties al tbe SetlldOll or the Board of Dea.COlll. The trulteel do not bold title to penonlj property«' have ttsponsibllity for lt eitcept to the extent upreujy lflv n to them. I t-t rt a particular C!li~ri is lnacll'pol'ated, the pro'li.iiont of its o~ and by.laws m1.111l be In!l.Ol!Ol'd with tjuj Constitution of tbe Presbyterian Churcli 'in the Onitod States. All of its confirroed members oa the ao~ve loll Ill' memben al 'the eol'{icl'atfon. The o!ttaers ot the oorppl'lltlon, by wlwit.. w fllllll lhtj 11'9 J1v ha1l be fleeted from the oonflm'led m mt>en o! the corporation in a r.,ularly eonatlwt ~ oojllniational meetlrig. Tbe offf0er9 oc the c<lt[>orati.on. ma.y be given any or all of tlle fallow.inc reepo1111lbwtle11 hol<lijlr tttle to chln'ch j)l'cpet~ f«the be.nef'it of t he corporation and Ule Presbyterian CllUrch in the United ~- aoqi.drlng 4lllO comeyfog title to the property1 bll;1lftg 1 Kellll1g and momgtiglng the P,ol.)erty of tl'le etwrcl1 and 111~ any pennanent tpeclal tunde entrusted to tji.em for cbllrc.h Pllf'P05es. In buyin&, Hllinc and mortgaging real properly, the otlllnn hllll ct under the 11utflority ot Ule corporation aranted in duly coaatttute<i meeting o! the eoiporatton. Powen and duties of the omcen cannot ~e upon tho powers and dutie1 ot the Set110h or tile 8oe!'d of Deacon., <Who malntafn canb'ol an<1 dltbursament ot all flmds oolleoted for the ~ and npense. ot the ohurch a nd for the benevol«it l>ulopoms ot the cflurch. I 1-3.\II propel'tjr held by or for a particujar church, whethv 1-Cal title ii ~td in corporation. a trustee or llu8te111, or an ~ted asaoeiation, and whether the p~~l"ly ii \lied tn pt~rams ol tl)ll plll'ticltlar church or retalned t~ the proc2llction of Dlcome 1 ii beld ln trust nevertbeh1111 for the lllje and l>ltneflt ol the Preabyterlan Church in the United St.ta11. f H U partioutar O!Nroh ls dabolvecl by the Presbytery, atlempts by either rnajorlty or lllllnlmold vote to withcl'aw trocn Ult Preiibytman Chure:h in the United Stattt or ottierwla ceues to esist or fwlction u a member of Ule P~ ChUreh m the Onite4 Btlltet, an, Pfoeel'ty tmt tt n:wt.j have lchall be within ~ COJatn>I of the Pl'9bytery and ml!,y be held tor designat ed p\ll'l)oses or 901.d or dilpoae<l ot in lljcltl manner a the Preabytef1, in {ti dltoreuon, lll&j dlnet. I ~ The Nlat101111~ to the PHl!b)'t.e!'fan Chlll'ch fn tbe United States ~ a partlaula ohurab aa be ae~ a4 fl)' constitutional actloa on the part of the Prelbytery (4-2).. 11 there is Nhillll wittdn!he mtmbwahlp ot a putjcular ehilrcb and the.pres>ytery is unable to effect a reeaneili11tion «1 dltiaion Into teplu'9te obllrohes wttldn Ute P~eriaJl C hul'ell in the United States (aiee ), the Pr~ ahall dftetm1na 1t one of Ule factlona ls entitled w the property bec4ul8 It Ill Jdentitled bf tlle PrM>Jtllf7 u the true ctiurl!h wlt.j>jn tb8 Pre1byterlan Church in the 1.laited States. Thi5 determblatlon does not depend~ tllflfdl factioo ~ved the majority Yote wtthln the partieular churell at the Ume ol tile!ic!l-.iam. I 8-41 'rbe prcm.iorw or 14-6 Ud 14-6, and of other sectioni in ttm Comtitution ttintr forth the mamar tn whloh <leolll!ans ue made, reviewed and OOrl"ected withfn the Preabgterlan Cbur<lh in the Onlted States, are 1pplfolble to all matten Al&ting to prop11rty. I 9-'1 1'hla Chapter ts declaratory o! princjplea to whloh U,e Ptesbytelian Cburch In the United States and' its 1ntwc<lent al1ul'eh bodia have adhered ltoni t~ tncepuon of tht prll:ibyte~iu!or111 or ablll'dl eoverriment. Comments on the Seutlons I &o-l Tl!.111 ta the preaent 1-1, 6nt appeertnc tn the BCO fn 19411~0, ID l!.flse.lltjalll' Im pre90llt torm. It '!las t>een 10mewhat reerrqed and edited bl the lntt1reats of C!laril:J of axpre!lllion ~ eue of lljldentandin(, The Cll113. HW matter In tt is the phrue et I.he end or the first eentenoe. prwidire that the property I hdd tn b1lst foj' the bene!lt of Ule pvtiolllar ellurett " ru1 of the Pl'l!libyterW. Chlll'l!h In the United Statu.e The Jut aentencre as addeo for olaalt1oatton. I H This b the ~t 6-t, fint ~ean,. in ~ BCO i:a ljz5 and -Jrti&lly ill lta pre1e11t torm in 1!149-H. rt bu ~been e<>mewtlat edited in t~ ilrterert ot ejarit,j. a.,., too, ptirue bu been Inserted in thoa thlr<i sentence PftWidl tha1 property ts held lot tbe benetjt ot the eorpol!afloo. "and tile Prelbyterlan Chul'ob ln the Unltad Stilt- I 6-1 TNI ~ Sectlon proyldlls expressly tber prcipertj of local llflwe)1. no matt.,. bow hale!, ii mo tmild Jn trust 'for Ule Jenenal C!Nroh. TIU trust flu tradltiooaj:l1 ~ ill'lplied rather than e.sprea I'll mu,. It ezptealj!n the Bode o! Cburefl order, the Ctuell "OUld be a~ the fllritat!oll ot the ~eme c-t to make this mettw clear and to ensure a uni!onn interpretation tn all 8tat418. A ~ to tills euaot hu been ~ aaolpted aqd follo" " evm in Stale that '1urportll to Neel! itl decisio~ on ahutth pl'operty bcile<l on ntutpal. pdna!ples of law. 1lle 8ectlon confirms what la stated ill &-1 and 6-ll. 21$

63 MIMOTES Of TBB OBHDAL A1l8BMBL T I e4. TJlil IMUon la bmecl on the preeent 1-1. The revtajoa Is Cor the purpo1e of m~ the l,ll'ovtlioft m.on JIP"lfle and mor dltect. INlteed of puttijw a~ (moral Ot Leplf) on tbe pe!'iogi holclnc lfc&l t1tle to the Pf'Ol*t)' to OQtlVflly it to the ~ Wben tlley mllj ~haps b dl.t1ncl.inlld tb ooaiply. the Seotklr\ Pf01lld-~ tbet the prcpertj a "within tile control ot Ule Pl'tllbyteey" 111d that embls ttws presbytery to ut wlulout haq to r-1 lo i.p1 aeuori ia a ei\'!l l!olltl. S H TNI 8eodola tj'mta the matter ol a eehism witllfn a local cburetl. It bcf.111 b7 quotfjic preeeat 4-t, lblll ~ tt\la ptorilllon Into the c~ cm!x'4*'t1 Then jt 5'fO'rides that In - ot.. IChfll'I\, if th6 Pff:libJtUJ la Ulablt to br!qc al>out a l'eoocl!ulatfoo or otjmto aeaomtr1ode1j011, lt!ii.ill det«m.loe diab faotl1111 Is etitltled to the iix'o(lerty M beijv the 1r11e atu.rch wtttin the PCOS. Onee l!l*lfi&ally protl'fcltd for Ill ChlpU!r I, tin determlhltion e&nn0t COflllUtiiUonaUy be irnore4 or re"'81td by a eourt ot la In th w~ that, the ltata aourt ~d Jn Jone& " Wo.11.. n. pr~t.,y. deteraillatlon II not bued oc majorttj vote In the Joell ch\b"ch. I H Tiie reftt~ to lf-s is to the ltatwnent or the hiert.rchlml SJStem of fqdicatorles Jn wllleh PCUll ~ deelalons.. "~ reylewed and l!lft8ctl!d." Chta'Gl'I poll~ (or form al penunentj for majwc dootrinal end eodoliutioll declll<d Is the Mme pallty f~majdji&' deolalom oo cdj.uro.h property. Tllla li!l l(>eolftoally llated ln Cllepter II In crdet' dlat a coirt of Jaw will not be niqulrild to look thtell8fl the WllOle Book of Churetl ero.. Seotfon tm lndlaatea the 11ethods by whloli det!tllon ol a lower oourt Is brought to 1. bfahet' oourt. Pl'OOedlnl detalla are 1tatcd Jn the Rul ot Diaalpilne. 5 6-'l Ttii..Is a cledaratot1 provision, Indicating ttw.t the lleotlclns in tile Chlpt r do nett doi>t ltw pcilot but slmplj ta~ tttdltl~ prinetpjes. Attention called apln to the tmee A.ppendloea. to thle Report. They llpllll out Ill mare oomplete detail matt.. tbat: ban been ell~ In tj1l8 lleport to ke e It from beeom~ too lq lllld eompll.oated. n-append!o lln u raoawa 1130

64 APPBNDJX Appencix l ceuacs PBOPIRTY, CBUllCH POU'l'T, AlfD tbjl PRllSBYTllUAJI TJU.OmOtf Tbe P?elbyt4ri&n CllUrel'I In the United Stat.I it ehu~ 'bf CKlllCtnl («Ctl'1ltWI unity, A c:oncern fouiidad llpof) t. d " oommtt111ent to Re!~ prmciplte ot \l)eellogy ~polity, la an "A6c.hls tr;> all the CharcJlm al J... Cllri.lt 11lfaugbaut the Earth," tlm Fini General A embly of the uw dl!nonlln.ltlan In lllj clted the Med to "gjve ~ on to tti.ir unl11" u l'tluqi\ tor th rep"esenu.tivu ot the oongreptlorw to'pther to a lllpnrle eecl-1.utiael OOW't. Tne een.e ol antn in Je1111 Christ, lllq)c'died in a paded strua1ur.. w ruial,!llld a dlatlnc'tiv. feature of both ' laltll and order ln the Preebyt.rlan Church in the ll.s. The need to oonsld a fhlh tjie Constitutlanal proviaicllll foiohutoll proper ty ownet!llfg l.abefore the Church at tbls time beoaue of threats to tile llllity ot the Church. The isue ls not one or wt.er. the formal title lies - to the pn>pel'1;j of a partf1!41lll ~b - the denomination baa frequently affirmed the prlnmp.l that the lejlll title Ntrts Jn the eong'1'41pdan. Th...-.u.i. 1aue la U\e eart11nt to which the l*'tlcular chllroh ueralse Its ownel"$llip 1n the light of tbe oonee.pt or Chrlatlen and the structure or aetormed polity, Under thtr polity, epeclfie.lly eltabliafled In ~ 1>rMbyt lan ClwoJi In the TJnlttd States, the particular ehlfth la under the control of Pl'eabyt~ Uld hlaber Jlldltiatories. Tbe Chureh Ilia.I COllNetentJy louattt to mpre11 Its 111'\dmS~ of _._ ill 1- Christ In itl theolqglcal aueulation ot ti. falth,- ln l ta irovemment&l Pl' tjna. nd In its pro ilioqij for property owoenhip. Tbe doctripaj tandardl ot the Prelibyterlan Chlm'Oh In th U.S., rnak.e dmr tba ddomlllatfon' view tll8t lt l8 a part ot th v~ Cl'lla'Oh otiuiouo (wost~ Coftfesslon. a..pter UVD). TJM ~t&l tudllrdl ""' " au of the d-jaia&t1onw 41ecl.ell.utieal e!mlrta to relate to e.aeh other In ll. ft1 that ~'"the ualty of the Chllrch" ~ ol Ctiw!ll O..S., Pretece m.s.), and Church m lllbers are clearly ld8ntft._d raemb9rl oc U.t 11DlVWl&l Cttureh. Tbe tnnd'er or Reformati<ID Presbyt«'ianism to Ute New World, while re!jjforetnc the tendenajes toward dlllomination4111m t hat deyejoped IOClll att.- the publlcatloo ol the W tmbt«standa.rdt, did aot..._ tbe buic: ao11mltment to unl!j. Aa Pratessot.Ldferl:ll A. Loetscher bu ~arly 8'ta!>lllhed, Amertoen P?elibyterian!sm refuled to "slide.into uulependency " (Blue Boole (U.P,C;U,S.A.. Assembly ~ti), 1980, p. A.- 23.) Tble ~t!olll moved a Hrly u J)Old>le to Corm Presbyteries In otder t o demooatr1.te a clevotl1111 to unity, m.icm, tlle.ruelvea dependefl.t, In man.y wayc, ~ thqle Preebyterla. The ~ytel'lan Church in t be United States has sought to brll8den 1'1 ~on GI unity ttroufhout lta hlator,. Soon elcer It eatabliahed Jtselt u a eeparate denomlnation It ant.red Into 11.llion W'ith poupe In Virginia. Keotuaky, M'-'c>IJl'i, end (in the ease a! t!>..e United S)'llod or the South.I -the enhre IPAll of ii» amhil terrlt«y. The dlllomlnadon wu a foundinc merrber of t2le three major ec11menjcal bodl to whloll it now beklllp - the Wodd Alllanc. a! RetorD1ed Churctlles, the World Col.nell of Cburel'le11, and tha lf1tienaj ~cl tbe Cllurcbea d Chri1t in Ule U.S.A. 'l')le IUtory or the d9d0111lnatlon demoostrat. Ulat deyouori t.o the Uloll41ty DI the Ch\ll'Ob la a pripojple aa Clat.rty cti.ffterlltlcs of tbe l'z 8ilbj b!lrian Chalth In the U.8. a are the C!laaio lletorrned prtoo:llj.ln ot Ole ' "8reltrn\f of Goel, the ecitrality ol Seriptore, &impliaity Blld piety of life, and tm full particdpatiqo or all Penonl In the full ltle ot U. Clnrch. 211 I l t 1 I I!!.

65 MJNIJTBS OJ- THE GD'Bil.t.L All81U4BLY Th9 110!.ity ot a lerwraed Clniroh ilr derivative, ba88d upoo It.a \Pt9ratandlnc of u. tbeologiw eoneeptll that Cfve the Chllroh ute. TJ"ie _poli\y o! tbe Prelbfti!rtan ~ 1n the tr.8. delllclnltrai. tho Al'IHI devotim to un1ty, ~d the..me tutoiy ot an ~ appll.oatiolt ol ~l pritteiple.ial the governmental Ille of tile denocn.lna.tion, tllat ;te...,.ed ln Ure t2jllglcgy ~ the CJlUr'oll. l!#ly American Praorterlana took u thelr Ol'fll 1h ~m of order Mt fortla ill tha Wmtminner Aasemblf'& Fonn o! Pr!!t>rttri!l Chlll'Oh CJovammeut. 1'he maj«~lloll9 on tlu 1orwJ1111cttal, or diso.lpllaary, eiqrres&san- ot CaMDUtlo theoloa crew out Of the experimces or the Jle!Ot'llled ChllN!ll of l'rane6, ww. tne Cirlt MtlanW'lde P,.yt:.erlan JYll:em wu denlwed. 't'he aperlences of the Ch~h of Bnglmd ~ollowl~ th death ot Henry vm, and \he 41~),opcnenta ~ the Church of Scotland (e~l.allf.aiidrew' Melville' Seegnd Book of Dilclpline in 1&91) were crltlclll for the eldlll>lishment of a graded sya.tem of courts, t'lle r1ae.of the Eldec u e ehlef participant Jn Cllorell ironnunent, and tile 1&tabllshment of Pl!elbYtei'J' ~otloq over Mlnlatll'll emr ChQrel!eL itll1y American S,11odl editpted the w_,.tmimter provfjions to the n1g-iuea ot a ll(llh'm populauon ~read a1q the Atlantlo Rab_pard. Following tilt orgardzatlon ot an Amerlaen General ~mbly a trarig ~dtjjgy towcdl "American pr.,1111.tism" dffeloped in the polity of th9 denomlnationt oft.,i In tn ff0tt to apr8s11 the baslcl concvn tar unity a oll M to meet the ""di of vut diatcnoes betwhn populatloo oentel'i anc1 the p~nee ot the front1ar. Wilen Uie ~an Church in the tjnlted Statu bepn lte lllp414"9 Giat«IOe, a reriaion ol Cite Bod< ot Church ~ had already been Initiated. The Firat Oenerei Aasembl.J or the oew Ch\Jreh contkllltd mich work throoih proe- tll&t r~ed iqtite.i y~vs to oomplote. The new B~ ot ~ Prdet 9l(lpJ'Oftd id 1111 NpreMl,lted a dlatinct tum aw911 froai ti. precmatic llppl'dim!}! of the earlier perlqd, reeltabllanlag a Jllote ~ or!mtea approaeb to eollty. The ~tnl ooneern ror unify was retaiaed in lllloh ~ l9i Tllil rwblc mtty of the body or Christ, ~ ob9e1!"ed, le not dlstrojed bf" ia lhision into ditfel'tlllt denom.lnadans ot. ~ CbNtlaMf but.n or thect whlc:h malat41rt the Word and $a.crantenb in their flindamentll tategity are to b reoogn!zed as true br8dl!lles o! t:ht Churab ot Jemia Chrat. (Paracraph ) Tlll iallcwip or eanampor :Y section. :Z-2 Mlt.ins much Ute eame ~Ill lea olaesfc fo~jll. PCVB.AC'l'IDR BllOARDllfO CltU1lCD PROPB:llTY -" ~onoern. ' ' Church property, how It Is owned, bow owoenhlp 1s uprlllled,. how title ls tranllfcrred, is of more reoent C!OltOl!l'n to the d.ellomlnatlon ttian IU"C the matters ot faith en.d order ~d in tm i;inoeding garagreph& In oomman With 012ler Amerllian institutione, the Preab:rterian Chllrt!~ In the u.1. Inherited mrmy o! Us.proparty concepta tnim la Europun anciutora, adllptinf them to the lli.tu&tion ot a MW continent anl'i' l"etlninf ita undel'ltandlng es tt metur«l. Eclrly 1"1byterJllJllBm ln America exhibited a variety ot practices tr. eeeurl~ «>ntrol and ownership ot places at wqj'llllp. Jn aom1 aolonim oiey eetal>iiahed Ch~fle«couto. Me1JN ellam!l'll llr, and the dflmnttng fojk known 1.1 Presbytcrlelll musgi.4 tor recoentuon. TttW to properfy use4 try l'zellbyteri&o a~eeatioflll w often beld ~ indi.yldullll r ther Ulan by aorigreg11 tiom. Some ellrly Minilltera were JlcenMd only to.cirach In holllee. 1n otllt!r l!olonies. ~ It wu ~e tot an Cll'llllUed l"e1/gi0111 adoalati011 to bold tltk to rw1 properly. No establim.d Pre&bytwWi attit.ade to'l!'ll'ds ~ty ownership dlve1dp6d during tba eolonlal l!l'a. 11m i.elmedetel.f after the Ol'Pllisation ol ti* t#at I r. ~ f l ; ) f i I 23J l

66 APPENDIX Genetll Auelnbl)t In l V89, the same year ha wbieh Uie ratification or the Const.ltut!On brought endudllj 1truct11re to the nd:too. TradltiotW prtctiees and inherited legal eoneepu IUD prwajled, with eondderat>le rtp>n4d varlatlons The flnt f«mal ~deradcn at the l'diltter, at leaat at the level af tne Genere.I Aawlllbly, 1111ems to ha e been In 113-8, "lien the Alltmbly (Old 8ahooU voted the lol.lowij resolution: Cou~ \bat lt ii n~ to tile cnmi and orderly mamtenance o( tile Cciwlitulion D1 the ~te.riu Churc!b ill lb VVl- ptoyisioo& that care be t.lfcen, In obtaining 1'p.l enacrtnlents of II eular kin4, tmt they be o formed as not to eome fn confllat with ury IU!!ll provltiollll and wholreu, it tr known tjlat BllWla have e:ddf!d, and pr~ do stdl mdst.. Jn which Uta c:lw'tvs al. cllurcber, end perba{le other legal W:U'Umeat11i IN 110 fumed thllt ttw Jan o! the Church I.lid the laws of tho land are not teccriellable with each OtllC!fl ~Ot... RMOlvad, Tbat the OellAU Ala~ eamlllltlr recomme11d It to all the conreptlont uno«tbeit eupen!sion tfillt In ruortbil to the lqillatmw or tribw!.lls of 0111' eounu, they uia t6a utm!lllt o e to ak nothing w.llloh, ll l(l'u\~ wu1 tn uy l'~~ oontraveiui the prlnafple1 ar order ol our Cllufcl\, and id MrJ 4!UU in wbloji ajyll enaot111ents,.heratofon obtllilled, do militate with any ot Ute prlnosplaa or order of our Ctiurob, they enoeavout, 1oon ponibje. to obtain the r~al or modification ol llieb mactment«, 10 to make them oon1lltent wlth the ~1_.a~al 91'der and grinolplee of the Pr'elbyterlan Ohul'oo. (M!nutea (Old Bchoal), J&U, 1st &So,. p.16.) Ttl Htl.oll followed by a Bingle year the dlvlalon of Arnerloan l'ni byteriani11111 inlo Old School and New School faotlou.. Since lha.t period It hat bean conslatently trqe tjl«t ~eflr over clllll"ch p('qler(j arl.., "hen Prl!llbyterianl1111 io- itb vfalon of Chtittiatl t111i ty. lttl. n.e 18'11 Boalr of Ciun!h Order, like itl 1111.nteclat. anc tor, Mid notlwlc..,ac!ific about church prcptirty. Ii\ eleut~ the otljae ot Dneon it did make mcb Chuecb olfleel'$ ~l>la for 'Iha temporal &!faire ot thlt Chllrcli. (l111a&f'8ph u.-nrj 1. On1J minor em~nts, none of them.u~mc prcperty nu1ttcra, wwe noted by tbe a...i A&Mmbl1 tor -ly tuty years. In th.c Omeral ~J ttfllled to left4 to the PrelbyterJee amsclnenta provi.~ for OOIWf lional trustees, but did declare ea.eh aoogregatioll po811-d "the rigtlt lllld polf'a' to a(joo(nt and NIDOH at trill trwteea" who COUld pureblse, n11, m.crtpge) or ~e pr~ wh.in authorized to do 10 by tile ~a.tiojl (Minute&. lhg, p. 21) lllts. Ill JUl a ma,jor revlliclll ot the llook at Clalroh Or 1'U Initiated, 1.eadb1f to the aooronl in 1915 of aver.i U1endmenb dealtne With propertj 1111tten. These inoiuded provlalona for cj111~ha to Incorporate uncial' c.118ttera and by-laws " l*lh m1111t alwq1 be in acocll'd 111ftb tb Btudarclr of the l'nllbytarlan Clnfth Ip lhe tjolt«i 8'8t-, and must not intrinre upon the po"era or c1utta1 of. UI Seuioa or of t!la Boara of l:>euona." (BCO, ins, p.84.) All addit\o-1 ~ph, vift'4ally ldantl"1 with 011mmt!JeotiOll. 6-3, J~\lired that UOe to the property o1 dlnolvad cti~he11 must be convesed to the PJellbytery. lln. DIJritC thlj period ol Constltutiooel dev.iopment 1M Aaemb]J dealt with otbar attlt:imim within the Chml:h Oil Ute ~"l ol et111rof\ pr~ o"'*'8hip. The lu.2 Aaaembly Mnt <to the Prelbytert. a propned al'iml1clroent "hieb WCNIAS hlv.t 11\'0Ylded tlllta The right ol a Ch11rell,, a PHlll>Jtmy and Synod in and to It. propertj ii a clril ri&f\t and eennot be lnvol1111w1j )9.ired or l.ffeotad by an ecajesiuticel a~ al. arry other Ctiuren co11rt. (Minut-. UH, p. J'2.) Tha a111e1uhat!ailed to pus the P~as bj a vote t4 S8 In favor, 61ap1nst.,,..tth2 rr.byt~a Pot vottiw. The Amiembly Htt..d to ratubmit the ~!bent lu 1U1 amaodtd torm.

67 MINUTES 91 THE G!lf!ll.Al. A!IBMBl.'f 1HI. TU amendm«lt WI!' -.t to \he Pr~a t)y th9 1eia AINmb~, modwed only bs' elwwlllc' from,a three-fourths to a _,.,orit.v Ule m by wliab a OOJICNl'l.l1cn a11at ~-an 40Uoft to im'*' Ol' diy.t IUCh dtla m held,. <MiMt t, ~Ha, p. 10.) Tbe UD t Wei! 11a1n det~te4 by ~ vote at ao In favot, M..,.,_t, witll four P~edu lft'9pcijud ar not vow.. UM4. T!Ul J9.H edltloll ot A.[)tge!t (I( tm AC!tl &Ad ProceeclnP of th Geng Aseml?lt atatecl 'ln the nhl1 anal.1 tm cigm. In and to au ~ty wjtntn ltt eccles1altical jllrildiotlon bdonp to tlle Ctwrcl'I ea a whole - tbe entire c!enomlnatlon. Tt11 II ch aplnlon Wblch halt bean IPJSta.lnec! by the Supremo Cllllrt ot the United Statu (Watson va. ~ 13 Wallaoe. &79) In tlle 'Welnot Street Churqb Cue.'"~ 19HJ p. 80.) The~ lurthw ab.ltd that the lt.25 am'! dment:ai to the 8ocll; ot Churoll Order i.ve their ''preeediantll In rejpeet to the 11lwll law ftom the above. alted 11.._" (Watson n. Jones and caw ~ out of lltlgatjon that dev\?loped 1n 0001teet1on with the Union ot the PrUbytarW\ Church in the U.S.A. and the Oumberland ~ Chli'chl. Qbld., p. 11.) JNI, The A.. mb~ mov..d Jnto a P41riod of renhed mp*ls on the ll v~ of cihureh P'ce-t1 ii few yean after the pubuoatlon ot the.q1a!1 edltllln of 194', Prq>oll8)a for PrelbyterJan reunion w e b~ ~ c111ict.asaed tri the denomination, rallintr onne again the iaie of the nature ot Civ'iatlu Unity. ln llmll, the Aaembly rejected propoced amendmentl that woujd lll e Jlmtted OOlll'"l'-tional pow to Mll, morlgap. or otlwwim.u.nata ~~ (Mingt!!. 19.tllt p. 51.) Jfll, T.M J 1150 OeJlel'81 Aae!lbl,J eliaoted the langwig of ~ S..Uoo 1-1, 1M ll!l IWactOl"pCIRted alwrej.a <he uthority to.a-t etn.t- at ofracen of like nature" wbo were e111powerca to eimy out the ume 1uactlonl u triatea of en lncorpcrated crhurel.i with regard to (1l"Op8rly. 1be rlabt qbwly vuculat*1 u an lnterpretatiod by the Gelleral Amernbly th-. became a part at the~ Qi the Conetltutlca Tile 19SO GeMl'*l AuetDbly allo had b«fore l~ ab4 t"ejee!ted, amendments t.ti.t would tmre Uralted ed111n11tlanal pow to.u. mortpce 1 or otbeplflite lliwiate tll9 J)ropefty. 11\e 19' Omertil Aaembly eonaidwed repcrted amendments to the ebartert ol. ~ti:on in 11everal putlcul&r aburcha wllloh dwlri~ property u being ow11'4 '.'for tl'i ~te, 1ole and...,iu.sve beoetlt of the. mam~ o,. u.e c:j111rob~ without any rlgtit, UUt, ll!t.etwt or utate. lepl or eqllltabi., exiltin( Ill tttor of any denorllnation, ptell>ytery, or other eec:1ellut!w bodj wb&ttrler.ft Such ohartel'll wets determined to be "oantrary to.and. in violation ol. the hlstorlo prtotia. and pouty of tjle PrtdtlYteclan Chllroh 1n th Un1ttCS awtea.. us, lf IJPlleid by t~ civil colll'ts, would make It poeilbi. for '!IJ.cb enurchet' to wfthdraw trora the Pr.Mbytel'l'an Cb~h in the IJnltad Btaw!ffth ~1' - peoperty at tbelr own dltere.tion. 11 Tiie Aslemhl.y MIVlaed the Pretbytcy haying ~tlop <Nez QllEf ~tl OI) witl'l 111ell oootnry" oharter lo dlrtot the ~hutoll to amtnd Its cllllnar to conform to the Boat of Cflufah Ord5 ao that tile alltl'lotfty of PCU8 courtt llllflrt ~ fecqjllbie<i and the denonllnatlon'9 property ri&'bu 11adeq\latelf ~" The.AQembJi..id that a particular churclt ~not hne ablolule own-et1h41 o! itl proper~ "lmout rei~elji!e to tbe denomlltdlon,,w and au~ld & OOl9mlUM to~ tha matter ol church ptaparty. (llinptu. lho, pp. 8t 1 81.) 234

68 APPRNDlX 19il-A. Th$t Ad Interim Coramittu "To Study thee Wbole.Question of Church Property as llejated to the Prdbytety and Otb11r Ohul'oh Couru" brought in.a repol"t which at&tedr L The Jcpl ti~ to property "' a per,ticwat chl.ll'ch It ld 'tta tl'ultees on the btllal! of that ooncreratlcn. Therefo!'et the prqperty Is al!t\lell..v eontl'olled by t,llat ~Hon. Thi& J.1 ~ed bf both Civil and ~tfeal oolll't$. The right to hold 1111d ~ ot proper~ I.a &nwted by tile Si.t~ :t. A. voluntary rellgloua aoo.let hich eonetlt\lta a pert' ot a religious 111"ga111Dtlon ~ dllnornlr.tton,, having wtabllslled trltm»ws e.othorlaed to deoide que&tloaa o! faltll, dllleli>l1ft6, l!tlle; tit eoc1e.si111tlcal goveonmen1. la bo\lftd by dects{<llls Of 111Ch ttibunaa in. IUC!ll qllestions..s. Jn such cue. whtre a rirtit or property 11Mrted in a civil coart is dependapt 90lely on a QUeation ot doc~ dlsolpline, ecelef.luti"1 latt, rule, or cblllc!t per.m.ent $ncl lllat quet\lon hu 'Oeerl daoldlld by tr. highest tttibllll&l within tile orpnfzatton. the. em1 couru will ordinulj,y ecaept 1lletdee181on. W~ere pr<ipetty II aoqulr~. by a partlaular ehut<lhj, 1:Pg ptireba:sle Oii Otb0r'Wi811; for. ti,c... Of liuch church, ib will be a matter fot" the elvil CO\Al'ts to.ietermlne who aomtltute.uch ctwrch or Its leglt:imate.-sson. 5. JI ttl.isu OI' members of a ps:rtioukr c:twch vndei'take to wi,thdraw and attempt to Wke thelr chi.itch prq>ertf wjtlj t!lem, It may aibjeet c1l qutjtion.s of ownership and «X1trol to a deelsioli by tli ehlil c0\u1s. (Minyt!!, 1951, p. 1fl.) Tbe -General As:lemblf did not adoet the Nt>ot\. but l'tml11ed it u infotmatior. In lh2 a new co11rnrlttee wu ereeted to '"study the whole questlclll of ~bw"e>a property" and nport to the Generel.A.sse111bly "with a dtdi.n1te reconuuen_dll,tlon tot amendment to the~ of Chureh 0~1 if fo\l.114 necll$uy.h SMln!!le!.1962, p. 51.) JIQ, The committee "91,10Z't.d ahead of tahedule. In l95s,, t~lllllm'ndin&' hlo perqreplw for adopti~ by tbo Aaeemoly "u 1, declaratory st.etement, 11 and 1.ovtatng the Asllelllbly that the pal'8gl'a(lbs ec.lld be approved u Ul!endm.ntt, to Ute BCO if desired. An effort to approve aioh ainendm*11ta failed, and the follo~ Jarl811ote remebled oa the record u a cleowatory atatemant, tiif.t ill, 1111 Aaaemb)y int.erpre.tjltion of what the Boo!< o1 Chlll"l!h Ordet mmqf; ltej11 l 'I'll benei'icual otmlrlifdp ot t.he propertj Qf a particular c:hurcb ot the Prabfterlan ChlA'eh in the UnitBd States Js In tht ~egatlon o! $Uc:h c:bii~h 81'.d title. mq properly be held in lllly form, corporate or otlm~wbe, oonsieitent with the provi111ont of ol~il law in tbe jurl1dietlon bl 1'hhlh well prqiertj la situated Tbe ooncrecallon. wjtn f'elll)&ct to ~h property. may properly ael'oise any. privile,e of ownenhip po Sii eased l;>y pf(iperty owners in atch ).lrlsqj.:lticm. In e\i lhftance i ti! r of ure of IWh me 8llall be ln vi tion of ob I[ the iaji ttern D The 1911> edition at the DIC8'l'.. :re~ewlng twent, ye!ifs of dtllioniinatlonal eftart to expr- the ecmcept of Orilt..lea unity thro\:rb lta ~1X!tlonel prov~ foi- ptapfply ""enhlp, ~not retaio U. ~11.er statement o! tbe J\lrildlction ~ ~ whole Ge!)Om.IMtlo.a over prcperty. Ill hs plaee a.q edf~iaj. not~. fll Tllr: Cliurof\ ~ ref\jlled to affirm ~liat the Pf~ 4' of conpecatlon ~ to that eongr~tian ablotujely and withoni 11\y reiatfan to the Chim:b p a whole. The Churob hp lilcewhte retwmd to attlr111 uy <r.rlginal Po"ei.of ~ eourts over. the property of ~tloq. ~ 1866, ~ V4J n.e decl4ntory 1t.$tement or 1851 wu realflrm.d by th l86t Genetll A.leml>l,v in NIPOM8 to an ovutute trom the Pr81bytery ot Potoma<:. '111 Assembly stated the,t further alarifio&tjan,... not needed. (Minutes. 198'1, p. UT.) lffl B11t to~ yeani later the Geotral ~mbly provided Jlll!lt 1111eh clarification In a pivotal lbltement whfeh quoted vlll'blltlm th, USS declaration and 8lq)IQ!de<l It eit*5sve!.yt

69 MllWl'ES OF THE GEKDAL ASSEMBLY The CoUowq deelantory statement wu adopted by the General Aaenlbly In ltu - 19S3, W.'2""'3, 14S) after t. st\ldy aa.d reeomnnll.tloo al a oommlttee appolllteci fot the pll?'poa ot the q1teetion and reporlinlj btck with a reao111111adation for amendment to tbe Boole ot C.bureh Order, it found necemar:r. Jn lttlf the Premytery o! Potomac ov.rtured the O etal ~ to l'll&lce cl.tar tbe Prabyt rlal Church, U.S. position tteardinir the ownerablp of chlln!h ~!1 The ~al "-ml>l.y redfirmtd Its 1853 statement and 'U!>Ofl&lda 'The Book of Church Or~r, wi.n supl}lemented by the ckclaratory t t Meot of tbe General Aiietmbly of 195S,.Ill lluftlclen~ clear. (MJnu , p. 127), The 8oCik or Ohurcb Order provides that P;ellbyteey 1148 the authotily to ree.sve ~ dia111lll churches. Appellate proeedure is outlined In Cti.{>tet 14 ot the ll'ol'll> of Government ud Part V ot the a~lel of DisclpU11e. All perjiofw Jrm 11.ibHq...atJ.y aroll tbe111selves as c untnc me111ben m profassl.oo of raltb of the pertlelllat chlrcb m111t f1rst asree to IUl>mlt tbemldves to the fo\'tl'iullent Uld dllj.elpl1ne of Uie Church. ~tlon 2ll>- 5(Ji)1 ~eotory tor the WOHhlp and Work of the Churab.) Mlnbt«>s Wld ou- afti<mr!>&fore an!n&uoo apprcwe the CoYernmeot &lid -lpline of tha P~Ylvian ChQrcb In tll 'Q11lted States, and promiee Mlbjeotton to tllelr tretlreo ijt tl\e Lotd. CPorm ot Oovernme11t, S«ot!om 2H, ~7~.) Wll aiv Miailter, other ottlcer or aoaununlng member leela that M oan no lqwr 1n iood eanse1-e nmaln a put ot tbo Prfllbyterlaa ClM'clh In the Untted States, the Book of Churoh Order prondel an honorable and ordlr.ly procedure fot ~~ l'liruelf from tt. (Rules of Di9clp1i,ne. Chapter 11.) Section 14--6, ot fjle Book of Church Order MW forth the 11.>h- of action or each Churab ~t and their lotertelationt to ellgb other: 'Thae courta 11e not aeparate.and 1ndl!lpendenl trlblljlllil The1 lmve a mutual relation, and every act of ~lsdlotjon bl the act ot the whola Church perfprmed by It tbroufh the approprla1:e Chlu'ch aourt. Section 18-7 of the Bo~ cit Cbwoh Ordei- provides thu Presbytery hu the power to rmelve, dlsm.isl!i, al'dajn, imtall. remo" and Ndfe mlnlstera, to review the ~dll ol Ult Seulon1, redrelt whatever UM;Y 1111,:i' have doll8 conttl,l'j to ordc, alld take efteotual C$1'8 that tbey obllel"ll tile Constitution al the Chu,rol\. The Presbytery further llu the pow~ to estal>hah the putonl) relation and to diaalve it et ttte request ot th one or both of the [lftl'tlee ot where the Interest ~ rdl(lon! mperativ ly d.mni.,. it &ndi f\lt'l:tis, the Prdbyt.,y ~the Pf111el' and,authorl~ to aee that the 1awi'ul inj.inotjons at 'tile highar colll'ts are obeyed, to CfOlldeJM ertqr~ oplnfon which fl'\jul'c th p11rlty Ol' ~llo. of the i!l'lurcll. 10 visit oburol\etl fql' the pwpoh ot. lnclull"lnr Into and redrellllfng ev.lla that may have "1'11tn.ill them, to unite ot divide clllli'cl1u at the request ot t1le raelllbeps, to form '8Jld recclve new ~Ilea, to dl111gjv11 anuroties and in general to!!rder wha~9f pertain. to tbe 11pldtual welfare of ahurohea under It oare. Pu.th8r, tlle Preabytetf 118' the povrcr Md authority to appoint co111millliontl't to the 0.11enil A..mbly ot the ChUPCh and to propoee the Synod or to the OeDeral AeNllll>ly auch meaairaa u lll8f i,. o! oom111on adyan1-(e to tho wboi. CtnlNll. lt takes more UWl a name to become a Pra!ibyterian Clmrcll, U.S. It takes more tbp to prof ea the aame f&jth aa the PtetbJterlu Cburell, U.& pro!_. to be om a P~ tll'l'ian Clltrct\ U.S. It takes a prof811lon of U..t rat th and aubj a&n to the govemmant ot that Clwrvh to make Prabyteden Chu!Jlh, U.S.!36

70 APPENDIX Such b8i been tile orgaolza.uon of the Presbfteriaa Church in Scotland, &om tile t1m~ o! Jom Kn~ to thls datei and hu betn silbstantlallj fouowed 'by tbe Preebyterlan Cllureh in ~land and the United St«te11. The fot~i:nl reprenni. ~ ~e51jyter~ Church, U.S. posltion an ahurcl'i ptopel'ty. Th1* ~t'ion Is s11bjwt 1 'however, to the eivil la'l'vs of the State whwe th& prqpert;y js, lii1uated. Generally, however, tile olvil eow'u aonolllded that a cqugr-sation belqfng to 11. rtli_giowi denom'w.tion ltld SUbject to the constitution, faith 811d doe?trlnes tbereof, oan.not VM i'b! (>l'operty for a purpose Wbich violatu the r~1i9!llhlp of the CMgl'egatlon to the d~xn~tion. (Minute.?> U71, pp. l'1l-17t.) C:ORCLtlSIOJt The final paragraph of tht> Hl'll sia~m~t just quoted l'eitec t$s the trong traditional emcern ol the PffabJttrian Church. Jn the u.s. for 1M orgmlc unfty of tbe ~nomination. The pasltioll of tile IHI! Aslembfy I.a expended and clarified - <!MCJ'e &t!ons Must hold property ii\ a war that eat~ thll de110111inatlon's r!iht Jn.ucll owne!l'llhlp, but the higher courts are not panted any original powers over the property or 11. congregatlon; The ~te po,were or 'the llfghef' eouru of the Church In u- matters are solidly affirmed. ~ l!lter the approval of the 19Tl etatemen~ the rocus of eoocero Cot property mattera hilted to U1t1 civil courta u organized etfbrtl were mounted to eneour,.e par<ticuj.ar c~~bes to lee,n ~lie denomination. ln most of these l!.ijm!l, Prel!byterlee &m181!ed-t.he congreptlon with t1!e1i property. Jn eome C!llS6! tbe congreiations 11oteti tq Ylitbdtaw, decdining any f~thel" eommume11uon ft'uh the Pffibytery ot Slll'lsdiotioo. Pleabyt-.v rtactlanf wtr mlllod, 'wi1h thea4! i'e$etioa.s predoml.nallt: t. Tb!t lloldiflg c~egatioru; were rilr()j,y rernov.., from the roll. l. Some C011gn1 &tioc1& mansr*'1 :te> ae~ eiur tltlt< ta ttielr Pf<!Pm>tJ ihtough Uie aivi1 oouns. J. 'lbe rlejrt of the Pralbytery to determine the "true ~gregaiion'' In a dlvloe(i chilrcb V(U upheld in litl Qtion before et.ii eou?bj and the ~lions oontlnlled u pvtj.cular e!u'chec of 'the PC!JS, often wltb re4.ltled mombtftlip.. ' ID 1911 Ule deno111l~uon t.nlwered tbe wlulclrtwel movements by enacting a new Section -2, whieb llll)ist,,.,., ~ti.tjonahip to the Ptelljyt~ Church, U.S., ot a partte1;11&r church ean ~ eev~ cin.ly by constiwuonal action on the part ot the Presbytery ot which It Js a memlx!r. {Mlnutg p ) Tlile prov111on wu not In er:tect t11hen tbe case of.tones va. Wal!, di.lcu8bed in Appendix 2, uose, and it 1 u not coc.idered by the couru that bend that eve. 1'le 191'1 atatemeat haa bean the "Jaw" o.f the Pr<si!l>ytertan Cliur:'Oh in the United siates,cot a deaad., through the authority of the General Asaembly to intel'pl"flt tbe tlenomw.tfonla Constitution {BCO 18-6(3), ZO ~, and io-4i). 'l'm.t ltatement ii.ic waa cona~ to be. a del!w~uon oc the earuett decler tory atat.ment Of l9$3, Thf! 11m.nded C.IUipter II, Book of Church Order, propomd to the lilet General MlemhJy (1981, doe8 11,ot re~.t a change but simply eets fortti in the BCO ohapter on property ltfhat precedln& Geooral Jbsemblies bave ~lared the elditing lsticuage to mean. R1t11er than represen~ 8!I.Innovative or Urtlinr cha.nge, tile amendmenls presented in the reeort whloh preal!de.s this epvelltl~ are, like those ptoposed t<> the GenJral Assembly '1f 1924, llfl e1tot't by a well-qualltled aommlttee "ta mtke 8UCll revisions u woldd olarify ambjguolll _ 11eni.noes and paregrepb$, replace obsolete Work' ~ phreset1 wjth worcla and pbrues tbat are Ul'Jed toda:y, and blollllf the Boole of Ch!lra.h Order Into oonforminr with interpntaticm given by various A embllea and with preaent dlcy Ulla(~ while ilymg "to keep :In s'uilld what it bellev to be~ prineip.lel o! Ch!Jl"Cb rovei1ment taurht in tile Holy Sol'lptlne." (Mmutes >(>. 116, ll'i'.) 2S'1

71 MINUTES OP Tli8 <IBNBRAL Af!BEMBLY 1'l'lill eowttry wu founded an the &!onoept of the BIPU' don o Chl.nh and Sf.ate. Amarit1an oourl.s have ba.n v~ 11ow to e!ijlllll in cleterrain1tioa or ecclelllutioal 111atten, eapeaially when ti,., Involve theoloeiou fsaier. Thlil lleeitatlon did not 8llcil1 tot the ~ in lfiljand,,...,,_. tti.ra was an tahlillted religion. The tint report.d ~1111t.11 oam. waa OfM frt whieb the eourt Into deterlllfnatton ot «ieleelutieal uttere. 1rbe eue wu c~ v. Allunlli, 1 Dow. 1, a Jiair, Rep. 601 (H.L. JIJ'.3) (SootJ. Teii Jetn later the ame cue 11111M before the ftoum of Lor4I again on IPPftl. Thi.a tlrrus. Lol'd El.doo, who had rendered tbe previoil!j qedslon, admitted that be b«d ltudieg tjja docidnal polltlona of tl\lll lltis.,its and that lie could not lladentand tbe differenae hi tl\e pcaltione, bill '* nevertlltlms attenl(>ted t~ reecb a dea!alon In the oue. Cralgdalli~ v. AJkm""' 2 Bligh 529, 4 Bnr. Rep. 4n (H.L. 18%0) (Soot.). Byt CJ\vD oow1a 111u.t dlllpolll ot qu11uon1 ot the owoenlie mid l'fil1t to ~ ~ l,lftl99!'1y Amal'lcan COllr1a flowldend ovw the prcmlem in. tile b41flmlnf, not reao~ fltw1 OOMeltSllS of eppt'ol!oh - ao that a eommentator eomewt.t ojnieallj but ~ e.eciurately det!ia...d that the reailtl reeqhed by a par~r oolll't 38ellled ~o depebd u.pqq the kind of tthuroh orpnlllat~ tn which tlle )uve ~Clpated Md the doetrlnal beliefs tbat lw f ot11td:femw11'. Then Jn n ti...ffjtla tl'll ~Oii of the UrJlted Stat111 S119r91n Court fn tile lendllwk e-. ot Watson v. Jon.., 811 U,S. ate, 20 L. Bc (1472}, Thll eae Involved. tplil in the Pr..q)'~ ehureh re&.lltin( from ttle Civil War. fn a lengthy and ~ preciared opilllon, Mr, JIMtfi!e Miller laid down tl'lree niles governing the iau6 of determlnaµon or rifhts to ebureh groperty. Thesit rul were aa fouow* t. If "the property!11111 beell, by tbl deed or the ww of the donor, or other instrument.a devoted to tlle tee.ehlnc' 1 IU(>pO!'t, GC'..-12 ol- BOll'le lptlc'ifia fot'lll of l'clifiou docttlne or belle!"jt would..-~ tlje obyto111 duty of: tbe (!OIJ~t. to MfJ il\&t the pc"qperty IO ~c»ted ls not diverted from the tr~... " 8D o.s. at 122..is. z. It ""1e properlf ts l\e1d by a l'eugious eongraptioo which. by the nature of Its orpnfzatioo, is lb'je~ indepelldent of 0th.et. eeolad.astioal uaoolauc>ne. ahd ao tar Li atturoh JOY8t'llm1111 t i oanoernad, holdl no f~ty or olillpllon to Mr! J\!fller authority ("a ellu.l'e.h '1t a stri(!tly oorepcat:joll*l... orpnlzation")... (ud if) the principle of fo'letnment In IUOb a.- ls that U. ms)>l'lty nil.el, -1hen the numerii:al nuqoruy of numbar:s!ut.eontrol tm right to the 111e ol the pr~.11 lid. at '122, n5. a. ft "tile relifio1111 cqregat1on or'ecol.aaaticl!ll bpdy lloldlng tm property ia but a llllbordillate membu ol some a.in.i churoo orgaal&atlon in w.htch there are superiol' aecleslutl~ tribun.alt, W'lth a &eneral and ultimate po1' of ciontrol m " or i.11 co111pjet.a In ~ iqireme j11dla tory over Uae wtiota orpn1z1uion, Candl... wheneviar the questiona ot ~line t r!ai tn. or ecelesla&tieal Nl&i eubt.om, or law have been dea!ded by tile tilgllest of tbele ohl.in!h~im to w!rlc!h the 1114tt«baa been o~ the lepl ~il;juaah 1J11.tst aecept auoh djtcisiona as final, and u b~ oo tl!eni, in thclt appllaation to ttt. cue beton them." ((I. at 711, 'U7. 'l'tle Court d.rd not,plll'pof't to tay down. a rllle ot eonatit1.1tione.l ta1r 1 sinl:e tllla was long Defore tflll de(?isian l'mlti been. 1'e&ehed that the Foorteentb A!lleMment bad tile e!t.at o{ lmpo!dnj:, the..,._tijatian.s of the First A mendme11.t Cincludlng "free ax.rci11e ct relf11on") on the Stata and decilliooa M "8.te coul'u. Irwt-.d, it'"'~ dowll oorommjew ot the kind to be ~by th led Jl cour\i ander tri. rw. or Swlh TysOD, c CJ.S. J, 11 L.. :Sd. au (1842), wlueh iqe applicable at that time. Tha deoftloo. bowevor, had ltrollf oonetltuuonal ovwtor&ell wld It wa to penuast1111ly lta.ted and reflll'ded a8 so approoria~e iii ~wine t~ l'igl!t :line behte ll ~urcll an4 Stete that It was "1111)' t~.-.d and c 111e to bet~ ea leytng dqwll the oommoll law for JM8l Of tbe.bt.e.tes ea w~ The thrff rui. ot Wat.on~. JC!Jllll have Ql'ked.out 111a1t ~tidalltol'jly «11d tjie dbtllletloll betwffil ~lllja~ona.l. and hluarehleal cbllr4lhee bu beeii quite aenttalln followed. U a particular olalreb W1lhe! ~o bte!llk 11.way or there a. ldlianl within olurah of the C!Ollgl'fllfatlonal type It hu been held to be vritllill Ulil e11thority of the local olwrch to defttde by m..iortty vo... of ita mem~n wbere tjie p~ eoes. 'ftle majop11 (It u.e loc!-1 ~ "'ould deterllrine..tao wu q11allfied to vote and. ill declsion woojd be followed by the civil OCNl't& tn Ult hierarohtoal churoh, on the other bllnd, lt wa. the hlgbilet "judlmltoty'' ln tilt. f91\w4j, Qhuroh to whlol\ \he oftlui WV llqpcaled Whoee decl loji 111ould be Ntrarded by the oml courts a& blndlnc on them.... lt tw co~ to be reaognlzed,, llowev-er, that fhete «l'e t wo!otmjj ot ttlervc!b.tcal olmrahm -ep!s(!opal and ~etlen {Or ~o«l or repr...nta.tive). for the 9(>iseopcl ty~ )egej titi. (w.press eqllitat>le title) to the pr<iqerty for the partieulu dhw>oh bu normaijy be.ii (>lae d tn Miii ot the bishop or other epbacpal ot!lefal and Uiere 1'11\Ye 11cit beeri many oau to be litipte<j. '.l'!lel'e have llao n'lt been lmjly 01111ea U) be lltlpted for.the OOllfJ'eptlonal churches. D4oet ot t!te etiunlt pl!operty Cd~ have arisen Wi:tb hierarelli~&l otp>ebel of t\1e preibyl41ri.t{ll type. N everthelsslt if the priru!lples QI. Watson v. JQlles ape followed' conselen.tio'ully, tbe "9Ult eeerna to be o~ In tb6 JICUS. '!'Illa 4enoll'lll'9.Uon is Pecfoplced.u hl uel!iolll in chal'aotet - ttol'llc '81:siOQ to pr~ to lf1lod to general &aeniwy, l'lttlt the d90illon of Ult tdgbat 01)lll"t to 'ilfhlch.ppeel has be9l1 made l>elilf tr ted u tfl;idlng on the Pllftles ind on th!!ml eq\u'c.. And tll18 "'1>1111 lll90 to Oeolt1o1111 on echl!ll 8lld property dewcnlnattons. See Booi< of C?mcb Order LH.

72 APPEKDlX State courts have u.ially adopted t111a position. Watsoo Jori'5 aontinu.es to be ~cu. folliiw~ by the mejcrlty ol \be 8tatM today. lt iii 1.Weful oow to dlgr,., 11t t.l'lia point to ret~ to tile llct"'oalled doctltne ()f tmp!sea tr111t and itll llpilicece. 'This doctrine t>tgan wlth the early BngU.h e&s4rsi - e&{>eeially tbe declllon or Lord EldOn, tn Attomey ~Cl'&l v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 3$8> 38 Ellg. Rep. 135 {Cl\. Mtl7). Its prime applicatlgi\ wu to Jteee & ~lty in an ll\dl.vldllal ~ oot In a lllervchil!-1 system,, tram raaklnc 1 l\lnd6111enw chan(re in dootdne - e.g., aballge from a triniterlan nllojatry t.o a un1wian m~try- end keeping the ctu:iioob PJOPl!C'tf troll) a dlssent!jli 'mhlor(ty. Ttd& concept or 4D implied trttst was Jlll(Jql'ttd Into tn& oowltl'y 1 ~JI tt waa ol>tioas}f a legal fiction and did not f).t- 111 with the reaognliled Jaw ot tr\lllts, wl}etl'mi' dpl'el!i, tnipned er etiar.lttlble. It 'P{>lleJ more appl'qpl'ietely In nee. or a ~$tloual, oh1rah and obv:iously ll "'departure from doctrine" J8 construed broadlj, it bu the IJ1ent.i:>le etteot ot &klltityinr tru, gro~ or de~elopment or 11oclf1e&tioo of vte.- '1Ver Uie years. And there was a dash, etpeelally ~ New lnglang, between il and ideas o! deinoera.ey and 111ajori,cy l'ule. Tl'le i!ll(>lie'lf trust doctrine lllao cmne to be applied to bierareblcal otnzn,hes, but hen the Implied V!llt W8' freque11tly uaed to m8111'1 that the local!!hurch hel4 the property In!111p1Jfd trust for the pnel'lll church. The e111(>hulll bere ~ 118Uall,Y an the system ot government rat.>ier than doctrinal dllterenoes. It wu not departlll'e from doetrlfte bl'lt eei>artlll'e from the ChW'eh polit,y or totm of rovernment tmt the "Jmptled trust l)tennted. n g, tlms apparet that tl\is epplh:ati9r1 a( thtl implled trust doetrine wcm!lcf hllve the NSU!t of rll8.al'dng the eame result aa that r"ehed bf egplieatl911 of the rule,of Wafllon v. Jones, tm>114rh oil 111U,htJ.y ditf~t b8'is. - ' on either of theae two bues tile dealslon -or t.he appropriate l'c\111 ahurch court would be eol).trolll.ng 'on the Jll!Ue of beneficial lntermit in ph:lperty in the ca.- of a local ohurch ~ dilaolyed oe atteml!'til:lc to break atifay ar being baftt bf sahbm. Bencre; tlle!'i! was little need to roalce apeol!lc. provl:slon t111 thl2' mattel' l!i the Book ot Chllrch Ordet. We return now to a oon&tdlratlolt of d11vehlpmenti!ji ti. Supreme COlll't. Ttie aue of ~~ v. BDl!Wlll C.tholic ArchOlellap of ManUa. 280 i1.s. l, so S. Ct. s, 1 f L. M lls 09%9), reitera~ the holding In WatBon v.jone:a, but Ult opinion of Mt. l!sliot Brandelt set forth thl'ae coaptlont to Ult WatBCn!'lila of nanfntarfilrcik!ll in ell.itch matters. It declared that aml coarta need not defer to the dec&sioni qt ~i'llte ~b judicatwu wben the <lec?.wona were "' a ralult of "fraud, oollmloa, or arbltrarinea" lei. at 16. A.apificent heilding now came 1n two-oeclalona lllvalvtng the Sal!it Nloholu Cathedrai of 1l)e Runtan Ortllodox C!mr'Oll. Jn K«ll'otf v. ~t ;Klcl)ol11111 CatheCll'al of~ RussJa.b OJ!thodax Ohlfth 1n North America, 34 U.S.?t Ct. :lt L. M 120 (1952) 1 Che ~t indicated that Ito WatlOtl l'ule'-11pmitlcaf:bt, the Ullrd Ma.- bmd ll01' t>eeome 1 prtnelple of eog*\ltuti.onal law bindlng an tb 11,ate courts. -"Tiili'Wu ttrough 1he PJOCGa of holding that the provwom o! tba Pint Amen4'nent to thf! Constitution bad become applicable to tl\11 States tmough lbso11>tfon tnio the Fourteenth An\eru!ment. Declaton$ eatabhali1ng this process,were Cantwell v. Canneotlout, 810 U.S. llh (1940); and Bm,reon v. Boatd ot l!d~atioj], 330 U.S. l (1947). 'nie "free exercise of r.uvon" cl&um ill the Flnt Aruendment-.. tharet._e appul:able t9 the States and i~,..u hek!'to loolooa Ule ~rule of "on!nt.erfemjce-l>y cmi courts. The tatement ID Ute Kedroft case wu somewllll.t obuqlll! afnce it 1"val~e,strtetly eccles11utteel matters ad eoncern~ properi;j only liicidentany, biit lt seemed cteer enough and it was relteraied when the, ame l!ae cam Up befol'e the Bupl'eme Court again In lreeldk v. Satnt Nic:holu Ca~dW, 383 U.& l90, llll s. ct.!ol_l7,. 4 L. EIS.!d.1140 {1960)~ Thii posltiod wu also aontirmed by IUbsequent deolilonl ot the. Supreme Cburt exp.re!sly holding V.t tt-e nontntarletenoe rule of )Jataon v, Jones was a conat!tlrtion.111 rule that mqst be tiq11,1plied' with by the ta.te courta. 1'he l'ule w., held to be llllbjeet to the 'tllree exceptions aet forth Jn Gonulez. - Tll!a l>rlnp 1.m then to tl\e ttm of two ease.a In the Swremc COlll!t Involving the PCUS and a brukawa, local eh\rch In tile ata.te of Georgia. Some detail an the fecrte and upositton.ot the position ol tlie CJeior(ia CQUl'U ls neovssvj to understand the very important Oeel'10D1 ot the Suprem C91,1rt In thele two euea.. The (in~ one ci:ew out of the vote.by two Sav.Jnn8..I) Cl'lurcihel - the Eutem Heit.Ma PrllllJJtmen CINr!ch end the Mary f.lizabttb Slue Bull "*tl!ol'.lal Ptelbytcwitut Ch!nh -to -1thdtaw fforri &!Id to sevtr all oonneetlon Wltb the }'CUB. '!be reeotut{ons ofted as the b tor tjle withdrawal the ge11eral Ctturoh 1 a alleged vlolatian ot. its oonatitutlon and depart!!!' fl'oll\ 1111 lafth and praotieel. Iridleatlona or the "~" illojudecl 8UOll matwn u a ~tjon 11lat the ~ina ot prt4es1ifl&ti0ft WU not -ential to teform tj\86logf1 ordlll&t!oij of '!foldell lls 'llllftiltel'8 lllld d4et1, i'et'\181ll to 81'1Ck>rll8 a pl'tllbj'teey ptoposal to 8"1< a constltuttooal '1'1\elldment t:o parmit volun~ llible r~ lldd (ll'8fe1' lll U. pt6ll~ Mhooit, fnv0ivc111elit wlih tb.e Ma til'inal Cowell or Chw-cbei In the Mlllll lppl Delta PMJact, laa\linf pn:w:iolll\e'8ment.t on cml affairs lllioh 1111 the 'Vietnam aonruet and apealdng of cml cllsobedleno. Jn favorable terms in -tain ohlll"(!h 11ehool 11t.Pll t\lre.,. A eom111illlloo appointed bf presbyteey met ~ heard evidence Mid d1rectect, wtth pretbj1erj approvai, that tbe ~ntera ~q\llsh Ule church prq>el'l;y to the. preib~lll:'y 1'h$,Pl'eebyte~ Htion wu i(nored l:iy tbe diaentera, who did not weal from lt to lfdod. Eaoh pety.ought Injunction ~t the ou.. 'the b'ial C!OQl't admitted evidence of tbe abece<i depel"ture!tom doettlne and l!llbmitted to the jllty the guestfon o'f wbethllr a departlll'e '19.as Pl'OVed. 'nae jury bald U..t it wa and the tria:l court then held for the two itbdrawille CllW'Cbca, 1rantin,r the property io them and eqjqtnlng the pr~e~ r,olll lnterf#lfllr 'llfltb tu me. Tba Supreme Court ot Geprgla. aftlrmed In. l'rllllbytwian Cbur'eli ill the U_nitecl Statea v. lraeteni llelghta PreibYi~ CINr:oll. 22+ Ga. &l, Jb9 S,J!. 2d 690 (19$8). It beld ttiet Che particular CJblll'Ob hoidll the proparty imd«' an implied trl&st 2l9

73 MnroTBS OP THB GBNERAL ASSEMBLY ror the ganeral ehurctt but that t?le trun ill conditioned upon the pn«at ehuroh's adharenoe to. lt.s t~.w in talth and fjll'aedee extsti"(' when the ~ti.i ch11rch a!futated wlth lt &nt1 ftt an abandonment of, or df.clarture from, lluoh tenetll ia a dlvtnioi\ from the trua~ whleh tlle civil eourta w.lll p~ent." 224 Ge. at 68. It 8 eilpl'etsly oyerruled' en earlier oaae 11.oldtng that "complete llbanaonn1111t ltl reql.lirelf' and ar!lf~ eumined the allegations of ~ decided tlld t~ jury wes juati!led 8ll.d be1d tor the.local cblll'ohel 'i'iu, of course, was llle hqplied t:ttut ttwory ot Lord Bldon ti.ck tn 1817 In ~ where thae wu no --=P tia11 o1 chul'cb.ancl atat&. rt wu patej\t1y In conflict with. the principles of Watson v. JOMS. 'l')'da wu the polltj.on tabm by ti Supreme Courl ot the U.S. In UllllALmOUllly nrvllll9ing the daclalon ot the Supreme Court of ~Ol'Jla and holding a~& 1 d41garture:-from-dootrine approaob" UlloOllltltutlonaJ. and Nylng. tjat "c;jtorgla~s implied truat ~ e&n p1ag M role in &Jl1 tu~.#imlfdll1 l*oel'edl?v." Preaortel'WI Cbtircb.in the Unlteil!t.ttes v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Biili MemOJ"lal Prtqterian ~ $113 Q.S. 440, 45G-<il, 89!I, Ct. 801, ~l L. Bd, tl&t (1989), Deolarlilg tl}at "the First Alllflndment severelj eiroum&t!?'lbee the role that civil aourb m., play in reaolwlng ehutoh property dilputu; the Colll"t declared ttt,at It "aom111anda cfyll oourta to deoi<le lroh P1"Q91rty dliputes lfltllout rt11ol'1ng Wld~ COlltrQ,'lellles av~ religious titrln&" au O.& 1tt 449. When tbe ease ea111e back to the Supreme Coutt ot ~ for actich\, It decided.that If lt OOl.ild not -wty the l plled trwt tor 1be pnlill'al ehureh with Its 11111Uatlon ln olvlng U. 11 dlpar~om-cbrlt1ne element, w lt would oot lnvdce the Jrapllcid tnl1!or th pneral cburoh at an. Tiils left the &eral. title, u oreate4 by tlw dffdl~ In the local chlll'ohes <II' 1n trubteet fo.r Ulern 1 and, without reinancl to it"! m.j court, tile eoul't deelated tile "leg;al tltle to the pr<ipel'ty (to be) U, the rupeetlve loe&l chllrohea." ~erian Chiw~b in the United 8t«tes v. B!!st.m H1lg11ta Presbyterian Clwreh, 2Z5 Ga. z:;e. 16'1 s.,g. 2d &58 (l969}, No rw'enoce wa made to the &4lt1on of the Pretbyt*'Y of saveh!iah Ill ~na that i~ wcu1d anrclse ;lurildiction over Ul11 ehurclleii ant1 (»'«Wide m~t<!c'lal Jeadenlhlp and rilgu)ar Hf.foes "for tl'l.ch members who wildi to contln11e tlteb memberahlp tn. Md commttniari with" the genenl cbw'ch, although thoae membe would appear to eompoi. the tnie local churches Wld8!! etwrch laws and to be enuued to 121e ptopetty undal' the l'lll of Wat.DI v. J~ B t,the U.S. Supreme Court declined to i'eview tti.t deeiilon by refualnc to grant eerti~. SH U.S. 1041(1970). Kefl)r'll!l'\N s!lou1d mo be made to Ii companion eue to Hull Mf!or'fk In this cese, the llilil'yland Oourt of Appeals ba.d b8jd that two loaal ahurahes mifht wltldaw by m~tf vote ~ e denomination and' keep tha prop11dy. M4lrylllnd snd Vll'glnftl ~ or the CblltOhes at 'God v. Cbw'vh of Ood at s~.- lne, t49 Md. _650, 241 A. Sd &JI (1988), Thia action wu vaoated ~r the U.S;. Supr~e Doutt 1md remanded \o the M8FYland COllJ't of. Appee,ls tor turlher COllllidtlr.atiOll in the U1tht or the Supreme Coutt's optalon In HuD lllemorfal, tupra. See.3113 U.S. HI (ltsll), Tbe r.far7land Court penlluld lo its lmklini; i»oj&rq tl~t it had readied i'ta decisfo;i on the bu1i of ttneutr.i prllll!jplllll ot law" u «tated in the Sqpreme Court's Bull opjnlon. See 254 Md. 1'2,, 25:4 A. Id '18% (19H),, This ho.ldlng was appealed to tbe Supreme Court and In a vwy sllott per curlam q>fnton lt ~smisled the ~al ror want of ~ l!qbstantjal!edeftl questlan oe the gt!~d tb&t tbe "Meryland COU\'t'I ~ Of the cflput involved.no inql.drlea l11to religiom doet:rfnt. a Maryland and Vil'g:Wa IMe!'Shlp at Churellel of Ood v. crn.:ab of God at Sbal'pllburg, Inc., 396 U.S S. Ct. 49.9,!4 L. Ed. 3d ~82 (19'78). Mr. J11Sfice Bremw1 wrote it "sepa.tate cpillion," sta~ that thllttl are three WllfB in whlob a state mtq settle 11 church prqiert;y diapute \lfiu\out c c>o1lderatioo of docttt!w matt«t&1 (J) "~approacb of Watson v. JOMS, '(2) WIB of ''neutral pl'jnoiplea o1 Jaw de\felcped l(lf UM Ut &ll pioperty disputes'' &lld (3) llpa11111i9&e ol!qeoj.al statutes pei:ninf ehuroh pr(4lerty, arrangements In a m111111er that predude1 state intv!ej'9110e ln d09tr!ne." 396 Q,s, at ~111-"T.O. Only two j111tlcee concurred in this opinl'on. 'nle next Supreme COUtt dedtlon cam~ 9ix. ye8j'!i la'~. in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Dloct.te for. Ifie 'Prated Statu and Cen40l v. MilJvojevl~ll, 28 u..s. SH. 11& s. ct. isn,.u L..Bd. td 151 (1176). The Serbian ~ Cb~ ("Mother C11Ufd)") removed &JJd defrocked the blsbl!p of the Amertc1111 Canadian Oiooese and 4Yided ~ dioeete. Into ~ others, :Al.14 l'le aouibt rell'ef. The llllnola SupTer11e Court aet u lde. botn 1cdoo.!, the flret &«!lion on the l'«jul!d tti.t it l"u ~ ar.bltl'sry'' in not rodowftc the Mother' Churo1''$ constitutioll and thull l!ame wllbln one ot the tllree ex<!eptloos to Watao.n v. JoJtw that were laid down in Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Alcllblsllop, 181) U.S. l (1889) (fraud, oollweioa 1 ~tr111r!nus). ln pui11ri& on t~ the S1Ji11'9me COl.ll't Invalidated the {ll'bitrarinese &JDeptlon. at ~eut In lllo w u it involved "rej~tlm ot the decision o1 Ul1t highest eocleslutleal tribunals of this hlerei'ehloal ehureh upc!f! the lqjell in dlsgute u d..sut>iltitut.ii It! own ingilfcy Into oj111roh t>gli~ em l'glollltigm... Id. at '108. "CW)here r-1utfoo ot tm ~uw cannot be meda 'jfittiout erleosive inquiry by civil aourta into religiow1 14 w and p<1uuc!1 tile l1lt'ilt eid Fourteenth Ammdmenbi riwldaw that olvtl ootltta sball Mt clll!turb the- deelslon of the bjot t -1.eaiu'tlcal trlbunal 'flthln a church or blerarohial polity, but must accept sueh declidons as binding upon tbtim. in!;m".r apoli.oatlon to the rel~o111 fsaiee c! doetrlne or polity before tbem." ld. ~: 1119, The lllinola OOll('t had set ~Ide tlle -~.U:r.tlon of the dioceses by "hat.it eeded "neutral princf{!les" tt\at WOUid not "in all,)' way entql,e (it) ~ the determlna.ldon ot lheologl<llll docttloal matters.'' But thw -S~e Court hllld th t the.lljjnois court " 11~11ted its' interpretation of the Dloc!esan and Mother Churob GOMUrutiona for tbat of the l\li1'ut eoaleaiu~cal tribllll&l In whleti ehutoh Jaw veata auth!>rlty to make that determination. 'll1ls Ute P!Mt aild the l'uur'u!enth Arn.-icfments forbld.n 1c:I. at ni. ' Tu tl\e aocumula.ted' effect of.tlw Suotel)le CQ11rt deo:atqd... of raid-l976 'IHI that the Peoeta! Ccriatifut!a,\ (illcllldlrig the Fll'llt and Bolll'teentti Amendm'enW forbids a c ivil CJOUrt in a prq>ert;y dllp11te bet.,een a local e hw!ch and 1enitral. hierarchical eburch I.tom telolving tl\e dlapute cootrar.y to lh~ decitlan of the blgbeet e~lesiasti~l court so Joni, u tha.t di!eiafon is bued on chi.wch pouty tha1 the civil court would need. to inquire into. TlUa 1tate 9l the law wu leeyln( th4t p~ty ~tu Uon f or the PCUS appuenuy In a 1atiaf8.ct o111 l1llatioo, sin(!e It u t!le tradition&! anderstaqdlng', 240

74 APP BK DIX t!'l.ough not 1et forth In e11pr.. ~t&ll in. th BOO, 0) that pnip.,-ty of the Jocel church wu beld hi "Implied trurt" l«tile whole c.l'alrch Aetinf thro\alh the prlllbyteey, dd (2) tllat ij\ Cil8e ol lll!lulll #itbi.11 local cluroh elthlll' rroup might ~ to tba pr~tery, which Would appoint a conunlasion to hold a begrlll(, pr~ldlns "[.lrooedlral l&feglw'dl in MMt or!ll'ooels~ (BCO 14-1) to determine Whet ae;tion 11lJ!o1.1ld be taken l'aprdl the conthullldon of the loeal ehllrclt Md reoort to tha ~ for fb actlqn. The ~ cue Lwolvtng u.. Pcus and tb_e Georrfa court. Is.Jon v. Wolf, to U.S. 1es, 911 s. Ct. Mio, 111 L.Bd.td 77~ (lt70), 'lllll b the Jut case tc> eonte bel11re tile Sllpreme CO\lrt 1.11cl Die 1110llt impoi:tant CUC tot p,r~nt Plll'{)O&elr ll!nee It Is rile b~ in tl'lls cue that Is mllklltf Cbar:1ru --.ry lq the Book of Church Order. The Vlnevillo Pretbytarian Clnrch of Macon, Oeorata, had a divisl.on Into!6C!tlona.on ttle luue of "hethw It lhould wlthdra"' fl";llll tbe PCUS, It voted 18$ to 9f to wi u.ir.w and beaome an indepeodant..u-wover~ elluroh, t~ later It Jolned another denom!u.tloa. 1'rle.Aurtata-1'4aeon.Prellbyteey appointm a ooro111tad.on to mediate. Qneble to reaah en.,reemen,, it aeclanld the 111tnor11y f"ouou to be the "true COIJO'«&" tion" ot th.a churah and wttbdr:all' autllorlt~ from ttie majority and the pastor. The majorl~ retatn.d posaeaaion and eootrot ol the!ll'gperty #Id tile minority lx-ourht an action 1etk111' a deelar:.torj Ju~ent IDd an lnjunotion. The trial oourt. h.id for the ddendantll (th majarlfi), The ~reme Oourf of Oeorrta lttirmed. ~one. v. Wolf. 2'1 Gt.. 201, H3 S.B. lid 160 (WTI). l'ollowinj th nntral prlneiples awroacb, It toul'jd nothin( ID the deeds, cbuter of the Vineville Cburell. the Oacrrta 11tatutea er the PCU8 eo1ptit11tion (BCO) that would lh'e a J.aaal lnt- t ln the prapef'ty to the r:enetal dlllrcl\. The f et that VlnevWa "had been 11 eanneatlonal cltureh f!'lthln the Augusta-Macon Preeb.ytery and the Pee&" ".u held lnau.fffclenl to "give rie. to proget-ty tl(hb In the gemral church." 243 &!. 2d at No llignifican~ 'tlfas atteohed to the actw.i ol th praebytary In deolating the roin«lty faction to l>e the true coneregatl.on and tberefql'e tha lol!lll 11tnircfl1 tldl matter 1' ilrnorod ~ OUll 'WU appe&led to the SUpreine Court of th Unitl'd States, WMl'e 1ha OOlll't ipllt.s-i. Jones v. Wolf, HS U.S. 5H, 99 s. Ct. 3020, 81 L. Ed. 2d TU 0979). 'The majotlty wlnlon, wr!tt- II>)' llr. Jmtlce Blaclcmun, reftera.taij the est~lhed C40lltltut:kimal nilai that "tbe Pirst Amendment prob!blu obu courts from r111~ olwrl!b propert,)' clsput. on the bub of t"al.i,tous doetrine ~d praetico." 10. at ISOI. It 1.1-o defil'littly adopt~ tti. "M11tral-p~1-o(,-law ~eh" that lt bad earlier "noted 1n pualng" (p. 599) In Hull.Memorla), hokln( lhat t:hll approach mlgbt be ccmtltut10mllj followe" and held that It was properly tollowed!jy thi GeOftl'la i»urt alnee tha PCIJS Book or Chureh Order "leilad to NVeal 8n)I.language or truat!n Cavor of the geller'el chuteh.'' lcl at &OJ. 8ut the 8~11111 Court reoapized that another QUestiQQ miar be ann«'tld betol't a dm!lioo c::c>wd hcitlmatety be reaolled. The Sllpl'eme Court of Geqrirla had assumed 9wiihout dleallllion on a.nal,.u" tmt th m.soricy feotion of th.e VlhtM!le eborcl\ co.cqpomd tm lbaaj cllurcli, ~ the aftioa Of the l"re.!brtllf'y ia declaring the miuodty feation to be tn. "true ~ep.tlall." 111 (lait O states Suprellle Court declared that ttle ~ p~t.d b1 this~ Is lfhfch faction of U>. f9fllll'lj united Vlnevttle (!0Cl&T9Ptien ls entjtl.ecl to p-. ad enjoy the pl'opftl'ty. I<!. at 102. 'l'ha Court hcd held th&t the Georcfa eo11rt inlpt apply neutnl prinelplel or la" here too. It eollld adopt a ~Uve rula ot majority rt{lramntetion, defeaalble l(loo a ahowtng that the idlnttfy o!. tha loaal ~his to be detertll.ined by &om other meatia. Id. at 801. The "other 1JJ..nt," u ckttr1111md bj nwtrtl priae!ples lllichl be b7 "prowi.oi.llg In tile COl"pCWate ciwter ot the aomtilutlon of the gelm!l'al imirell lhl.t the ldmtil;y of Ule loaal ehurell ill lo (l>e) atabli!lhed Ill tome othill' n.y (thm a msjodtamn prewmpuonl or by provicifte that the eb\nh property ta held ln trllllt for tile ~ ebtlreh end t.hom who re.ma.in 1oJal to It.". Id. at &08. "'- a-..e waa tbetefote rea1andtd to the Sgpreme- Court o1 ~ for fllrthllr aotioil in the ligbt of the me,lor{ty opbdan ot the lluprerne Court. In J"onea v. Wolf, Hol Ga. 318,,eo 8.ll. 2d 14 (!He), the G-si«SupreiJle court 11Cfi.rmec1 its lnltlal doelslon. It followed traplicitly tile ~on In the mljority oplllkln Jn tlle lklpreme Court and held that Oeol'gU "hlll adapted far UM ln cflun!h 1Qoa1 schism ~ a ~Nllllllb()tin rule of ~lty repre11entatlon, dafeufbla ~ a ~ thet the ldcdltity ol th@ local OllW'cll 18 to be determine\! 1;rf 101ne otl1tt m"l'l!.'... The pr etumptfon m11 be averooroe by relwjh UP9ID neutj'al statut91i corporate oharhre, Hlennt deeds, an4 the organl.&atlcmal oonstlwticms of tile denomination... A review of th-~.. cbalasat rio provillo ttwll "ould tbcrt the Q~a preaumpttoa of ma,lol'j\f rule u to the right to eontrol tjle aetiona of the tl~mlder - Ulet.18, as to the rjaht to.pollhll, anjuy and control the Ll9e of the Clulh:h premise&~ IUd 1.t. 84,811. Althaogh the BO!lk of Chll'l'CJi Order lndieatea tllat a ptelbytljl'y Q1"dinatlly actlng thl'ougji a commlalon, may visit a ~cb tiw tile purpqee of lnqull'fll.i into and. rlldr~ lh8 evlla uiat 11!111 have arisen within them (at. la-'f(5), *9-i), the Georgl.a OOU't made llo reference.1o Ulla,.de4lar(rc that "1'be cb\lreh dooum.ents fn tbe Pl'Nlllt 1111e IPeelc to rao.iuuon of doctmj\al dulput... Tbey ate silent as to wlicm ~ Ila tile fitht to enjoy Ind 111e the elvch p~'1 In the event a! a ecl:ldm.et theloce:l level !. 2d at 85. It tharefol'e afl.11'111.a on"e apln the J\.ldgment or the trl&l COW'l In ruling In ~nar of the majorlly tacitlon of the v~ ahurch llild lilsmjtain( th11 complaint. Certiorari w tol.cht fro.id the decislo.o of the Oedl'(i& court bui wu 4eo1ed. 100 J. Ct. Jl>31 (JHO). rt al\ould be noteci. however, tlla.t IJ\ tlle U.S. Sup',enie Court flllll' )lltlcee.djanted Yif«Ollll.J 1 tl!e opinion b~ written by Mr. J1&Stioa Powell Thlll opinion rtarts by de<!larlng that the mljodty op!nroa "cleperta from l0!1f establi9bed prfnelpl.at' end ~lllptl'imposes.. aew tr\lc~ of "Iles" and a "l)lew analjsll (~t) le iaore lika\y to Invite lntrulion ln10 cburah poli~ fot'bldden by the PJrst Am1111dment." 44S 0.8. at IJID, SIL It traa Ula rll(er.,_ to the neutrelprinoiplet-0maw llp(ic'oaoll in prevlm aues and find!i that alt~ fj'9 eoneept lad pt'eviolllly b9ell m111tjqiwd bf tlle CoUrt, lt ti.d llot been aotl&ally dci9ted and ts 110w!>ein( formally adapted tor ttle lliet thne, But, the opinion IXll'ltinaa, evm l! the approech ie now available to be Wied wbm there la a WICli.lllOlll cl9oll\cj!1 to withdraw tn the loc!.i dl\lfft\ the P"d>n oc 11 9dUm In the loaal church requires ~tenot badd!jiw. Tile C'ONtitution ol ttie 1erfef81 ctllft?i mwl ))e loolced to to determine the "form ot g~tl'iwic!e" p.(1 f\'h9t apne7 mal<lt Ule c1eolalon ot wbl.t pcwons oonstituee the true local cblftb. Here lt ls elee.r tllat tile PC~S la 6 hlarvon-1 c!u'ch, and the epprcpfl.te apnay made lta deolslol\. To re!\lle te look at the eonstituuoll (!Jock ot Ch\rett Order) u wboje to cleturnj.ae 1'ho w11

75 MJN.UTBSOF THE GENDAL ASSiMBLY a.uthorill~ w deoide b11.t to lo$-only at tl\e 1$C~ 9110YisSona regardlnf chl.im:h prop ty m&ant that the ataie c(!jlrt "l!'anted control to tbe tehlsmatio laetlon, crnj thereby l!ffectiveb' reversed the docti'l&l ~Ion or tho chunltl aowu. This lndlreot lnterf~ by t~ eiril oourw witji the rtsqlt,1tlo1'1 ol rellf'owi dilg111t111 within the al'wn!h It no 1- ~bed by the First Amendmut than fa th direct question of doctrine and pr1ct1ce." Id. at 'Por ptmeot pllfpqllet ttiere ts no point to bit 111&.W by Melclbg to de<:ide whether the m~ty Ott the dilhd\ilw opltl1on (1 better M!lllODecf alld mote likely to promote the - ol the Pirat Amendmut. wti.t I.a. lme!lr't-.t is to reellse that the m&jority opln1on bu braugtit abouc a c:hanje in tbe int iwetatlo!\ ol ibe Pfnt Amendment u It P" 8 the authoritj ot the civil ~ta in ~ dfl!pimi regarlfnc alluroh property, end that tl'1ll c:!hanie llllkea 1t illeumbent UpOn GUI' Cl!Utah 10 ruk4i lllmm'cipl'late changes in ine llj1cllage ot the BoOlc ot Cmtcn Ordw.In order tllat tbe raulbl pl'oduoed by tlle landmllfk deftlaion or Waborl v. Jones WI ft c1111e to be comtitutionellzed) will t!ontlnue to be atwned in cmm i!mllting our Ctwrob. Indeed the.supteme Court J.tselt, in m~ tbe olwiite in itll interprelatio!l ol ttle ttrat Amendmen~ tiaa ~J lnrited the ohlll'ollt to i.ake ttie e,,.._ llt the language of their eooetltutjcim. "At a1if time bef~ tbe d16{mjte ~ta, the> pe.rtlee. oan emure, if they so dei!re, that the faoticln lajal to tm hl.c'iu'ol'iolil clrlrllb wm retain th llllutel\ (ll'oper,ty. 'l'&ey ean OCll.fy the c1t or the cotporate charter to 1nclu6- a l'icht ol rev.nlon on trust In favor of the lf'~hleral ench. Alumatively; tile cona&inrdon o! the 1eneral ehutch ean be lllade to reette an erptess. trll8t In tevar ot in. ~mulatiol\61 ChW'ch. 'lbe biardan inyolnd in taking 111.um 1tep$ Will be minimal, And tile clril coib'tl ww be bound to gn e effect to tile reailt lndloated bf tti.e ~Mies, provilfed Lt Js embodied ln aome lfllpllr oognlzal>le fttm." JOJIM v. Wou, US U,S. at Im id. at &03~0.. Otl'Hll' Reform cmri~ With a lli.rarvm.oal torm of governnu111t like t.ha PCOS, are already eot*!l'ed Sri. puwni tlleee ej1ane;a into ~f'1ct. ~d w must do th* Ml11'1- The neqded ~ In the Boot' of Quiroh Ol'der ~d~ tile f~llowlngl i. ProYtca ~ In the Book of Churoh Order (Pann of GoYl!tnment) that Ule looal Oh\lrcll {or a prelbytal'j' or llfjlod) llok!s fta pr~y lot-{ In trust for the l'ctjs. ;I. Provide expresaly tb4t in ~ of a 1ahism in a local cfluroh tllat o811110t be 11111ttlod throlli1i tho uatltaoee of p,~eey, the.pnnbytery lwl deter!lllne whion laatlon ls the true ocql'l!ption and thprefon enfltled to t!te properqr. This I Qli-a.t to appeal to l'isihllt Jl&dloawria in the normal fa&hion. 3. Place allot thla in Clulq.~ec' s, Oil ~ty; wtiare it wt1l be available to the :1tata eourts witho\lt thelt M.ving to ln~t do!strirl$1 provl&iqiw of tne ac.o. 4. tj~ eeoulu ~e rather than ttle langl.lafe of ahurah doctl'ina and p~ 5. Jndlaate that OU ill a.ci.vetory of wb&t hu been the eatabliabed ~ Ol. t1*ae mattfll'll lllnce tl\e eulleat thnes. TheN c~eii IP ~e, i! pt0per)1 <t'4f~ dd adopted, Will f\llly take eare of the pjcblem of etrlrl!h property tor out denomination. The Supreme Court w indfc11ted es much in in.vitirc the ohurehee to mllke the changes. And ~ s~eme court ot Qeorgia ~ twice hllld irt V'*'f recent yeen that awrooria~ lanp.lp In tbe eqq!jtitutlon ~t the general chutoll 11 sut!iohmt to prodwie a deelllon that the property la eontrolled. by the general ahun!i\. SH Camas v. Smith, 23& ~ 20, ui S,j;,24 UI (1"6) (Methodlat Church1 Boak of Disalpline, vm. lht requires that title to real pro(i~ ii. held "Ill tniat nevetlm.ld for the use and benefit of llueh local cm.itch end The United Metllcxfn Cburcb'?s Crumley v. $olomon, 243 Ga. 323, U d 3.00 (1979) {Bol.ilMm Baptist ARoolation held bl.eratcll.ieel; DJ1ctplinary Rule11 provided that tho "A.oc.iatlon 8hail held all aburqh prop~*>' regardless tr all memben vote \o cha.op tm ohuroh.w soma other f!dth'?. It ellolild be ad4&<1 that for ma.ny rtatm -.1> thap.1 m08t of t,hem - t!us change ml!y not ba needed. The p!'l!l!lel\t haldijw of the Supreme COUJ!t doea not l'tiquire ta~ "9Urt8 to.t~ow the new neutral'1>rln~-jaw approao'b. Instead, they may ei;intinue to follow ttia approaoh gro~ng out of Watson v. Jones antj. for a church with the prd,>ytetian form ot government, Jeaye the determination to -otnaoh Juclleatortes. See, tor uampl41r Milla v. 'BaU'lwin, JU So. 2d 2 C!'J.a. 1911), 1n which the PJ.orJda Supreme Court J\elcl t&t when the ni.:jority or a local cllllrch Voted to withdn.w tram tile PC 05, tm loyal rnb1orit:j rema.ined the true ahul"eh through aatloo. o! pr8ib~tefy and was entitled to the property. 'hie deeis!on Wllll va.oe~ by ~ S!Jlftme Col.rt "f<>r ful'ther collllidtl'atlon in the liglit of ol~ v. Wolf.' 89 s. Ct. SIOa, l.s L. E<1.2d 8T8 09'!9). The Florida Supreme Court 11oarefull31 nwtewed Jon1111 v. Wolf" and found its decblan "to be not fnaonlllstent with ~he prlneiples E elated tlmllin.".mills'v. Baldwin, ~7'1 So. 2cl 911 (Fla. 1918). The &'411'1me Court denied.certiorari Ct. 2t64 (1980)..., l'lut, under Jon~ v. Woll, states me.y alto elect to. follow the neuttal-prlnalples approe.oh. No w that fhlll apt!qn la 9'llpt'i!S81j made available to them, there ill no way of predletlai w'hicb 11.ourae they will etwoe.. The qcested l!ijllendlnenta to the Bock ot Chlll'ah O.rd'er wm fl]fmln.ate all unoertojnty ~ will malce 111re that 11 uniform p,rutice ts tallowed no mattor What state tf\e lasue arilh!ll _f;n. The l'«lomm.andltd amendments ue highly de&fr.ablo. 242

76 APP1!NDIX A BIBLIOGJtAPBT OP LmAL stdddib Oii CBDJlCH l'jlopmt?y AllD TIUl 001l8'lftifll011 A. LtraJ Studies Publhbed 5'nce the Deelsi«l in Janes v. Wolf. Note, Chutch Property Dispute ftelolutjani All llqlaaded Roi for CollfU Alter Jona y, WoU?, ti Geo. L. J. 11{1 ll8811 Note, Judici.:t Reaolutioo of Church Property Dilpute~ 31 Ala. L. Rft', 8'1 (J.880) Nol.. Jona v. Woll: Nwtral Prinolpla Standard ot R.V!tlll for lntr...church Dllputet, 19 Loyola (L.A..) L. Rev. ~~~ ' Comment. Clluroh Propei;tf lllllputut The Trend and the i\lt-tfve, ;u Mercer ~ Rev. 5Ml (]1180) Commant, CaNt1tutional Gllidellnes for Ci.U Court ReeoluUon of Pr<iperty I>liput ~ from Bel1Jlo1111 Sellf1m, U Mo..L. Rev. Sia (1980).Co1J1ment, Con1titutlo.nal!Aw - l'reecbm of Rellg(on - Chllrah &1\4 l!lt:a.ta -Pl'Operty-Bcelesla.tloaJ l iaw - A Stab! May Conatit11UonaUy Adopt 1 "Neutr.i Prlllefples of Law" Aperoaeh tor A4Judl til'9 Chul'cll Property Dl$plltes - Jones v. Wolf, U 0. Ci!L I,,, S.V. DD 0"19) ' Commeat, CDll8lltvUOMl COnltltuUoJlal Law: Neutral PriDc!lplU of Lew and MajDrfty Rule Pr.sumptlon At>Plied io Dlaputea Ovet Church Praparty, 19 Wul'lb11rn L. Rev. 6f0 09SO) Sup!'eme 060l't llevicwa l971-t9 1 Term. 'I' Out. C<lamL L. Q. SJS, J' QNI>) B. lrtportant Stuclles Prior to Jone&" Wolf. Caae.d, Chui:ch P~ty Lit(fatlom A ColDlllent on the Rull Ctlureb Cue, S'l WUh. 4: Lee L. :Rev. 4f 097D) Kauper, CtNreJi Autonomy and Th Pim A_mmdmata The~dii,,n Ctnnh c..._ IHI~ ci. Rav. H7 MeKear. Ttle Problem <1 RMOITing hq)erty Dllputn in Ri arehiaal Churtlhtll, 48 Pa. B.A.Q. Ul (l!n7) The Sup,..m COlll't: 1988 Term, SS B&rY. I,, -.v. 'r, 126-'.lJ:J Offt) *Note, lwllm.1 lntel'yeatjon In Dil!putes Over the Use ol ctuah l'l'operlj,?rt Hll'Y. L. Bev. IMI (IH!) Note, The Rol. of Coutts tii Chllreh Prasi-ttiJ D!lputa, 38 Mo. I...Rev, SH (ll'u) Mote, Contlltutional Lew - LimJ~ on luaicial Jleview ol 81varchie"1 Obllt'Ch DeciRom, -46 lordbam L. Rev. 9~2 (197'1') Note, Conatl tutiq11tl!,aw - Pir1t Amendment - The ltol.e of Civil COUl'tl '11 C llw<ah Dlrplltel, l,j'l7 Will. L. Bev. toe Comment. JudlPJel lntl!ll'ventfon 111 Churcb Ptoper1J l)qputes - &111. Conltltutfo1141l Conalderationa, 74 Yale L. J Ot&O) Comment, Llmltationa of tile Polffl'I ot Cowta in.&eao1v1nc Clllreh Property I>lilputet, 31 Tenn. L. B.ev. $(9 OHi) Comlll4nt, S.rvian Blstem Orthodoa Dlooue v. Mlliw~cih, Ctiuroh a.n4 State, 18 Wm. 4c Yaey L. ~8Y SSS (19'1'1), C. Cominlttee SWclee The ContJnlllng CrllSB.de tor Separation ot PCUS Legal A«lvllory Committee on Churclt Propel'ty, Lepl. llltmol'llnclild on Church Prq>erty (197~) UPC USA Pet1'anent ComlQlttee Oii CoMerfttJon of PrclpertJ, Rec>art (JHO). ua

77 7

78 l... the Constitution of the Church. "All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General AssemblyT or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). whether legol title is lodged in a corporatiefn, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorpora1ed association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)." (G ) B. How we make decisions 1. Discerning Christ's wiji Through our theology we understaod lhat "(pjresbytcrs are-not simply to reflect the will of the peopje, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ." (G 4.030Id.) a. Majority rule "Decisions shall be reached i'n governing bodies by vote, following opportunity for discussion. and a majority shau govem." (G e-) b. Always reforming At the same time, the church js committed to being ope'n to voices sharing minority opinions. At some poin ts in our history mir10rity views eventually became those of the majority. Thus, the Constitution recognizes "'The church reformed, always reforming,' according to the Word of God and rhe call of the Spirit." (G ) 2. If we disagree Presbyterians have ajways celebrated and recognized significant differences of opinion on issues that matter. This ethos is currently noted in the historic language found at G : "... [W]e also believe that there are truths and fonns wjth respecl to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we thilik it the duty both of private Christians aµd societ-ies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.".l } 1.l a. How we allow dissent The Office of the General Assembly recogriizes that currently there are deep and profound differences of conviction on a variety of topics 1n the church. When ic comes to voi~ing those differences, we have prev.iousjy drawn a clear dis~inction between djssent, w1!_~2,9 is_~i-~!~~~n:~~!!t1t~~.n-~ll~ pr?t~~tedj.a.nd.~e~~n~e,,y(hi~~ i~ ~..::~. ~V~P.ra_t~~~-<l The Conslllul1on provides ways to register disagreement and to propose change.!) Any go'verntng body member may surely dissent (G ) and/or protesl (G ) a particular action of (hat body, 2) Sessions (G-l 0.0 I 02p.(6)) and presbyteries (G I 03t(3)) mny overture higher governing bod ies for changes in policit:s or even changes in the Constitution itself. 1 See., Advisory Opinion ffl 2.

79 ' l. l f b. Ho\-v we behave in disagreement I) Our covenant demands that we strive to work together in peace and unity, even in.the midst of our diversity. This foundational Presbyt~rian principle is fo und in many places within our Constitution (G-l0.0302a.(3)(a), G- 1 J 0413, D ~ 1.0 I 0 I, D - l.0103) The duty is always to attempt to bring the estranged m ember back into the covenant community. We promise to carry out thut duty in our ordination vows. 2 2) There are also times when an individual finds it impossible to go.ajong with the majodty. "... (W)hen any matter is determined by a majoiity vote, every member shall either actively concur with or passively submit to such determinalion." If an indivi<lual officer finds that his [herj "... conscience permit him [herj to do neither) he (she] shalj, affer sufficient liberty modestly to r eason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion without attempting to make any schism." (italics added) (Endnote 1, Chapter VI) Diss'E.nt_ f.~!!.'!_o~ constitutionally become advocacy for defiance, nor for schism ill:.'"\. '._,... ~ If. IF SCHISM IS A RISK FOR A PARTICULAR CONGREGATION The Office of the General Assembly is aware of Presbyterians who feel compejled not only to abandon their vows 3 and promises, but who are willif"\g also to rend the fabric of tbe church nnd siafuflyihreaten the peace and unity of Christ' s Church. We are concerned that some seem willing lo take fo r themsel'-'es the autltority to ascribe within which "certain bounds... of the Refom1ed faith" (G b.) we all must live. In_our history this too o ften has led to schism, a right of no Presbyterian." The teem schism is "always interpreted in connection with and in the context of speci fic factual siruations." 5 When faced with informatfon that a congregation is intent upon or at risk of ueparting from the PC(USA), we suggest the followhlg measured app-!'oach: A. Use a team to gather infonnatioo... I I. This could be a team appointed by the Council (G a., G-1l.0103v., via G a.) "A committee is appointed either to study and recommend appropriate action or to c arry out directions or decisions already made by a governing body. It shall make a full report ro the governing body chat created it, and its recommendations shall require action b y the governing body." (G I a) 2. It could be a team from the Committee on Ministry (G-I L0503, G~ l I.0502c. [triennial visit), G-l J.0502i.,j.) ~ G-l g. and G b.(7) Oo yo11 promise Lo forll1c:: r the p ~u~ c.:. unity, 111d purity oftl1c dmrch? G- l e. and G-l 4.040Sb.{5) Will you ue governed by our church':; polity, and wlll you ab:de by it ~ d iscipline? 4 Second Hel ve-tic Confession ''all schismatic seeds should be removed." and ''Furthermure, we diligc11tly reach thal c:irc is lo be taken whcr:::in the (rulh and unity of the Church chiefly lies, l e ~ < we. mshly pro vo~e and foster: sr.hi~ms in the Church." 1 PCUS Minutes I 9Ml. p. l 08 J

80 ,-1 j -, 'I a. "The commiltee shall be open to communication al all times with the min.isters, elders who are members of sessions, sessions of the presbytery, and Certified Christian Educalors within the bounds of the presbytery." (G ) b. "lt shall visit with each session of the presbytery at least once every three years, discussing with them the mission and min istry of the particular church and encouraging the full participation of each session and congregatio11 in the life and work of presbylery and of the larger church. (\V- I -4002)'' (G-1 L0502c) c. "It shall serve as an instrument of presbytery for promoting the peace and harmony of the churches, especially in regard to matters arising out of the relations between ministers and churches. Its purpose shall be to mediate differences and reconcile persoris, to the end that the difficulties may be corrected by the session of the church if possible, that the welfare of the particular church may be strengthened, that the unity of the body of Christ may be made manifest." (G-l l.0502i) d. "It shall exercise wise discretion in determining when to take cognizance of inform~tion concerning difficulties wjthin a church, proceeding with the following steps: 11 (G-1 l.0502j) 1) "It may take the initiative to bring the infoi-rnation which has come to. it to the attention of the session of the church involved, counseling with the session as to the appropriate actions to be taken in correcting the reported difficulties." ( J. (1)) 2) "It may offer its help as a mediator in case the session either finds itself unable to settle the problems peaceably or takes no steps toward settlement.1' (G j.(2)) 3) "It may act to GOrrect 1be difficulties if requested to do so by the parties concerned, or if this authority is granted by the presbytery for the specific case. %en so doing, the committee shall always hold hearings which afford procedural safeguards as in cases of process, following the procedures outlined in the Rules of Discipline.'' (G-l l.0502j.(3)) J I I 3. The team could be appointed by tlle presbytery trustees. 4. The team might be made up or members from each of the above bodies, and could include others as wel.j. B. Empower the t,eam to conduct an Administrative Review. l. Those conducting u special adm inistrative review have cerrnin constitutional :iuthority. a. "lf a higher governing body learns at any time of any irregulari ty or delinquency by a lower governing body, it may requ1re the governing body to produce any records and take appropriate action (G-J n, G-J , G~l k, n)" (G )

81 L,;4 1! 1~ l y..,j:.d + ' ' ~ /rj' j.';::,/,,tk/) i b, AuthOlize the team to look at whatever records may be relev~nt (i.e. how money is held,.ti:tle to property, insurance documents, corporate officers, corporate articles, bylaws, charters - especially chnnges in any of these) Such a team should be especially carefuj to loo.k for recent changes or modifications of the articles, bylaws, or de~ds. The presbytery is entitled to see such changes in legal documents. (G ) 1 l I I I l l c. "In reviewing the proceedings of a Lower governing body, tne higher goveming body shall determine, either from the records of those proceedings or from any o ther i11fom1ation as may come to its attention, whether:... "{G a) I) ''The proceedings have been faithful tot.he mission of the whole church;" (G a.(4)) 2) "The lawful injunctions of a higher governing body have been obeyed." (G a.(5)) i2. Authorize the team to give directives (G ) on behalf of the presbytery. a. "It is ordinarily sufficient for the higher governing body to record in its own p roceedings, and in those under review, its approval, disapproval, or correction. 1f necessary, the higher govemittg body may direct the lower governing body to reconsider and correct an irregularity or cure a delinquency." (G ) b. The type of directive will depend on the issues (examples: don't call a congregationa1 meeting, don't transfer assets,,don ' t encumber property, don' t elec t new offic~rs). C. The team must keep au concerned parties informed. l. Send letter to session {wording should be measured, but fim1). 2. Send letter to all members of congregation (measured, non.. threatening, explanatory; presbytery often has been "made out to be" poised to seize the property, etc.). 3. Members of team have "one on one" conversation with the pastor. Be sure she/he understands the consequences of any probibiteei actions. 4. Communicate often with council, COM, or body that appointed on progress being made. When the team has reached some conclusions, take recommendations to presby1 ery for further action, if necessary. J 111.lF.SCHlSM ls LIKELY, USE AN ADMlNISTRATlV[ COMMISSION For a 'COngrcga tion bent on attempting to' withdraw A. Why use an administrative commission? " Commission:; appointed by sessions, presbyteries, synods, or the General Assembly may be 5

82 either administrative or j ud icial, except in the case of sessions. which may appoint only administrative commissions. The functions ordinarily entrusted to an administrati ve commission are:... " (G~ Ja) "to visit particular churches, governing bodies, or other organizations of the church reported to be affected wi!h disorder, anl to inquire into and settle the difficulties therein, except that no commission shall have the power lo dissolve n pastoral relationship unless such power hns been specifically delegated to it by the appointing body;" (G a.(4)) B. How to use the administrative commission I. Many future difficulties can be avoided by a careful evaluation of the presbytery's goals in creating the commission and the powers the presbytery's commission will need to meet those goals. 2. Technically, an administrative commission has the full authority of a presbytery for the limited purposes for which the commission was created. (G ) This fact s uggests rhat a presbytery should be v'ery careful and deliberate in the authonty it delegates to an administrative commission. Careful attention at this stage will be rewarded by a clear focus for the commission and an understanding of the commission's authority by the session and the congregation. 3. lt is h~lpful to note that administrative commissions are not "all or nothingu propositions. They may be given authority to "dissolve pastoral relationships" (which must be explicitly given, G a(4)) or may be authorized to make only recommendations to rhe presbytery to dissolve. Corn.mjssions may be authorized to "assume original jurisdiction in any case it determines... the session of a particujar church is unable or unwiuing to manage wisely the affairs of its church.... " Jn fact, many times an administrative commission may persuade a session to agree not to meet without a member of the comrnfasion present, as an alternative to assuming original jurisdiction. Then the commission can simply cof.lsult rather than govern. I J 4. Such administrative commissions should always be created by a writ~cn motion to the presbytery. C. Drafting a creating motion and assurance of an "opportunjty to be heard" The careful evaluation of the problems and necessary goals will greatly aid in drafting a clear and concise creating motion. Remember that the commission takes "'its marching orders" from this document; the affected session and minister get notice of precisely what is being sought from this motion. Time spent carefully crafting the motion is time well spent. Several necessary cornponents seem clear: I. Membership: The make up of the commission generally should be persons "known and respected'' by the congregation. The commission should be rcpresentati ve of the presbytery as a wl1ole. a. How Jargc will the commission be'? A presbytery commission must have at least seven members, bur can have more if the circumstances merit it. b. What kind of skijjs and personalities will be necessary? This varies depending 6

83 ,..., I on what the presenting problem is, It is also helpful to note that a presbytery may remove and replace members of its commission. This rnay be done to give "overworked" members a break 1rnd to bring in "new blood" or it may be done to bring in new skills or gifts to the process. I 1 I l c. It is our opinion that the following persons ought.not be appointed to such commissions: the stated clerk, the e>:ecutive presbyter., the moderntor, the r~wderator of the Committee on Ministry, any member of the presbytery's judicilj I commission. 2. Powers: This is the section Where the presbytery lays out what authority it hos deemed its commission rieeds to correct the presenting difficulties. a. 1f ever the commjssion is confused about what authority it possesses, it should not h esitate to request clarification from the presbytery. b. W e have advised that th~ presbytery should be clear that the commission may assume jurisdiction of the session upon some t.riggering event or action of the session. This usually has a dramaric effect on the behavior of all the interested parties. c. Of course, there are clea:rly situations where a session ~lreaoy has amply demonstrated that it is "unable or unwilling" to can-y out its responsibilities and where the presbytery needs to give its commission authority to act as the session in all of tl1e G powers. In that situation a plan to replace individual commissfon members periodically should be developed at the onset. 3. Rationale: The motion should include a fairly detailed rationale section describing the history of the presbytery's intervention in the particular situation.. I l J a. It should answer the question: why is an administra1ive comm)ssion necessary? (as opposed to continued Committee on Ministry intervention, for instance) b. In our experience, the group or person seeking the appointment of an administrative commission in this circumstance needs to be prepared to answer at least three substantive questions from presbytery commissioners. Usually compelling responses to those questjons is sufficient to convince the presbytery of the necessity of the appointment of an administrative commission. 4. Process: Administrative Commissions need always remember that they act in the name of the Lord. Their work is not about winning, or even bringing abo\lt change, but about restoring healthy ministry within a certain e:ontext. Commission members must always treat ejders, pastors, and members with respect a11d patience. Emotions are lligh, because religion matters! a. Most commissions will find it helpful to do some information gathering ofrheir own. The rationale section of the empowering motion will provide much infonnation, but there is no substitute for first hand infonnation. This oan come in the form of illl'erviews, as well as written correspondence. A wise commission will interview '111 who wish to speak with them, and seek out others suggested by those 7

84 who do interview. It may also seek input via written materials when circumstances indicate:; such a forum will yield helpful feedback. ' b. Once the commission detennines it has sufficient information, it needs ro evaluate its next steps.. Sometimes the next step will be a report and recommendation to tbe presbytery, including suggestions for further action by other entilies of the presbytery (Committee on Ministry, for.instance). Sometimes it will be the removal of the pastor or the assumption of original j urisdiction as described below. "In aji cases the commission must seek to assure fundamental fairness of lhe process. It must not only be fair; it must feel fair- to those affected.... "(see Advisory Opinion #3) c. Commission are reminded to follow G b(1) closely in order to guarantee f Qir process and afford an opportunity to be heard to all those affected. Such a hearing may happen at the presbytery meeting before the finaf action is taken. "When ao administrative commission has been appointed to settle differences within a chur.ch, a governing qody, c;>r an organization of the church, it shajl 1 before making its final decision, afford to all persons to be affected by tlie decision fair aolice.and an opportunity to be heard on the matters at issue. (See G a(3), G a(5), G b-d) Fair notice shall consist of a short and plain statement of the matters at issue as identified by the conunission and of the time and,place for a hearing upon the matters at issue. The hearing shall include at least an opportunity for all persons in.interest to have their positions on the matters at issue stated orally." D. How best to move forward is dependent to some degree on who is leading the schism. l. Ministers Unfortunately,.it is often the pastor who leads the congregation into schism. lf the prespytcry becomes aware of tliis possibility early in the process it may utilize the provisions of G to intervene. ' t.\ I l I o. "When a church officer, after consultation and notice, persists in a work disapproved by the goveniing body having jurisdiction, the governing body.may presume that the o'fficer has renounced the jurisdiction of this church." (G ) b. The presbytery can often identify an action that woujd further seeps toward schism and c.lirect the minister n ot to do them. (Examples: instruct the mfoister not to call a congregational meeting to discuss schism, or direct minister not tu send a letter to the congregation or an advocacy or affinity group.) c. Presbyteries need to carefully follow the processes described in 2004 by the General Assembly in response lo Item 05-02, where the Assembly adopted an outline with which to implement G : I) The governing body must disapprove the work of the officer (Wilson v. Presbytery of Donegal, Remedial Case 206-8, Mfoutes, 1994, Part I, p.! ). 2) The goveniing body must notify the officer that it has disapproved his/her II

85 I I work and that he/she is prohibited from engaging in such work as an officer of the church (Srimage-Nonvood v. Presbyrery of Southern New England. Rem edial Case 214-7, Minutes, 2002, P1ut I 1 p 344). J) lf the officer engages in the prohibited work after the notice of disapproval and prohibitio.n, th e governing body must consult with the office.rand notify him/her of the consequences of his/her action, i.e., that his/her persisting in the work may result in a presumption of renunciation of jurisdiction. 4) lf the.officer persists in the prohibited work alter such consultation and notice, the governing body may presume th al he/she has renoun~ed. the jurisdiction of the chu.rch. If the governing body so detennines, it shall notify the officer of its decision. 5) The officer has the right to challenge the governing b9dy's determination and to speak on the floor of the governing body in so doing. He/she also has the right to fil e a remedial case challenging the governing body's determination of renunciation (D ). (Minutes, 2004, Part I, p. 387) 1 I I d. But the As sembly drew a sharp distinction between renuncia tio n of jurisdiction and djscipline: "The tenn 'wor~ disapproved by the governing body' relates to the exercise of the ~.- vocation of a minister of the Word and Sacrament or the official conduct of cht1rch business for which a deacon or elder was elected. It does not relate to particular acts of ministry, or to behavior, that might be considered an offense under the Constitution (D ). One can be presumed to have renounced jurisdiction because of persisting in disapptoved work following consultation and notice, onjy if the work is engaged in after the 'disapproval of the work and if it is persisted in following a warning of the consequences." c. So, if a minister has already engaged in adive advocacy of schism (denounced the PC(USA), advocated withdrawal, or somehow violated her/his G vows). then the presbytery must proceed to appoint an investigating committee under tbe terms of D , Sometimes the session will also be actively engaged in schismatic activities, a. rf it is only a group of indivjdual elders, the presbytery might decide to assume original jurisdiction over the session's G~ 10.0 I 02r powers (discipline) and acting as the sessjon, discipline those individual elders followirig the Rules of Discipline. I. I b. If the whole, or a majority, of the session is involved in schismatic activity, the presbytery may neecj to appoint an administrative commission le> act in place of, or beside, the session. c. lf the pres9ytery has information that a declaration of schism is irrnninent, the empowering.motion should give the comntission original jurisdiction over th.e session's G au thodty to prevent the session from taking actions i11 furtherance or schism. 9

86 l, ] : i i 1 I ' l I I. I I J d. Often it is a good [d ea in these settings to condition the assumption of origi.nal jurisdiction (G-t I.0103s) upon some particular actioo of the session (i.e. calling n congregational meeting to vote on withdrawing, beginning to transfer assets, etc.) e. In any case, the sessfon must receiv.e spec~fic notice of the motion coming to the presbytery meeting_that creates the administrative commission and gives the power "to assume original jurisdiction in any case in which it de tennines that a session cannot exercise its authority. Whenever, after a thorough investigation, an~ after full opportunity to be heard has been accorded to the session in question, the presbytery of jurisdiction shall determine that the session of a pariicular church is unable or unwllling to manage wisely the affairs of its church, the presbytery may appoint an administrative commission (G ) with the full po'\n'er of a session. This commission shall assume originaljurisdiclion of the existing session, if any, which shall cease to act until such lime as lbe presbytery shall otherwise direct;" (G-1 UHOJs.). E. Tasks of the administrative commission: attempting to "settle the difficulties" (G a.(4)) I. The first step is to do some fact finding of its own.. At this stage the commission will.,. nomially int~rview session mem1bers, and congregational members to determine if there is a Joyal minority to protect. Usually the commission will be giv.en i nformation by the presbytery, but it needs to use that infoij'tlat'ion to assess the level of "difficulties' 1 2. If the session ta.lees the "forbidden" actions and if the session has had notice and an opportunity to attempt to convince the presbytery not to appoint and empower an administrative commission, the commission may decide to assume j~ris diction (G I 03s) because the session is "unable or unwilling to manage wisely the affairs of its church... " a. As noted above, this 1s 11ot an.. all or nothing" proposition. Choose authority carefully. Which of the session's G-l powers arc the 'l>roblem"? which, or all, does the commission need to take on? "The session is r~ponsible for the mission and government of the particular chu,rch. lt therefore has the.responsibility and power" (G ) ~ I) "to receive members- into the church upon profession of faith, upon reaffirmation of faith in Jesus Christ 1 or upon satisfactory certification of transfer of church membership, provided lhat membership shah not be denied any person because of race. economic or social circumstances, or any other reason not refaced to profession of faith" (G-l 0.0 I 02b.) 2) "to JeLJd the congregation in participation in the mission of the whole Church in tile world, in accordance wich ;" (G l 0.0 l 02c.) 3) "to challenge the people of God with the privilege of responsible Christian stewardship of money and tim e and talents, developing effective ways for encou raging and gathering the offerings of the people and assuring tha t nil 10

87 offerings are distributed to the objects townrd which they wer-e contributed;" (G-10.0J02h.) 4) "to establish the annual budget, detennlne the distribution of Lhe church's benevolences, and qrder offerings for Christian purposes, providing ful.i information to the congregation of its decisions in such matters;'' (G-10.0l 021.) ' " 4) "to lead the congregation co11tinually to discover whal God is doing in the wt1rld and 10 pl.an for charige, renewal, and refonnation Under the Word.of God:'' (G-I0.0102j.) 5) ''to instru.ct, examine, ordain, instau. and welcome into commm1 ministry elders and deacons on their election by the congregation and to i'nquire into their faithfulness in fulfilling their responsibilities;'' (G-10.0 l021.) 6) "to provide for the adrrunistra.tian of the program of the church, including employment of nonordained staff, with concern for equaj employment oppurtunity, fair empl<jyment practices, personnel policies, and the annuaj review of the adequacy of compensation for all staff, including all employees~" (G-i0.'0102n.) 7) "to provide for the management oftheprop.ertyofthe church, including determination of the appropriate use of church buildings and facilities, and to obca in property <md liability insurance coverage to protect the facilitjes, programs, and officers, including members of the session, staff, board of trustees, and deacnns;" (G ) 8) "to maintain regular and continuing relationship to the. higher governing bodjes of the church~ including" {G-l0.0102p.) a) 'ielecting commissioners to presbytery and receiving their reports~ sessions are encouraged to elect cornmissiom;;rs to the presbytery for at least one year, prderably two or thfoe;" (G~ p.(1)) b) "nominating to presbytery elders who may be considered for election to syn.ad or General Assembly;" (G-I0.0102p.(2)) 1.1 I 1 c) "in both the above responsibilities, implementing the principles of participation and inclusiveness to. ensure fair representation in the decision making ofthe church;" (G-I0.0102p.(3)) d) "observing and carrying out the instructions of the higher goveming bodies consistent with Lhe Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A-);" (G I 02p.(4)) e) ~wejcorning representatives of the presbytery on the occasions of their visits;" (G p.(5)) f) "sending Hnmrnl/ y to the stated clerk of the presbytery statistica I nnd other I I

88 information according to the requirements of the presbytery."(g p.(7)) 9) "to serve in j udicial mnlters in accordance \.Vi th the Rules of Disciplinei" (G-10.0 I 02r.). I 0) "to keep an accurate roll of the membership CJf the church, in accordance with G-l , and to grant certificates of transfer 10 other churches, which when issued for parents shall include th e names of thei r children specifying whether they have been baptized, and which when issued for an elder or deacon shall include the record of ordination." (G- l 0.0 I 02s.) F. After the administrative commission has raken over: Presbytc;ries are advised to remember that property disputes are about effective ministry and not merely about property law - such an approach will make all the difference. This means that a commission will normally.need to be doi ng ecdesial activities (pas.toral care, disdpline, etc.) while at the same time pursuing some more temporal activities. l. Freeze the assets. a. Real Es tate~ File Lis Pendens - Cite the trust clause' (G as the basis. b. Liquid Assets - Send letter to ho Ider of bank and trust accounts. Tell them: I) We are the Administrative Commission. 2) We are appointed by the Presbytery with jurisdiction over this congregation. 3) Quote the trus't clause (G ) and note that the property is held in trust and that our Constitution (G ) gives the presbytery the duty to determine who 1 is entitled to the property." 4) Currently we are trying to evaluate the situation. 5) Please do not rejcase or modify holdings until we have completed our ecclesiastical processes. c. Building and property - change the locks and secure the grounds if necessary. 2. The commission should try to keep the presby tery in a "defensive" secular legal posture. (Let the schismatics seek Caesar's help) 3. Orgaoiz.e the loyal.rriinorjty if lhe presbytery cnc1 identify one. Declare them to be the "true church" and thus entitled to the property. "The relationship to tile Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particufar church can be se~vere<l only by constitutional action on the pa!'t of the presby\ery. (G ~ I I.0 I 03) ff there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery i's unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), the presbytery shal1 determine i f one o f the factions is entitled to the property because it is identifi ed by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian.. \., (2

89 .,. ', I Church (U.S.A.). This determi.nation does not depend upon which faction recejved the majoriry vote within the particular church at the cime of the schism." (G I) n, It falls within the purview of the presbytery to determine whether schism exists within a congregation. 6 (G I, G- 1 LO J 03} ln such a case 1 the presbyte t y detcm1ines which members represent lhe true church. (G ) ft is the presbytery that is responsible fo r confronting advocates of schism. The presbytery has a number of "tools'' that the Constillrtion provides: l I I i I) With individuals the presbytery detem1ines whether a person is attemplirig ro "... peaceably withdraw from our com1nunion without attemptiag lo make any schism" 7 (which is an individual's right). Cf an individual officer advocates schism, a session or presbytery may undertake judicial process and declare such action to be an offense. (D b) The officer may be censured, ntier crial. 2) If the presbytery determines that the pastor is inciting schism within a congregation, it may remove (G- 1 l.0103n.,o.) or authorize its commission to remove (G a.(4)) such a schismatic minister of the Word and Sacrament from service to that congregation. 3) When a session h as advocated or taken action to effectuate schism the presbytery may declare such a'clion to be irregular. (G , D a.) b. These actions should be taken as a "last resort," only after all efforts at restoration and reconciliation have beert undertaken. Pr~bytcries are strongly encouraged to visit each such officer or se5sion so affected. c. Use "spiritual" language (name "sin'' lo be "sin", use Scriptural references, caj I fo r repentance). People who desire to leave often seek to minimize the commitment to 1 esus of those 'who represent the governing bodies of the church (such as. presbytery representatives). Ma.Ice sure all know this is a church dispute! G. Making property dccisfons. J. The presbytery may retllin the property for/with a loyal minority. 2. lf there is no loyal minority the presbytery may dissolve the congregation (G ~ , G-1 J.Ol03i) and utilize the assets, reaj and personal, for another mission of tbe presbytery. 8 J J I. J a. If there has been a "dispersal of its members, the abandonment of its work", the church property may be "applied for such uses, purposes and trusts 35 the presbytery may direct, limit, and appoint, or such property may be sold or disposed ""fr i$ the presbytery which detenlline!\ the rrue and loyill coogreg:11inn of" p<1nicular chun:h in which a schism ex ist.s even if the e ntire c:ongregoliun voles unanimou:;ly to Je~vi:: the dt!t'l.gllliuation (G I). This nuthqrity has b1:en,11 pa rt of Pr.esbylerianism since its inception during ihe Reform<Hion oflhe I 6' 11 Cen1ury." (quoted fronr rl:sponse to Request (2002 GA Mi1111t~s. l 990, p. 249)) 7 Endnote fl I to Chapter~ of Form of Government ' " The GA PJC recently affirmed il presbytery's right lo do so and its righr to delegate the implemrn1:itlon to an adminis1rative commission, Remedial CiJse 217-5,, Se5..~i,on, Second Presbyterian Church, Tulsa Oklllhe>rna v l're11bytery of Ea:1t Oklaho111.a.. IJ

90 '1 I of as the presbytery may direct." (G ),_.,_ i I b. The decision to dissolve and the decision as fo how to utilize Che assets should be made on the basis of the presbytery's str ategy for Presbyterian mission within its geographical district. (G- I I.0103a, G-l 1.0l03h). I) For instance, the presbytery could use the assets to begin a new immigrant fellowship in that community. 2) If the presbytery has no such immediate or imminent plan lo advance its mission in that region, but expects it might in the future, jt could enter i.nto a long tum lease with the schismatic group. a) The presbytery will need to check state real estate Jaw to assure that this is possible. b) The lease should recite the presbytery's property interest in the real estate and provide that all improvements become the property of the presbytery. The lca~c should obligate the schismatic group to maintain and insure the property and should have a process for orderly transition of possession to the presbyt~.ry, at the occurrence of some identifiable future event - c. The presbytery may sell to the splinter g.roup. 1) They may sell the building. 2) They might release money. 3) The decisions depend on the facts; use G :u criteria. Again, lbe "yardstick" is the presbytery's "strategy for mission.'' ''The presbytery is responsible for the mission and goverrunenl of the church throughout its geographical dislrict. ft therefore bas the responsibility and power" (G OJ) a) "to develop strategy for the mission of the church in its area consistent with G ;" ( a.) b) - "to coordinate the \o, ork of its member churches, guiding them and mob'ilizing their strength for the mos! effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility;" (G-1 I.0103b.) c) "to counsel with a particular church where the variqus constituencies of the congregation.are not represented on a session;" (G- 1 l. 0103e.) _\ 4) The commission should be given the power to negotiate the property and dissolution decisions, but not the power to act on behalf of presbytery. See GA Minutes, l Pnrt f., pp , paragraph :"... The final approval of a strategic plan, however, is a responsibility that the presbytery ought not to delegate. Included in this decision are:,.. i. to <livide, dismiss, or dissolye churches in consultation with their members;... " 14

91 ' 1 PRESBYTERHtS 'MAY RELEASE CONGREGATIONS A. The authority is found in G i aod G-J y. "'The presbytery is responsible for the mission and government of.the church throughout its geogruphlcal districl It therefore has the responsibility and power" (G- I 1.0 I 03) l. "to di vlde, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation wilh their it1t!n1bers; h (0-l i.) 1. "to consider and act upon requests from congregations for pem1ission to take the actions regarding real property as described in G ;" (G~ OJ y.) a. The property trust clause (G ) is in favor of presbyteries. "All property held by or for a particular church,. a presbytery, a syno51, the General Assembly, or!he Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is fodged in a corporation, a truslee or tru.i;tees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing bo,dy or retained for the production of ineome, is. held in trust nevertheless for the. use and benefit oft11e Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)." (G ) b. The presbytery has the power to decide disposition of nal property. (G I) "Whenever a particujar church is formally dissolved by the presbytery, or has become ex: ti net by reason of the dispersal of its members, the abandonment of its work, or othei: cause, such property as it may have shall be held, used, and applied for such uses, purposes, and trusts as the presbytery may direct, limit, and appoint, or such property may be sold or disposed of as the presbytery may direct, in conformity with the Constitution uf the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)." (G I) B. Cencral Assembly approval is not requ.fred. However, the General Assembly has at times issued authoritative statements that may be helpful about th.is topic... 1 l. GAMinutes: p.141,paragraph b; 11 A presbytery may dismiss a church with its property pursuant to G-J l.0103i and G I 03y, provided proper consideration is given to the in terests of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as provided in Chapter VIII. In particular, G I recognizes the principle that all property by or for a particular church is held in trust for the use and benefif of lhe Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Thus the Presbyteiian Church (U.S.A.) is a party in interest when.a presbytery Lakes action with respect lo a request to dismiss n church with ils property. Both traditions in our present denomination haye always held that church property of any.kind is held in trust for the use and benefit of the denomination as a whole; even though both difl'ered so1tiewhat in its nppliccjtion of this principle to churches wishing to withdraw fron'! the denomination. This implied principle is now explicit in our present Form o f Government (G-8.020J) and was also explicitly written into both <;onstitutions prior to reunion." 15

92 2. GA Minutes, 1989, p. '226, paragraph : 0 When dealing with a request by a church for dismissal with its prope11y pursuant to G- I LO I 03i and G-1l.O1 OJy, the presbytery is responsible for ex ercising lhe expressed trust provisions of G-8' recognizing and protecting the interests of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Separate consideration should be given to the questions of dismissing the congregation, the disposal of property, and th; relationships a f ministers of the Word and Sacrament." J. GA Minutes. 1989, p. 226, paragraph 2 l.195: "Each request for dismissal should be considered in the light of the particular situatl.on and cjrcumstances involved. If guidelines are established, it should be done with extreme caution. Any guidelines which restrict presbytery in its deliberations and in the exercise of its responsibility and authority might be subject to question fo <l:. case of judicial process witbjo the church. Instead of establishing guidelines a presbytery might be better advised to trust its good judgi.nent in particular situations." 4. GA Minutes, 1990, p. 252, paragraph 2 l.270d "3. If: after June J 0, 1991, a congregation requests to be dismissed with its property, does presbytery have authority under G I 1.0 I OJi and G-11.0 l 03y to consider and act on the request?'' 5. GA Minutes, 1990, p. 252, paragraph 2 l.270k "3. Yes. A presbytery has authority under G I l.9103 i and G y to consider and act on any request of a chwch to be dismissed with its property." C. Give proper consideratjon to the long term effects. ieach request for dismjssal should be considered in light of the particular situation and circumstances involved.,, (GA Minutes, 1989,.p. 226, parag_!aph ) J. The "measuring stick": Would releasing the property advance ''the missjon and government of the church (.PC{USA)] throughout its geographical district"? (G-11.0 J 03). 2. Would releasing the property assist the presbytery ''to coordinate the work of its member churche-s, guiding them and mobilizing their strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility;"? (G-11.0 l03b.) l! ' D. But a congr~ga tio.n m ay n ot be released to "independence"; it may on]y be released to another reformed denomination. (Strong and Bagby vs. Synod of Mid South : GA Minutes, PCUS, 1976, p. 92; Anderson vs. Synod of Florida, GA Minutes, PCUS, 1974, p. 119) l. Strong and Bagby vs. Synod of Mid South: GA Minutes, PCUS, 1976, p. 92 "... This lends to the second question. Assumi11g that some fom1 of delegnrion of the dismissal power by presbytery to an administrative commission might be pennissib!e, to what cccle~iastica l bodies might presbytery authorize it tp make dismissals? Clearly presbytery could not authorize a commission to effect dismissals which presbytery itself could not effect. There are E;Onstitutional limits on presbytery's power here. They were ex.pressed in 1974 by the General Assembly in the case of Harvard A. Anderson vs. The 16

93 l Synodof Flo1 ida, Minutes of the 114<'1 Genernl Assembly, pp. l (1974). That cnse, decided after adoption of the resolution 'in question, held that fl presbytery coul.d not constitutionally dismiss its churches to "independency'' nor to any specified body except another presbytery of this denomination or of ecclesiastical bodies with which union with this denomination is permitted by the Book of Church Order. These latter include, in addition to certain specifically ident.ified denominations, BCO J I.!, any other ecclesiastical body "whose organization is conformed to the doctrines and order of this Church." BCO 18-6( I J ).(17). This case remains the law of the Church, and it would clearly prohibit the delegation.by presbytery (even were del~gation generally permissible) of carte blanche power to an administrative commission to dismiss to ecclesiasfical bodies not falling within lhe stated category. Whether another ecclesfastical body does fall within the general classjfication mentioned is itself a matter of judgment which must be determined by the dismissing authority as a precondition to dismissal. No such dytennination was formally made by the Presbytery o~ East Alabama in this case, nor did it require either its administrative commission or the sessions or congregations of its churches to make any such determination. In this broader respect also, the action of the presbytery js in violatfon of the law of the denomination as declared in t11e Anderson case.... "(Minutes, PCUS, 1976, Part I, Sfrong and Bagby Vs. Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Mid~South., pp ) 2. Anderson vs. Synod of Florida, GA Minutes, PCUS, 1974, p. 1t9 ".., This po.li cty likewise forbids the dismissal of a church without specifying wh.ere it go.es. An "independent" or "congregational" Presbyterian church is an anomaly which runs counter tq the notion that we area "family" of churches and dismissal must there fore be made to another church within the family group. We hold, therefore, that BCO J 6-7(8) reslricb a presbytery in dismissing a clturch to the necessity of doing so to another ecclesiastical jurisdiction and forbids dismissal to independency. "According! y, the preliminary judgment of the Pe.r::rnanent Judicial Commission is that the Presbytery of Florida erred in dismissing the three churches to independent status. We therefore affirm the action of the Synod of Florida sustaining the report of its Judicial Commission and denying Mr. Gwaltney's complaint thereto. "A presbytery clearly has the constitutional right to dismiss a church to another presbytery. Complaint of W.H. Sory and J.B. Long us. Presbytery of Eastern Texas, Digest of the Acts and Proceedings of General Assembly of Presbyterian Church U.S., 0 J , Judicial Case No.44, 224 ~ 25 (1966). We further hold that a presbytery can dismiss a church to the ecclesiastical bodies with which union is pennitted. These bodies include churches within our own denomination, the United Presbyterian Church of the United States, the Reformed Church in America, (BCO 31 J) or any other ecclesiastical body "whose organization is conformed to the doctrines and order of this church." BCO 18-6(13), ( 17). A lthough presbytery has great latitude in the exercise of its dismissal jurisdiction, it docs nor have an absolute and unlimited power. The Florid:; Presbytery had no constitutional right to disrniss the three churches to independent status. "J\ccor<lingly, the proper procedure for any Presbytery to which request 1s hereafter made for dismissal "to rndependency," or without any designation, or to any institution other than one described in this opinion is to decline to entertain the request as lying beyo11d its c;unslitutionnl powers.... " (Anderson vs. Synod of Florida, GA Mihutes, PCUS, 1974, p. 119) J7

94 l 1 I ' l ~ 1 I I E. ff a congregation is dissolved, its r ecords belong to the presbytery and the presbytery should take care to assure that ii ho.s. control of those records before dissolviug or releasing n congrega~ion. (0 ~ ) F. Article 13 (Procedure For Dismissal of a Congregation with its Prtiperty) js no longer applicable. The period for a decision of congregation to depart with its property has expired. V. Finally, the Office of the General Assembly rem inds the church that not once in our history has schism ever advanced the Gospel, bul rather, always has diminished it. Tbe Reunion Assembly of 1869 noted: Reunion "buries the suspicions and rivalries of the past, with the sad necessity of magnifying-our differences in order to justify our separation. It banishes the spidl of division,!he riatu i.-al foe of true progress. ln this w1ion are seen the outflashing of a d[vine purpose to lead us on to greater self-sacrifice and a more enti,re consecration to the evangeli7.ation of the world. God has elevated us to this commanding position, that we may see his glory, and!n the strengthened faith it inspires devote our united resources more directly and efficient] y to the salvation of men [and women V' 9 Prepared by: The Department of Constitutional Services The Office of the General Assembly Mark Tammen September 2005 ~ Di,gcst, Part JI. p. 13JJ 18

95 'l I. l! Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)., i. l i ' i This ls a legal strategy memorandum. Do not cop!' or circulate. Call E ric Graninger, General Counsel, at x 5369 i(vou have questions. CHURCH PROPERTY DISPUTES: A RESOURCE FOR THOSE REPRESENTING PRESBYTERJAN CH:URCH. (U.S.A.) PRESBYTERIES AND TRUE CI-IURCHES IN TI-IE CIVIL COURTS I. II. m. IV. V. Y I. VIL Introduction State-by-State Church Property Review, th e Basics. and Some Strategies. Presenting the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as a Hierarchical Church. Presenting the Property TrusJ Clause., Presenting Factors that Show the Connection between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and tbe Church at Iss ue. Overview of V.S. Supreme Court Cases. Other Resources. Page I I. Introduction I.J I.I r This resource is written by the Office of Legal Services for tbqse representing the interests of presbyteries and true ch,urches as identified by the presbyteries. It is written for botb attorneys and non-attorneys. Involve the presbytery attorney early on if a dispute related to church property is developing. The attorney will be.able to advise the presby tery in light of the applicable law and the particular facts presei:ited. A companion piece to chis memorandum is the resource prepared by the Constitutional Services Department of the Office of the General Assembly: That resource discusses [be factors and strategies preobytcries should consider as church property matters arise within the governing bodies of the church. By contrast, th is resource focuses upon church property disputes-within the civil courts. Finally this memo wses "Presbyterian Cburch," "Presbyterian Ch1:1rch (U.S.A. ),'' and "PCUSA.. interchangeably and in reference to various time periods. Only where the specific point being mnde relates to a pnniculnr prcdecessordc11omina1 iun is r'hnt denomination namt d. - j

96 .-~ \~ This memo also uses the terms "schism" and.. schisma tics." The PCUSA Constil11/ion refers to \ schisms. I.IL State-by-State' Church Property Reviev., the Basics, and Some Strategies Slate-by-State Churc/I Property Review The Office of Legal Services has prepared a state-by-srace (plus Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.) summary of church property law. ln response to the U.S. Supreme Court's l 979 Jones v. Wolf decision, each state forged its own particular mechanisms for deciding church pmperty disputes. Begin with the clwrch property revie'~ and the p~rtinent cases, for')rour state. Jt is important to understand che rules your state has adopted. Of course, the actual cases. and any statutes should be read ro determine how rhey apply. to the facts presented. Be certain to involve the presbytery attorney. _Only an attorney licensed in your state and representing the presbyrery' s interests c an give the full services needed. If your state's property r:e v.iew is nol attached at the end of this memorandum, call Eric Graninger, General Counsel. at , ext to secure a copy. T/le Basics Pursuant to the Jones v. Wolf decision, most states will appjy -one of three mechanisms for deciding church property disputes. The first two are the most common: l. HierarchicaJ deference rule: Where the local church is part of a larger hierarchical church, tbe court will defer lo the decision of th.e highest church governing body that has considered the matter. The court will award the property control pursuant to that decision. z:. Neutrai principles doctrine: The court reviews the language of property deeds, the local church charters, state statutes concerning church property) and the provisions of the denominational constitution concerning the ownership an~ cqntrol of church property. l!. J I I l I 3, Presumptive majority representationt defeasible_upon a showing that the identity of the local churcli is to b e determined by other means: The majority vote of the congregation is presumed to control, except in a hierarchical church the majority rule may be overcome where the church charter or denominatiqnal constitution has established a property trust or other means to decide the dispute. Some Strategies Afl'er you have determined the pertinent rules for deciding church property disputes in your state, strategies for the case can be implemented... For example, if your sta!e follows a basic hierarchical deference rule, then it will be most important to demonstrate the PCUSA as n hientrchkal church rind show r'1c cour1 the centrnl authority 2

97 I 1 t- r ;. ~'I - ' ; of the presbytery rn making church property and related decisions. rr your state applies rhe neutral princi;:iles. doctrine, then It will be importanr to note all h.ierarchical references in the deeds, the loca I church charter, and especially to emphasize the cht1rch property trust 'and the centra l altthorlty of the presbytery under Chapter VIJI of the Book of OrdC'r, rhe property chapter. If your state applies the third option, ii is an uphil l battle. The Book of Order property chapter and other pr-ovisions showing the aurhority of presbytery wi 11 be especially important. Sections fl!, JV, and V of this memorandum set forth pro~ isi ons that should be useful to you in proving the presbytery's case to the court. Secure the property (both real and personal) of the local church. File an affidavit of property trust on the rea1 estate. The affidavit is filed on the public records fo r the purpose of warning all persons the title to the. real property is in dispute. The affidavit is for the purpose of preserving the rights of the presbytery and!rue church pending the dispute. Moreover, send a letter to a ll banks and o ther institutions that hold accounts for the particular church. Inform the institution: The presbytery has jurisdiction over the local churcb and its assets About the property clause and other pe11incnr property chapter provisions That issues are pending That no assets be released or their title changed pending further notice from the presbytery; make this a directive to the instirution Put the presbytery's and the local church s insurance companies on notice. Wbere the presbytery and true cllurctj are in the position of defendants, insurance may respond with coverage or a defense. This is a very importa11t b.enefit because it covers attorneys fees. Be sure to notify the insurance company promptly as the dispute arises. Most insurance policjes require prompt notice or coverage may be denied or limited_ Notei however, you do not want to use the insurance compaay''s standard attorneys in cases such as t his. Press hard on the insurance company to accept an attorney of the presbytery's choosing. This should be an attorney familiar with such cases and/or PCUSA polity. Let the insurance company and the attorney work out the fee arrangement. T~e Office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly has some funds avaflabje to assist presbyteries when a church is in schism or its property is being used contrary to the Constitution. If you are interested in the availability of these funds, th e presbytery's stated Clerk sho11ld make contact with the Office of the General Assembly, Department of Constitutional Services. If you initiate tbe lawsuit, name the defendants as schismatics in the complaint and the caption. This wiu regularly remind rhe court of what the central issue is before it "(fhe"presbyiery's authodty'to determine the tr\je church) and the fact th"e court must defer to the ecclesiastical decisions of the church governing body. Example: "Pr~sby te.ry of Middle Wyoming v. The Schismatic and Purported Covena n t Presbyterian Church of Landsburgh. 11 J

98 l. 1 I t (f the case law is favorable to the presbytery in your state, file a motion for' summary j~dgment as soon as practicable. I~ is not helpful to aliow the schismatics to develop a record when the presbytery has already tclkcn ics actions and, under che polity, the resu lr is known. Where rhe law o(your slate is firm for the presbytery, move forward with a motion for summary Judgment. Knowing they cannot in terfere in ecclesiastical disputes, many judges will look favorably upon a motion for summary judgment to dispose of such cases. Wh ere members and/or ministers ha\'e renounced the jurisdiction of the church, point out to the court this means they have Jeff the membership of the church and, so, do not have standing to represent the local Presbyterian church in a civil coun. 'l l l.i Where the schismatic faction bas fahed to appeal the rulings of the presbytery, point this out to the court. This is important for at least two in terrelated reasons: First. it remin ds t})e court the PCUSA is a church of successive govern ing bodies that have the responsibility and power to review the decisions of a lower governing body. When loca l church members disagiee with the actions of the presbytery, they ha ve a fundamental right to ~ppe al those rulings to the synod and, ultimately, lo the General Assembly. Second, civil courts are familiar with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. In the civil form of this doctrine, a party must exhaust all available agency administrative remedies and appeals before 1t rums to the ci"il courts for relief. Because this is a common concept in the civil la wt judges should understand this is a reason to dismiss the case as against the schismatics because they failed to ex:h a ~:.. their remedies within the church court system. Properly applied, this concept conserye$ judicial resources and keeps c ivil courts out of controversies not proper for their determination. Determine the religious background of your judge. The j udge's religious background will likely influence the way the presbytery's case is viewed, at least initially. For example, a judge from a hierarchical church (Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist~ Roman Catholic) will understand there is an authority above the local church. For a judge from an episcopal system, it is very helpful to say, "The presbytery is the bishop." That type of straightforward statement fundamentally informs a judgi.fl.vho is knowledgeable of an episcopal system. In contrast, if the judge is from an independent or congregational background (Baptist), then it may be more challenging to educate the judge on t~e wide range of authority a presbytery has over a particular chulch, especially in regards to pr6perty matte~. Use affidavits and church-r ecognized experts to demonstrate the polity of the PCUSA. Case law severely restricts civil courts from making ecclesiastical decisions. Civi l couns are required to defer to the relfgi9us bo~y in ecclesiastical, doctrinal, and polity decisions. Because of th~e factors, it is important to present the Book of Order and other ecclesiastical materials via an affidavit. See sections HI, IV, and V for the various matters that could be presented to the civi l court. An affida vit should be issued by ;1 midd le governing body officer or a General Assembly officer. Usi ng ;i Gener<ll 4

99 l I l I l. I I I I lji. Assembly officer will reemphasize the hierarchical n~ture of l:he PCUSA to the court Also, G.2.e of the Standing Rules of the General Assembly charge the General J1.sse111 t>ly Stated Clerk with the responsibility of giving e1dvisory opinions conce-mi11g the 01ear: 111g of the PCUSA Co11s titurion. The Office of Legal Services can assist w irh the type~ of affidavits you need in your case. Again, the substance of the affidav it will likely contain the infonnation set out in Sections m, IV, and V of this memorandum. The opening provisions of the affida vit should provide: The affianfs name. Use reverend if applicable. T~e title of the affiant and how long th ey have worked in that position. All degrees and lh~ institutions from which received. Note if a minister, year of ordination, presbytery membership. Either set out all of the provisions that are of import In the bod:; of che affida\'1! or state something like the following: ''f have reviewed the Statement of Facrs contained in the Brief In Support ofthe Presbytery of 's Motion for Summary Judgment in this action. Based upon my personal knowledge and expertise, that Statement of Facts is rrue and con-ect, and [ incorporale it into tllls affidavit by reference.' ' Keep the original church name and cotporation within the PCUSA. At rhe end of the process., either the presbytery itself or lhe lrue congregation Joyal to the presbytery should retain the original church's name and corporate entity. This is for two reasons; First, it reduces confusion because the long-existing PCUSA church remains PCUSA. Second, present endowments and future estates will be in tbe original name ofthe local church. Keeping the name and corporation with the true church (or the presbytery) loyal ro PCUSA should ensure these funds remain secure. Presenting the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as a Hierarchical Church.J 1 CertainJy, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA) does not ccfer to itself as a hierarchical church. Wben speaking to a civil court, however, it is important to use the ianguage the court uses: The courts clistinguish between indep~ndent or congregational churches on the _one band and hierarchical churches on the other. Firmly present the PCUSA to the court as a hierarchical. church. This section focuses upon the factors to demonstrate to the court the PCUSA is hierarchical: The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized the Presbyterian Church as hierarchical: WCltson v. Jones, Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull. and Jones v. Wolf; cite to rhese decisions. (See Sechon VI) The c.ourts in many states ha\'e made similar rulings... Secondary Jegaf resources recognize the Presbyterian Church as hierarchical: Determinaiion of Properly Riglus Between Local Church' and P(.Jr~w Church Body: Modern View. 52 AL.RJd (listing th::: Presby:eriHn C11urch as 5

100 ' '\ I.... i I 1 l hierarchjca J wi th control over local ch\jrch property), and 4 17 ("Although the Presbyterian form of church government is without question hierarchical, there has been a considerable amount of li tigation on~r the righr of local Presbyterian churches to withdraw from the general church and retpin the use and control of local church property. [T]his right is unifom1ly denied, on the ground that th e loca l Presbyterian church stands in a hierarchical relationship to the general church, with respect to propeny matters as in other areas." (Footnotes omihed)). Although this law report is dated ( 1974), its description of the Presbyterian Church as hierarchical is ap t. Hands Off! Civil Court Involvement in Conflicts Over Religious Property, 98 Col urn. L. Rev. I 843 ( 1998). This article recognizes the PCUSA as hierarchical. ld. at See Section VU. Of course, the Book of Order is replete with provisions that demonstrate the hierarchical nature of the PC USA. This part of the memorandum sets out some of the bes{ polity examples of the hierarchical nature of the PCUSA. Tire f our-level system of governing bodies shows tlte /1ierarcltical structure oftlte PC USA. P C USA /las four levels of governing bodies; each ltlgher govemi11g body bas the power to review flnd change 1/1e ac1io11s of the lower goverui11g body. l.i I _I The PC USA is a bo-oy of Reformed Christians who have agreed to conduct their worship, discipline, governance, and other religious activities in conformity with the then current version of the PC USA Constitution. The Constitution consists of the Book of Confessions (Part 1) and.the Book of Order (Pan II). (G ) The Book of Order includes the Rules of Discipline, the Directory for Worsh ip, and the f orm of Government, a detailed formal structure of the church. The Book of Order sets forth the ecclesiastical polity of the church. (G ) The abbreyiations used for these three sections are D, W, and G, respectively. There are four governing bodies of the PCUSA: session of the church, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly. (G ) AU governing bodies are united by the nature of the church and share rights and duties under the Constitution. Though separate and independent, the governing bodies have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is th ~ act of the whole church performed by it Lhrough the appropriate governing body. The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of this Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved in the presbyteries. and with the acts of each governing body subject to review by the next higher governing body. (G ).. ilre property chapter sho vs the hierarchical nature of rit e PCUSA. All property is held in trust for the PC USA. The presbytery has 11/timare authority over local church p,-operry am/, in tlte case of a schism, declares which faction fa the true church. See Section IV for a fu ll discussion of the property r rw~t. 6

101 t l r I l I I I f Al l property, both real and personal. no matter how it is ~ i t lec or held, is held in trmt for the PCUSA. (G I) The presbyte1)' is aurhorized to take control of a!ornl ch ~1rch's property I) when rhe church is disso[ved by the presbytery or extinct, (G I); 2) 'vhen the church pro pe rry is being used contrary to the PCUSA Conslitutio11. (G ); 3) when the church is in schism. (G ) When a schism arises, it is the presbytery that declares which faction is the tme church. thac determination does not rely upo:1 which faction received che m2jority vor.e of the cgngregation. (G I).. When a church seeks to encumber or lease its property, it must secure the permiss io:1 of the presbytery. (G-8.050J, ) The presbytery's atttltority ovey ministers shows tlte hierarchical nature of the PC USA. A local church cannot crtll a minister witlto11j the ad of presbyte!j'i a presbytery installs a n.1inister in fire local church, O!rly the presbycery can dissolve the relatio11slrip between n mi11ister and the particular cit urc/t... The presbytery is an expression of the PCUSA within a certain district; it consisrs of 1:.IJ the ministers and churches within that district. (G-1LO10 I) The presbytery is resp onsible for the mission and government of the church rhroughouf its geographical district. (G- l J.O 103) The presbytery has the responsibility and power to ordain, receive, dismiss, install,.remove, and discipline miniscers. {G-11.0 l 03n) Ordination of a minister is an act of the presbytery. {G ) The relationship between a minister and a local church is established by the presbytery. (G ) A call (employment of a minister) occurs only chrough the presbytery, ( G ) The pres bytery examines the minister and determines whether to proceed with installation. (G-l b) Ifit does decide to proceed, the presbytery appoints a time and place for the installation service. (G b) The presbytery conducts the instai'lation service and installs the minister in the local church. (G ) A presbytery's committee on ministry visits regularly and consults with each minister in the presbytery. (G-1 I.0502a). While tbe minister or the church may request dissolution of the pastor-church relationship. only the presbytery is authorized to_ terminate the relationship between a 10cal church and its minister. (G , 14:0602, ) Only the presbytery can unilaterally tenninate the minister's relationship with the church. (G ) Neither' the minister nor the congregation may unilaterally do so. Other seminal provisions show the hierarchical nature of the PCUSA. The presbytery is t/te key governing body and has broad authority over t!te local church. 011/y a presbytery ca11 organize/ rec.eive, unite, divide, dismiss,.and dissolve a loca{cliurcit, ilre presbytery directs per capita qpportlonments to the particular churches.; it reviews attd corrects the church session's 111 illutes.. I 7 J

102 l I I. J The particular church carries a vital responsibility m che mission of the church. Congregations serve as essential mrss ron Jrms of the presbytery and of the larger church. (G ) When a particular church is organized by a presbyrery, the organizing members sign a covenant to live and work together as disciples of Jesus Christ, and serve as a part of the body of Christ in this place according to the principles of failh, mission, and order of rhe PCUSA. (G I) The presbytery continues its work with the church as it elecrs presbyters, secures pastoral leadership, coordinates its work with other churches, secures bylaws in conformance with the PCUSA Consti1urfo11, and strengthens!he mission of the congregation in the larger life of the denomination. (G b) A particular church of the PCUSA can be organized only by the authority of a presbytery and shall func tion under provisions of the Co11stit1aio11. (G ) The presbytery's committee on ministry visits each church session at least once every three years, discussing the mission and ministry of rhal church and encouraging its full participation in the I ife and work of the presbytery and the larger church. (G- I c) Only the presbytery is authorized to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches. (G I03i) The presbytery organizes new churches and receives and unites churches. (G-J LO 103h) The presbytery controls the location of new churches and those that desire to move. (G OJj) To ensure a congregation is following the guiding principles of Reformed worship (W I), the presbytery shall have oversight and review of the ministry of congregations and discuss the quality and standards of worship and the fruit it is bearing in the Life of God's people as they proclaim the gospel, its joy, and justice. (W ) Both pastors and the session are accountable to the presbytery in its exercise of constitutional supervision of members. (W ) The presbytery may direct per capita apportionments to the churches within its bounds. (G d) The church session shall meet when directed to do so by the presbytery. (G l I) Presbyterian polity is interdependent Hach governing body shall participate through representatives with governing bodies above and below concerning mission priorities, budgeting, administration, etc. (G a, b) Records are. the property of the gov erning body that created them. When, however, congregations, presbyteries, or synods are dissolved, the records wi ll be hejd by the next higher governing body. (G ) The local church's minutes shall be available to the presbytery upon request. (G I ) At least annually, each governing body shall have ics minutes reviewed by the next highest goveming body. If a J~wer goveming body fails to send up its records for review, tbe higher governing body shal1 order them produced by a specified time. (G-9".0407c) Revi~~ s h ~Jl i.oclude. that the pr.oceedings-ha-ve been in accordance with the"constitulion and faithful to the whole church and that the lawful injunctions of a higher govern ing body have been obeyed. (G a) A higher governing body can order the production ofa lower governing body's records at any time it learns of an irregularity or de li nquency. (G ) A higher go~ c ming body mny cjircc:1 a lower body to 8

103 l 1 l 1 f reconsider, correct, and cure an irregu lari ty or delinquency. (G ) This may afso. be done by judicial process. (G l) When a particular church is dissol ved, che presbytery shall take! possession of its records. assen jurisdiction over the church mc111bcrs, ;ind grunt them certificates of rransfer to other ch urches. (G-l b.(2)) Each porticular church of the PCUSA is governed by the Constflution. lts officers are ministers, elders, and deacons. Its government and guidance are the responsibility of the sess,ion. It shall fulfill its responsibilities as the roeal unit of mission for the service of a~i people, for tbe.upbuilding of the whole church and for the glmy of God. (G -4.0! 04) Principles of Presbyterian Government are set out at : The PCUSA ad heres to the basic principles of Presbyterian polity: The particular churches of the PCUSA wherever they are, taken collectively, conscirute one church; (G-4.0JOI a) This church shall be governed by presbyters (ministers and elders); (G I b) These presbyters shall come together in governing bodies (traditionally called Judicatories or courts) m regular gradation; (G l c) A higher governing body shall have the right of review and control over a lower o ne and shall have power to determine matters of controversy upon reference, complaint, or appeal; (G If) The church session is responsible for maintaining regular and continuing relationship to higher PCUSA governing bodies by electing commissioners to presbytery, nominating.elders who may be considered for election to synod or General Assembly, and observing and carrying out the instructions of higher governing bodies consistent with the Constitution. (G-10.0 l02p) Presbyterian Unity: The nature of Presbyterian order is such thar it shares power and responsibility. The system of governing bodies, whether they have authority over one or many churches, sustains such mutual relationship with the structures as to express the uniry of the ehurch ~ (G ) IV. Presenting the Property Trust,Clause _ l Chapter VIII of the Book of Order is titled The Church am.i Its Property. This relatively brief chapter is central In church property ca~es. It sets out the core provisions that will operate w.hen a church property dispute is presented. Read this chapter for the exact language. ft will be invaluable as the issues are presented to the court. Thes.e provisions and the presbytef) 11 s actions in regards to them should be clearly and vigorously presented to the couf1_ Note the provisions are straightforward and in clear language a civil court should be able.to review and enforce. without making an,y e.cclesiastical dejenninations of its. own. Moreover, via affidavits (see Section H. above), the stated clerk of the presbytery, synod, or the General Assembly can provide the court with sta~eme nts as to what these provisior.s mear.. The fol lowing 1~ a summary: 9 J

104 I ' 1 i..., l! J G : Decisions Regarding Proper ty. Decisions penaining to church property,!heir review, and correccion arc made according to the PCUSA. Co11stillltio11. ciring particularly lo G , each govem111g body' s decision is subjecl ro review and appeal to the next higher governing body. G : Property is Held in Trust. This all-encompassing property fn.jst applies to both real and personal property, no matter where it is held within the PCUSA and by whatever governing bodies, trustees, associs tfons, or corporations. G : Property Used Contrary to the Constitution. Whenever the property of il particular church ceases to be us.ed as o panicular church of the PC USA in accordance wiih the Constitution, th~n such property shall be held, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery. G ! Property of Church Dissolved or Extinc t. Whenever a particular church is fonnally dissolved by presbytery. or has be9ome extincr, such property shall be held, used, sold, or disposed of as the presbytery directs. G : Selling or Encumbering Church Property. Only after the presbytery gra11ts written permission may a particular church sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber its property, or acquire property subject to an encumbrance or condition. G ~ L.ea~ing Church Prop~rty. Only after the presbyrery grants written permission may a particular church lease its sanctuary or lease any of its property for more than five years. G : Property of Church in Schism. The relationship of the PCUSA to a particular church can only be severed by a constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. If there is a schism in a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the PCUSA, then the presbytery.sh.all declare which faction is tl1e true cj1urch within the PCUSA and thereby determine which one of the factions is en titled to the property. This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church. G : Exceptions. At the time ofreunion in 1983, both the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) and the Presbyterian Churc~ in the United States (PCUS) had express property trust clauses in th.ek respective constittftions. The PCUS did not. however, have a provision similar to G , restricting the encumbering or leasing of church property. G gave churches in the former PCUS the option to opt out ofg if a majority of the congregatioi:i voted to do so and notified the presbytery prior to June l 0, Check the presbytery records for such opt outs. Bear in mindt churches that exerdsed this option only opted out of G ; they could not and did not opt out of the property trust clause (G ) or the balance of Chapter VIII. Neither the UP CU SA nor the PCUS ever had provi~ions whereby a congregation could unilaterally leave with the church property. 10 _j

105 Brief history of the property tru;,-ts Prior to 1981 in the UPCUSA and J 982 in the PCUS, rhe two majo1 P resbyterian Church denominations did not ha\ e express property trusts in t h ei r constitutions. They did not need them. The 187 l U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wn1so11 v. Jones referred ro property held by trustees of a particular Presbyterian church as in trust for th~ persons w ho by the Presbyterian Church Consti1u1io11 1 usages, and laws are cnt:rled to that use. The Watso11 Court then went on 10 hold that, as a hierarchical church, once the highest governing body of the Presbyterian Church had ruled on the matter, he civil courts would enforce that ruiin,g as 10 the property c ontrol. Watson's hierarchical deference rule did not require or even suggest an explicit property trust provision; ir upheld the traditional polity of review by successiv~ governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church. Jn lv!ory Elizabeth Blue Hull in the U.S. Supreme Court a1111ounced the neutral principles docrrine but did not define it. ln 1979, in Jones v. Wolf, the S t1preme Cour t defined che neutral principles doctrine and instructed dctiominations and others on h.ow to meet this n ew standard: "A J~ernatively, the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church... And the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some. legally cognizable form." 443 U.S. at 606. Both the UPCUSA, effective 1981, and the PCUS, effective 1981, followed the Supreme Court's instructions to the letter, adoptin.g express property trusts in favor of the denomination and in language that could be clearly and simply applied by civil courts. \.Vhere opponents point out that the property deeds contain no express.:trust language and/or the local church was fonned prior to the trost language. being expressly set out in the Book of Order, point out the chronology of U.S. Supreme Court decisjons and the clear instructions presented by the Court in Jones v. Wolf. The properly trust clauses did not create new rules. They simply,godified the Presbyterian Church practice into the Constilutio.n. An affidavit may be helpful in this regard. V. Presenting Factors that ShoH' the Connection between the PCUSA and the Church at Issue 1 1 I _ i _J J Because of the polity, lo~al Presbyterian churches hin e a wide variety of strong connections to the presbytery aj1d the denomination. This section sets out many of those connections that should be examined. documented, and, perhaps, presented.to the civil court. Once again, review the church property cases in your particular state. If they consider factors such as those set out below, then these should be presented to the court as additional evidence of rhe hierarchical and connectional relationships. If they do not consider such factors and the case la w is otherwise 3trong for the presbytery's position, then it is probably wise not to bring these factors into the case because rhey may invite the court to examine matters not relevant to that state's church property analysis. Also, some.ofthese factors could cut against the presbytery; so, if these-matters are.not usually considered under..the...case Jaw of your state., it may.be best to leave them aside. If these factors are presented, a middle governing body or General Assembly cff; :::er can present them to the courl via an affidavit (see Sec. H). JI

106 ~l I., J 1 I. J l " Most of 1he -documentation for these factors will be in the records of the presbytery. Some will be in sc::ssion minutes and some with the General Assembly. Have lhe presbytery stated clerk or other pre!;byrery official gather these records. They wil I know be~c where 10 seuch and this wi ll save on attorney expenses. Factors to consider: Copy of the deed.. Does it contain a property trust? The name Presbyterian? Ad herence co tj1e PCUSA Conslitmion? Belonging to the Presbytery of? Synod of? For Presbyterian worship and governance? - - Copy of corpora le articles and bylaws. Same questions as above. Does it state the PCU~:4 Constitulion is the charter, serves as the bylaws? Did the corporntc articles, bylaws, or other documents forbid the church from subordinating itself to higher church governing bodies? [f not, note to the court the local church was free to subordinate itself and did so pursuant l o the Presbyterian Church Constit1ttio11. Formation of the church. Did the presbytery create the church? Did the denomination create the church? Did those who fonned the church petition to join the presbytery? Who were the original formers? Were they Presbyterians? Were the first or subsequent ministers Presbyterian? Is there a covenant document? What do the presbytery minutes slate? Property denlings. Did the church at any time act under the property chapter whereby the presbytery approved loans, mortgages, leases, etc.? Decades or centuries of Presbyterian membership. Demonscrare to the court it is tbe presbytery that keeps the faith with Presbyterians who, in the past, gave their monies, work, and hope to creace a Presbyterian cburch in this place to perpetuate the faitb of the Presbyterian Church. Document tht= long periods of time this church has been a member of the presbytery and prior denominations. ft is improper and unfair to let present members "break the chain" between founding Presbyterians of the past and those of the future. worship activities. Are the worship activities of the local church consistent with those of the general church? This factor is challenging with the PCUSA because of the diversity in worship styles. C;:11Jing pastors. The presbytery plays the key role in ministers taking calls and leaving churches. Via the minutes and files, demonstrate these in regards to this particular church. Show the succession of Presbyterian ministers approved by the presbytery.. Did the presbytery install any of the ministers in the church building? Laying on of hands? Document work with cornmittec;s on ministry and pastor nominating committees. Show if the church wanted a minister but the presbytery refused and, so, the minister was not calle d. Did most ministers attend Presbyterian relatcd seminaries? Were most ministers members of presbytery? At the time of schism 1 was the minister one installed by the presbytery? Use oj ~ h~r_ch governing bodies and officers (Q assist the local church. Show ho\v!-his church, its ministers, or members have initiated the use of presbytery officers, committees, or appeals in the past, or have been compelled to do so. 12

107 1 Denominational listing. The General Assembly pub I is.hes a.fis.t of all member churches. Secure the page showing this listed church for a II of :he years it has been with the 1 denomination. Tar exempt status. A federal group tax exemption rul in_g is held by the PCUSA fo r all churches, mlddle goveming bodies, <l!ld the General Assembly. Tl1lS rufing includes ail those listed in the General Assembly publica~ ion. Secure a statement from the Legal Office that this particular church is part of the denomination a n d~ so, in PCUSA 's group tax exempt ru ling. Insurance. tvfany chttrches are insured unde1 presbytery masrer i11s11rance policies. If appl icable, show this. Use of Lhe names and symbols of the denomina tion or predecessor denominations. rs this church known in the community as part or the dcnominacion? Did it use the denominational symbols on jrs sign. sratlnnery, etc? Does the cornerstone include tbc name Presbyterian? Constitutiona l questions. Did officers (G ) and ministers (G b) of the church ar:swer che constitutional questions set fort h in the Book of Order, includ ing the agreement to be bound by our church's polity and discipline? Participation in higher govern Ing bodies. Did elders and ministers participate in presbytery, synod, or General Assembly meetings? Other meetings of the higher governing bodies? Pres bytery and higher governing bodies at the church. Did the church ever host meetings of higher goveming bodies? Did presbytery o:r any of its committees ever hold meetings in. this particular church? Did presbytery officers ever visit the church? Preach at; the church? ~ymnals and other publications. Did the church use hymnals or other publications produced by' the Presbyterian Church? Did the church ever receive any grants or loans from the p resbytery or a higher governing bqdy? fa there a loan in effect at the present time? Mission programs. Did m~mbers participate in mission programs sponsored by higher governing bodies? Attend camps or conference centers ow ned or sponsored by the presbytery or the synod? Finances. Did the church send any collections or per capita funds to the presbytery or hjgher governing bodies? Did the church_ participate in any of the spec ial offerings (One Great Hour of Sharing? Pentecost Offering?) Review of minutes. Did the church submit its minutl;!s for review and approval by the presbytery (G c)? Did the presbytery ever correct the minutes? When it th r eatened to leave, did rhe local church notify the preshytery or higher governing bodies, thereby demonstrating its knowledge that it is related to higher bodf es? vr. Overview of U.S. Supreme Court Cases. J There.are seven important U.S. Supreme Court cases which relate to church property disputes. They date from! 871 to Th ls section provides a s:.immary of those cases: thejr underlying facts and rhe important rulings the Court issued. The Court's J 979 Jones v. Wolf decision \vas the la.st opi11 ion of rhe Suprem~ Cowr on th is topic. All seven cases are l3 J

108 r I I su mmarized here because of how one builds upon the other. Jt 1s important to have a wo rk ing knowledge of all of 1hese cases because!he various states have, a t the mv1 tation of the Jones v. Wolf Court, applied a variety of ways to decide church property d isputes. Some hearken back ro che 18 / I Warsoii 1. Jones case. Others decline 10 go beyond In some states, rhe law is not favorable to presbyteries because the sta le courts have misapplied a U.S. Supreme Courr case. In these instances, it is especially importanl to be familiar with these cases because you may ask the court 10 correct state law. In all of these cases, the Supreme Court issued cautionary language about the civil couns interfering wi th the ecclesiastical law and p-0hty of churches. These opinions also set forth some of the leading First Amendment language about the autonomy of churches and the circumscribed authority of civil courts in how they handle various church disputes. Decause of the extensive quotation of the various opinions, this section constitutes about half of the entire memorandum. Use this language to remind the state court of the U.S. Supreme Court's various rulings in fa vor of hierarchical churches. Watso11 v. J oucs {1871) 80 U.S. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666 Key Points: Court draws a bright line bet ween congrega tional and hierarchical churches. Civil courts wiji determine church property control as follows: Jn a congregational church, the determination 'rill be by majority vote of the congrega tion or an authorized local church board, In a hierarchical church, the determination will be. by the highest church governing body that has ruled on the matter. Civil courts must accept the rulings of such church bodies, not engage in ecclesiastical decisions themselves. This is known as the hierarchical deference rule. Facts: During the Civil War, the Walnut Street Presby_terian Church in LouisvilJe, Kentucky split over the issue of slavery. A majority of the congregation was anti-slavery with a slim proslavery majority in control of the session and the trustees. In August of 1865, the pro-slavery session proposed to re-engage a pro-slavery minister who was rejected by tbe congregation; the session called him anyway. Some members asked the synod to intervene (likely the presbytery was dealing with its own split). In January of 1866, a synod committee visited the church.. with power to cajj a congregational meeti.ng for the purpose of ejecling additional ruling elders, calling a pastor, or choosing a stated supply, and doing any other business competent to a congregational meeting that may appear to them, the said congregation, necessary for their best in terests.'' The pro-slavery session and trustees refused to open the church; the congregation organized itself on the sidewalk and elected additional elders, all anti-slavery. The pro-slavery contingent retained control and refused any participation by the newly elected elders. The presbytery, synod, and General Assembly (dealing with their own splits) all issued rulings in regards to this church. Ul t imat~ ly.jh~ an t i ~sl~vezy Genc:.~LAss~mb l.y. rc.kogni.z~~tt.h.e. ;1uthw i ty of the anti-slavery middle governing bodies, newly elected elders. and session. Still excluded from church operations 1 the anti-slavery elders recognized by the higher church judicatories filed suji in the Louisville ci vtl court for control of Lhe property. The local court ruled in favor of the anti-sla very elders as recognized by the higher governing bodies. The Kenrucky Cour1 of Apncnls ruled thi: Ge11crul A~scm b ly and midd le governing bodies ac ted beyond church law ~ind 14

109 ., l held in favor of the pro-slavery contingent. Ultim:i1ely, a rel ated case came befo re the 'U.S. Supreme Court,, I Ruling~: The Coun notes the variotis par1s of the Presb.1 reria11 Clr11rch Cc11stiuufo11 (Confessions of Faith, Fom1 of Government, Book of Discipline, ~n d Directory for Worship). l 1 notes and explains the membership Bn<l powers of the ascending series of four church judicacories, now known as governing bodies: church sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly In determining the rightfu I owner in church property disputes, the Court sets forth th ree alternatives for decision making. The second and thi rd are the most important; l. When the property by deed, will, or other ins'.rument has express terms devoted to the teaching, support, or spread of a specific form of religious belief, chat will be enforced. 80 U.S. at When the property is held by a religious congregat1on t..vhich, by the nature of i rs organization, is strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and so far as church government is.concerned, owes no feal ty or obligation to any higher author ity, then tbe determination will be by majority vote 0 f the congregarion or an authorized board ofthc local church. Id. 3. When the property is held by a religious congregation or body that is a subordinate member of some general church organization in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals, with a general and ultimate power of control more or less complete in some supi:eme judicatory; then the determination will be by the highest church judicatory that has ruled on the matter. Id. Thus, Watso11 v. Jones established what is known as the hierarchical deference rule: In hierarchical churches (ex. Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist), the civil courts will d efer ro the ruling of the highest church judicatory that considers the matter. The court will make its property control ruling on the basis of the church j udicatory ruling. By' contrast, in congregational or independent churches (ex. Baptist), the civil court will defer to the majority vote of the local congregation or authorized board and award the property accordingly. The Walson v. Jones Court authored pivotal language stijj widely used in a variety of cases concerning churches: As to the rule of hierarchical deference: "(Wj.henever the questions of discipline, or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom 1 or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the ma tter has been carried, Che le_gat tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in t~~ir ~pplication to the cisel)aoie them.'; 80 U.S. at As to the right of denominations to organize themselves and the authority of their ecclesiastical rulings:.. fn this c0l1ntry the full and free right to entertain any religious belief. to rm1ctice flny re ligious pnncirle. tlnd to tecrch nny religious doctrine which does j 5

110 .-l l ~ ' l l I no4 violate the laws of morarit)' and property, and which does not infringe personal righrs, is conceded to all The law knows no heresy, and js committed to the suppifrt of no dogma, the establ ishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary associations to. assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine and to creace tribunals for the decision of controverted questions o.f faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of ajj the individual members, congregations, and ofl1cers wlthin the general association, Is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such a body do so.with an implied consent to.. this government, and are bound to submh to it. But it would be a vain consent and would Jead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if.a.ny one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and h~ve them reve.rsed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision (If questions arising am~ng themselves, that those decisions should ue binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as lhe organism itself provides for.'' ld. at As to the inabil ity of civil courts to make ecclesiastical detem1im1tions: "Nor do we see thaljus!ice would be likely to be promoted by submitting those (ecclesiastical] decisions to review in the ordinary judicial tribunals. Each of these large and influential bodies (to mention no others, let reference be had to the Protestant Episcopal, the Methodist.Episcopal, a nd the Presbyterian churohes), has a body of constitutional and ecclesiastical law of its own, to be found in their written organic 1aws 1 their books of discipline, in their collections of precedents. in their usage and customs, which as to each constitute a system of ecclesiastical law and religious faith that tasks the ablest of minds to become familiar with. It is not to be suppos.ed that the judges of the civil courts can be a s competent in the ecclesfastical law and religious faith of all those bodies as the ablest men in each are in reference to thc.ir own. It would therefore be an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law which should decide the case, to one which Is less so." Id. at 729. _J.J l I I Case Comments: It is important to note the Presbyterian Church djd not have a property trust clause in its Constltution at this time. It did not need one. Presbyterian pojity clearly established (as it does now).the authority of presbyteries in relation to the particular churches and the successive authority of every higher governing body. Even without a trust clause in the.deed or the church constitution, the Walson v. Jones Court recognized th.e property was held in trust "for the use of the persons who by the constitution, usages, and laws of the.. Presbyterian body are entitled to that use." 80 U.S. at 720. Noting that the trustees do nol personally own the property but act as fiduciaries, the Court referred to the "true body of the church'' and the "mode which is authorized by the canons ofthe general church... " Id. at 721. With this ruling, the United States Supreme Court provided a bright line rule as to bow church.properly disputes w.oujd-be determ.ined-by-~he civil courts.. With +ts pohtyand the hierarchical deference rule established, the Presbyterian Church was secure in making its own determinations and where those had civil ramifications (ex. property ownership) knowing they would be enforced. The hierarch ica J deference rule was fi nnly in place for :ilmost a centmy. 16

111 1 ) l! Gouzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop {1929) 280 U.S. l. 74 L.Ed. l3 L 50 S.Ct..5 Key Poinrs: Not a church property case bur establishes an exception that l~ ter comes into play in such cases: Generally, the decisions of church trib unals, ev.en!hose affecting civif rights, are binding on the civil courts. But there will be an exception where the civil court fi nds fraud, coflusion, or arbitrariness. Facts; in this case, Gonzalez sued the Archbishop of Manila to compel him to appoinr Gonzalez a chaplain. Gonzalez would be the beneficiary ofa rru st if he were named chapl ain. The archbishop refused. Rul,ings; The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the archbishop's sole discretion in making the appointmenc decision but ii added, in dicta (language not necessary for che ruling), that a dvil court could review decisions of church j udicatories for fraud, co Jiusion, or arbitrariness. "ln. the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrarincss 1 the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted in li tigation before the secular courts as conclusive, because rhe parties in in terest made them.so by contracr or orherwise." 280 U.S. at 16: Case Comments: This exception for fraud, collusion, or arbi trariness is sometimes claimed in church p roperty cases against the presbytery or other church governing bodies. Arbitrariness is the most typical claim. These argu.menrs are rarely successful because of the natural inclination of co.urts to stay clear of ecclesiastical decisions and the internal operations of church rribunals (see Serbian Eastern OrthodoA Diocese v_ Milivojevich, below, 11mlting the arbitrariness exceptior1). Kedroffv. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1 952) 344 U.S. 94, 97 L.Ed S.Cc 143 Key Points: Court holds New York,s Jaw removing Russian Orthodox churches from the authority of the patriarch in Moscow unconsthution.al. Tbe rulings in Watson v. Jones and Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Arcltbishop, a)thon,gh not dedded under the First Amendment, are recognized for 'their free exercise b~ses., J Pacts: puring the Cold War, New York passed a Jaw placing all Russian Orthodox churches in that state under the jurisdiction of the R\Jssian Orthodox Church in America rather than the Orthodox Church in Russia with its patriarch in Moscow. Rulings: The U.S. Supreme Court detennined this was unconstitutional and that the Fir.SI Amendment's free exercise clause required the churches to remain under the jurisdiction of Moscow. The KedrojJCourt focused upon Watson v. Jones and cited Gonzalez, noting the freedom for religfous organizations these opinions ractiate. 344 u_s. at l l 6. I - I 17

112 ~ l 1 Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elh.abeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church ( 1969) 393 U.S r L.Ed.2d 658, 89 S.Ct. 60 l Key Points: Court holds Georgia's departure-from-doctrine rule unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it compels civil courts to determine l'l'hat are the substantial origi nal tenets of the church and whether or not they have been gbandonecj. Civil courts must nol decide church property cases by resolving contronrsies over r eligious practice a nd doctrine. The Court announces but does not define the neutral prin ciples of law doctrine, those principfes developed for use in alf property disputes. ' I I Facts: Two Presbyterian churches in Savannah, Georgia voted lo wirhdraw from the Presbyterian Church in the United States and reconstitute themselves as an autonomot1s Presbyterian organization. Their complaints included, variously, the ordinacion of women; pronouncements on social matters; supporl of the removal of Bible reading in the schools; teachings alien co the Confessions; membership in!he National Council of Churches of Chrisr; etc. The two ministers renounced the jurisdiction of the church and so did many elders. The presbytery established an adminis trative commission but conciliation failed. The commission acknowledged the departure.of the local leadership and proceeded to take control of the property until new leadership could be appointed. The dissident church members did not appeal within church judicatories. instead, they filed suit in civil court to enjoin the presbycery and higher governing bodies from trespassing. l, l At thi!i time, Georgia statutory law employed the departure-from-doctrine ruje. This rule provided that when a Georgia church was a member of a hierarchical denomination, a trust in favor of the denomination would be enforced "conditioned upon the general church's adherence to its tenets of faith and practice existing when the local church affiliated with it and... an abandonment of, or departure from, such tenets is a diversion from the trust, which the civil courts wih prevent." 393 U.S. af444 (Footnote 3, quoting the Georgia slatute and the Georgia Supreme Court). At trial, the.jury determined the denomination bad engaged in a "fuodamental or substantial abandonment of the original tenets and doctrines of the [Presbyterian Church] so that the new tenets and doctrines are utterly variant from the purposes for which. the [Presbyterian Church] was founded." 393 U.S. at The local churches were awarded the property under the departure-from-doctdne rule. This judgment was affirmed hy the Georgia Supreme Court. Rulings: The U.S. Supreme Court declared the departure-from-doctrine rule unconstitutional under the first amendment: "[T]he First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving chur.ch pmperty.--disputes." -J9-:J U.S: at 449. "First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church propeny litigation is made to tum on the reso lution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertakt! to resolve such controversies in order to adj 11dlcntc the property dispute, the hazards arc ever present of inhibiting the free 18

113 development of religious doctrine and of implicatin~.secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern." ld. "[T]he departure-from-doctrine element of :he Georgia implied trnst theory requires -lhe civil court tc detem1ine matters at the ve;y core of a re.jig!on-the inrerpreta~ic.r. of part:cula; church doctrines. and the importance of those doc1rines to religion. Plilinly. rhc F irst Amendment forb ids c!vil eourts from playit1g such a role." ld. at 450., I I rn rejecting the departure-from-doctrine rule, the Supreme Court est;:iblished the neutral principles doctrine but did not clearly define it: "Civil courts do nor inhibit free exercise of religion merely by opening their doors to disputes involving church property. And Lhcre are neutral principles of Jaw, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without 'establishing' churches to which property is awarded." ld. at 449. Interestingly, the Mary Elfa:abeth Blue Hull Court called upon churches to.strucru~e their relatio1~ships according to these neutral principles but did no t se: out whac they were.: ''States, religious organizations, and indivi<lual s must s.tructure relationships involving church property so as not to require the civil court~ to resolve ecclesiastical <]uestions." Id. Case Comments: This lack of definition invited more churt:h property cas es_ Ultimately, the Supreme Court was compelled w define wh,a1 it meant by neutral principles. Jlfaryla.1z d and Virginia Eldership 0(1.Jie Churches nf Gad v. Church o[god atsha.rpsburg, (1970) 396 U.S LEd.2d 582, 90 S.Ct. 499 Key Points: Court dismisses an appeal (and thereby leaves the lower court's ruling in. place) where the Maryland Court of Appeals applies neutral principles and decides a chur ch property dispute' by examining - statutory Ian regarding church corporation,r; holding property, deeds, church corporate articles, and the constitution of the general church. In a concurri11g opinion~ three ways of satisfying neutral principles are sel out:_ l) The hierarchical deference rule a~ Jong as the civh courts do not make any polity or d,octrine determinations; 2) The formal title doctrine where deeds, corporate articles, state Jaw, and the denomination's conshlutfon are ex~mined; 3} States can ;itlopt special statutes concerning church property as long as they do not interfere in church doctrine or polity..j I l.. ~. J. Facts; Two l.ocal churches in Maryland sought to secede from the general church. In an earlier opinion, 393 U.S. 528 (1969). the U.S. Supreme Court directed the Maryland Court of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of the Court's Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull opinion (establishing the neutraj principles doctrine but not defining it). When the case returns, the l\1c!d'.u!n~ _CQ!-,1!1_bas cxatn_in~<:l~!!!_e statutory law governing the holding of property by rcligjous corporations, deed language; charters of the chu:rcli.corporadon-5, and provisfoni.tn ihe _ denominational church cortstitution to detennine ownership of the property. T'he denominational cht1rch constituti,on d'id riot hnvc a trust clause. The Maryland Court of Appeals awarded the property!o the seccders. On ::irpe;ij b(lck to the U.S. Supreme Courl. the Coun disrnrs$ed rhe I9

114 .,... l! case in one paragraph stating the Maryland court h.ad resolved the matter without inq uiring into religious doctrine and, so, no substanti.al federal question was presented. This case is a harbinger of how neotral pri11ciples will operate. Concurring opinion: Three justices join a concurring opinion (authored by Justice Brennan, the author of the Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull opinion) suggesting the ne.utra!,ptinciples doctrine ran be met in three different wa~s : L The Watson v. Jones hierarchical deference rule: Churches with a congregational polity decide property ownership by majority \'Ote. Churches in a hierarchical polity decide property ownership by the highest church authority that has ruled on the d1spute at issue. Bur the opi.nion cautions the Watson approach can only be used if the appropriate chu rch governing body can be detennined without resolulion of doctrinal questions or extensive religious policy inquiry. 396 U.S. at 370. The formal title doctrine: Courts can detennine property ownership by lookjng at deeds, reverter clauses, general Sl<ilt;.: corporation laws, an d general church constitutions. But the opinion cautions that civil courts cannot apply such documents if they arc conditioned upon departure from doctrine (the rule stru c~ down in Mary Ellzabeth Blue Huff). ld. States can pass special statutes regarding church property arrangements as long as they do not jnt:erfere in doctrine; both doctrine and ecclesiastical policy must be left to church governing bodies. Id. Serbiar1 E astern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich. (1976) 426 U.S. 696, 49 L.Ed.2d S.Ct 2372 Key Points: The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated a defrocked Ort.hodox bishop, reunited three ~i oc eses into one, and returned control of the diocese's property to the defrocked bishop, all by applying the ecclesiastical law and polity of the church. The Supreme Court held this was an unconstitutional rejection of the decisions of tj:ie high~st church tdbunal. Such church tribunal decisions are binding on civil courts. More over ~ the Illinois court's reuance on the arbitrariness exception was misplaced. The arbitrariness exception cannot be used by a chtir court to reexamine the decish>ns of the highest church tribunal on matters of church Jaws and regulations. The arbitrariness exception is thereby limited. Facts: Various disputes led to the Serbian Orthodox bishop of the American-Canadian diocese (Milivojevich) being defrocked by the mother church's Holy Synod and Holy Assembly_ The diocese was also divided into three new dioceses with new bishops named. The defrocked bishop sued in Illinois court to be reinstated as bishop, have the reorganization of the dioceses cl.~ c;ja.re d i.nyalid,...an.clhav.e.. allproperties.sec 1:1 F0d-~,:f'lirn : The-Illinois Supreme Court pe'ffotftiea a dctaijed review of church law and detennined the actions of the mother church, in applying its own church law and polity, were procedurally and substantively defective. Therefore, the accions were arbitrary, invalid, and reversed. ' I. I 20 I.!

115 .. _, I I Rulings: The l.j.s, Supreme Court reversed the lll fnois Suprem~ Courr: --,, I r l The Supreme Cm111 notes this case is essentially not a church property dispute but n religious dispute wh ich under Supreme Coun precedent is for ecclesiascical, not c1v d, tribunals. 426 U.S. al 709. The Illinois Supreme Court rested its decision "upon an impermissible rejecrion of rhe decisions of the highest ecclesiastica l tribunals of this hierarchical church upo.n th e iss ues in dispute and impermissibly substitutes its own inquiry into ch urch polity and resolutions based up.on those disputes." Id. at 708. "{Wjhere resolution of the disputes cannot be made withoutextensivc inquiry by civil courts into religious law and polity, the First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall not disturb the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal within a church of hierarchical, polity, but must accept such decisions as binding on them, in their applic.ition to the religious issues of doctrine or polity before them. Id. at 709. As to the arbitrariness exception set forth but nor defined en Go11zrzle? and A.fG1y Elizabeth Blue Hull, it does not allow for the review performed by the ljlinoi.s Supreme Court: "(Nlo 'arbitrariness' exception-in the sense of an inquiry whether the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied \~ ith church Jaws and regulations-is consistent with the constitutional mandate that civil courts are bound to accept toe decisions of the highest jndicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal org#mization, or eccjesiasticaj rule, custom, or law." ld. at 7 J 3. "fndeed, it is the essence of religious faith that ecclesiastical decisions are reached and arc to be accepted as matters of faith whether or not rational or measurable by objective criteria." Id. at714-j5. The Co.url criticized the IHinois court on a variety of matters, iii.eluding its rejection of the expert testimony presenfed by the mother church's expert witnesses. Id. at 7.l 8 (See a Isa footnote l 0). "Jn short the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious Qrganizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create trjbunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate bodies, the constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon the.m." ld. at Case Comments: In addition to the very strong language restricting a civil court's power to interpret church law, th is is the case to use if your opponents make a claim of arbirrariness against the actions of 1he presbytery... J _ I I _, 2 I

116 Jcmes " Wol((J979) 443 U.S L.Ed.2d775, 99 S.Ct. J020 l. I! Key Points: No longer is the hierarchical deference rule of Watso11 " Jones the only wa~ to determine church proper.ty disputes. Indeed, states may adopt any one of various appro aches to settle church property t.lisputes. The Court identifies three: I) Neutral principles where the court examines statutory Jaw on churches holding property, church corporate articles> deeds, and the prov'isions of the denomination's constitution. The Court explicitly cajls upon denominations to modify their constitutions to provide for express trusts and states the civil courts will be bound to enforce them; 2) Rierar chical deference remains an option to determine church property disp~tes even though it is not the only option; 3) A presumptive rule of majority repr esentation may be used as long as it is defeasible upon some showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other means (ex. Jocal church charter or denomination's constitu tion can provide that church is to be identified by higher governing body). Since Jones v. Wolf, no other church property cases have been taken by the U.S. Supreme Court. This ruling allows s<ate courts to use multiple mechanisms to decide such cases and they do. Facts: Various disputes brought the Yineville Presbylerian Church in Macon, Georgia to a congregational meeting. By a margin of 164 to 94, the congregation voted to leave the Presbyterian Church in the United States and join lhe Presbyterian Church in America. The Augusta-Macon Presbytery of the PCUS appointed a commission that eventually ruled the minority faction constituted the.. true congregation." The presbytery commission withdrew all authority from the majority faction. The majority faction took no part in the commission's work and did not appeal its decisions. The minority faction.brought suit in civ1l court to gain control of the property. The Georgia courts applied "neutral principles of law" and ruled for the majority..j J.I t I ) Rulings: The United States Supreme Court sets out what it means by the neutral principjcs of law doctrine. The Court recognizes the PCUS has a generally hierarchical or connectional fonn of government as contrasted with. the congregational form. As in other Presbyterian cases, the Court notes the ascending levels of four governing bodies, with each subject to the review and controj of the next higher governing body. 443 U.S. at In applying its version of neutral principles, the Georgia courts reviewed property d_eeds, state.starutes.conceming imp~ied -trusts; ehurch corporate chart.ers,-amf-cnepresbyierian Church Constitution. In none of these documen ts did the court discern a trust in favor of the denomination. On this basis} the Georgia courts ru led rn favor of congregational majorities. Id. at I. 22

117 I I. I By contrast, in a sc hism involving a United Methodist church, th e Georgia :::ourt fo und the United Methodist ConstilCltion contained an express tntsc in favor ofthe denomination. On that basis, the courr 11warded the property to the denomi ruhional church. Id. at J. The Supreme Cou11 noted the state has a legitimate inter~sr in che peacefo! resolution of church property disputes and the civil courts are open lo make detenninations of church property ownership. Id. at 602. The Supreme Court explicitly stated ''rhe First Amendment does not dictate that a State must follow a particular method of r~solv ing church property disputes. l r.decd, 'a State may adopt ally one of va rious approaches for settling church property disputes so Jong as ic involves no consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the rirual and Jitt.:rgy of worship or the tenets of faith."' Id. at 602 (quoting the concurring opinion in /vfaryland & Virgtnia Churches. emphasis in original). This multiplicity approach bect1me very important as states around the country began to apply cburcb property rul es in a variety of ways. Having stated that any of various approaches could be used, the Court )Vent on to identify three possible approaches: l. The neutral principles approach is used where a court reviews the language of deeds, th e cerms o[ local church charters, stale statute!i concerning church property ~ and the provisions of the general church constitution concerning the ownership and control of church property. Id. at 603. I _ I.. 1 I ' j Case Comments: Obviously, this neutral principles approach disadvantaged hierarchical churches, ii} part, as cornpared to their prior status under Watson v. Jones. No longer were civ1 I courts.man9ated to follow the hierarchical deference rule in church property cases. Significantly, the Jones v. Wolf Court set out tbe mechanism by which denominations co.uld reinstate their fonner position: "Througl1 appropriate reversionary clauses and trust provisions, religious societies can specify what is to hqppen to church property in the event of a particular contingency, or what religious body will detennlne ownership in the event of schism or doctrinal controversy. In this manner, a religious organization can e11sure that a dispute overthe ownership of church property will be resolved in accord with the desires of its members.'' Id. at Even. more explicitly, "At any time before the dispute erupts, the parties can ensure, ff they so desire~ that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church will retain the church property. They can modify the deeds or the corporate charter to include a right of reve~s i o n or trust in favor of the general church. Alternatively, the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of th e deno.minational ch urch. The burden involved in taking such steps will be minimal. And the civil courts witr be bound to give effecl to the r:~sult indic;~.t~cjj]y t]l_e._p~rh~~,. P.rnvtr:l.~9" His emb.. Qgkc;:!.ln ~Q.m~l~g_gJ Jy cog,ni;zable form." Id. ar 606. Having noted how these matters could be resolved, the Court called upon "'Scares, religious organizations, and individuals [to) strncture relationships involving church property so as not to require the civil courts.to resolve ecclesiasticaj questions."' Id. at 604 (quoting.mory Elizabeth Bllfe Hull). 23

118 ,... i ~.. \! In response to this inslruction by the U.S. Supreme Court, both the Uniled Presbyterian Church in the United Stales of America. effective in 1981, and the Presbyterian Church in the United Srates, effective in 1982, adopred new chapters of rhe Cn11s1in11io11 setting out express - 1 rnists on church property, their operations, the facr that presbytery determines the true church, I and the like. In light of the Court's new neutral principles ruling, these constitutiona l amendments returned the Presbyterian Church to the same status it had held since the Watson,,_ Jones decision in The hierarchical deference ru Je of Watson v. Jones remains one of the approaches approved by the Supreme Court to decide church property disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court notes that "Georgia law requires th at 1 chu rch property be held according to the tenns of the church government,' and provides that a local church affi liated with n hierarchical religious association ' is part of the wh ole body of the general church and is subject to the higher authority of the organization and its laws and regulations.,.. Id. at Noting that this brings in the Presbyterian Church Book of Order, the Supreme Court cautions that civil courts must not "usurp the function of the commission appointed by the Presbytery, which already has determined that petitioners [the minority faction] represent the 'true congregation' of the Vi nevi lie church. Therefore, if Georgia law provides I-hat the id ~nti ty of the Vineville church is to be detennined according to the ' laws and regulations of the PCUS, then the First Am~ndmen t requires chat the Georgia courts give deference to the presbyterial commission's cjetenninarion of that church's identity.'' Id. at 609. Case Comments: The Supreme Court stated the hierarchical deference is not required by the First Amendment. Id. at 605. Some mistakenly read this to suggest that hierarchical deference was being abandoned but it is clear from th13 case, M01yland and Virginia Churches, and other cases that the rulings in Watson v. Jones are al ive and well. Nowhere has the Court ever overruled Watson v. Jones; to the contrary 1 ii has been repeatedly cited in the Supreme Court's case law.. t I.J J. The presumptive rule of maj ority representation, defeasibje upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other means, is identified as an option. This rule, of_course 1 puts the Presbyterian Church (and other hierarchical churches) at an immediate disadvantage because it ignores the fundamental and historic church polity that a presbytery identifies the true cl10rch, not a majority vote of the congregation. In ejfect, this rule, improper1y applied, violates the free exercise of religion clause by turning the Presbyterian Church into an association of congregational or independent churches. Significantly, the Supreme Court noted thar a presumptive rule of majority representation was proper where it was "defeasible upon a showing that the identlt-y-of~hc-local church is to be determfned-by sorrre ather-m-eans. 11 Id. ar 607~ - The Court notes the.various ways the presumptive majority rule can be trumped: "Most importantly, any rule of majority representation can always be overcome, under the 11eutral-pri11ciples aµprouch, either by provitling, i11 the corporate charter or the constitution of the general church, th at the identity of!he local church is to be 24

119 . ' -,,.l established in some other way, or by providing rhat che church property is h eld in trust for th e ge11eral church and those who remain loyal to it." le. at Case Cornmen!s: As noted above, the Presbyterian Clw:-ch ~ook th e Court's ndvice ;md adopted borh an express property rrust und clear statements about the ~ urhonry of the pr:::sbytery in property matters (see Sec. fv.) VIJ. Other Resources, I I l Law review articles are written by law professors, students, and practitioners- Typ ically. they have an academic focus and analyze principles in a particular area oflaw. ln a state where church prope1iy case law is basically settled, law review articles will probably have little effec;t. If, howeve<, the stflte has little or no case Jaw or confl icting decisions, a Ja.w review article may be of more interest to the court. This sectio1i summarizes a few relatively recent articles. There are many others. The first resource listed below 1 however, is a.n an:iotated Jaw report which discusses this area of law generally with~ particular focus on cases nationwide. Determination of Property Rights Between Local Church and Parent Church Body. Modern View, 52 ALR3d 324, J34 (listing the Presbyterian Churc h as hierarchical with control over local church property), and 4 t 7 ("Although the Presbyrerian form of church govemmeru is without question hierarchical, there has been a considerable amount of litigation over th e right of local Presbyterian churches to withdraw from the general chur.ch and retain the use and control of local church property. ftjhis right is uniformly denied, on the ground tbal the local Presbyterian church stands in a hierarchical relationship to the general cbu~ch, with respect to property matters as ir; other areas." (Footnotes omitted)). Although this law report is dated (1974), its description of the Presbyterian Church as hierarchicaj is apt. It also discusses Presbyterian Church cases a t section 25 of the annotation. i,j I I Hands Off! Civil Court Involvement in Conflicts Over Religious Property, 98 Colurrt. L Rev ( l 998). Although the author criticizes the hierarchical deference approach, he notes it continues to be vai'id within U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and appli<:d in many states, and he recognizes the Presbyterian Church as hjcrarchical Id. at A revjew of some Presbyterian cases is provided, id. at , but some date from before Jo.nes v. Wolf Citing an Iowa Supreme Court case, he notes the 1981 property trust amendment to the Book of Order was not a new principle but rather clarified the unccrtajnry created by Jones v. Wolf. Id. at 190 l. Property Disputes and Religious Schisms: Who is the Church?. 9 St. Thomas L. Rev. 319 ( 1997). This author endorses hierarchical deference and criticizes neutral principles. Qoe.of. his.main points is that.one is-bo.unc! by. 1.!:1e.. r:ul s-s of ~he churi;;h joined. " The Episcopal and Presbyterian churches trace their existence to the English Refonnation. Thus, their polity, doctrine, and structure were established long before affiliation by the contemporary members. New membership in any existing organiza!ion implies 25

120 Religious Property Disputes and ln1ri11sicall; Re/igfo11s Evidence: Touiards a Narrow Application of the Neutral Principles Approach, 35 Vill. L. Rev. 949 (1990). This au'fhor criticizes the hierarchical deference approach, analyzes rhe EpiscqpaJ Church, and a particular Kentucky Supreme Cour1 case. He proposes a very narrow neutral principles approc:1ch whereby only secufar documen ts are considered (deeds, corporate articles) and not general church constitutions. This proposal is contrary to the Suprerne Court's guidance in Jones v. Wolf acceptance of the organization's existing 11:.!les." Id. at 354. Most of the article is d e vo~ed to reviews of U.S. Supreme Court cases and several state cases. Civil Co11rl Resolution of Property Disputes Among Religiolls Organizations. 39 Am. U. L... Rev. j 13 ( 1990). This is the most useful law review article reviewed. Although the author criticizes hi~rarchical deference and favors ne1jtral principles, his case analyses are very helpful. He divides cases into three categories and identifies those cases in each: Hierarchicfll deference approach; Hybrid neutral principles and deference approach; and Strict neurral principles approach. These summaries are quite usefut to the litigator who wants to know how other states handle certain church property issues. The Need/or an Ex clusive and Uniform App/ cation of "Neu.tral Principles in the Adjudication of Church Property Disputes, 32 St. Louis U. L. J. 263 ( 1987). This is another useful article. Although it criticizes the hierarchical deforence approach, it provides a good review of cases, especially those ruling on Presbyterian Church aod Episcopal Church property disputes. In addition, it provides a good review of core Presbyterian Church polity, especially the property trust. Most importantly, this article e~p Hcitly notes the Presbyterian Church, jn response to the Jones v. Wolf Court, adopted clear and binding pr.ovisions in regards to church property: l..j "National churches themselves may eliminate most of the uncertainty in the application of neurraj principles by adopting constitutional provisions which will unequivocally demonstrate that the property oflocal churches is held in trust for tbe national church." Id. at 313. "PCUS and UPCUSA have adopted such provisions In the wake of Jones 11. Wolf. fl]t seems clear that under either the polity or neutral principles appr.oach a court must hold that the nauonaj church controls local proper ty. Indeed, the adoption of such prn'visions will likely decrease the volume of churcb property litigation. Local churches will recognize that an express trust in favor of the national church will compel summary judgment in favor of the national church." ld.at3 l4: "(A] denomination that wi$hes to optimize its chances of prevailin,g in property litigation would (>e wel l advised to adopt an unequivocardeclaration of express trust as found in the constitutions of the [Episcopal and Presbyterian churches)." rd. at I _. I

121 1 1 Ch11rch Property Disputes: Churches as Secular and Alien lnsrilutio11s. 55 Fordham L. Rev. 335 ( 1986). The author criticizes all existing ch urch properly doctrines and proposes his own: Courts should rev1l!w seculnr legal documenrs (<leeds. corporate articles) solely. Foomote tlhs article lists many orhc : lnw review aniclcs on the co pie. Copyright. 200 I, 2002, nnd 2005 Presbyrerian Church (U.S A.), A Corporation. Re' I I 1 I I _ j I J l - 27

122 TJSA) - Constitutional Services - Advisory Opinions 19 ) ~ ~:i. c ~!' Ii'... ~ r.1,.., -...~L V. :t ;.,:..:~!:.,. =:.. '~.~.11,t}.»: '.!1~ -.. Home > Constitutional Services > Advisory Opinions > Note 19 ) Advisory Opinions: Note 19 Implementing the Trust Clause for the Unity of the Church "The unity of the Church Is a gift of its Lord and finds expression in its faithfulness to the mission to which Christ calls it. The Church is a fellowship of believers... " (G ). Each local congregation is the setting of a particular history of that fellowship; for its members it is the site of baptisms, of confirmations, of marriages, and of celebrations of the resurrection to join the communion of saints. Such significant personal experiences make the local congregation an indelible part of the lives of their members. These shared experiences are what most of us picture when we think of our home congregation. "The particular churches of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) wherever they are, taken collectively, constitute one church" (G a); The church is not a voluntary association of those who share the same opinions and experiences, but is an organic body called into existence by God that celebrates and transmits through the ages the name and knowledge of Jesus Christ. The constitutional provisions under which congregations hold property for the benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) arise out of and reflect our theological conviction that this denomination constitutes one Indivisible body, which itself is part of the body of Christ, and which encompasses not only the visible church today but our forebears and heirs in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Together we affirm that our God is in control of the world we occupy. We order our affairs out of an abiding conviction that persons do not join the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of their own volition, but are called to membership in this denomination by the sovereignty of God, and participate in its government through the work of the Holy Spirit. "A presbyterian polity recognizes the responsibility of all members for ministry and maintains the organic relation of all congregations in the church" (Confession of 1967, 9.40). Recently, this theology was affirmed by the 218th General Assembly in its "Gracious Separation" document. PC(USA) Home!search PC(USA) mm Home The Constitution of the Pre~byterian Church (U.S.A.) Penn anent and Special Committees and 'Commissions Resources Advisory Opinions Constitutional Musin~s Staff ()(~A ('if.cc of t~ -' Gt_, t,;~ J: :.. ~-~...'-.::/ 8

123 (USA) Con.stiwtlonal Services - Advisory Opinions That polity incorporates these theological principles regarding church property; I. There is not a unilateral right of a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) congregation to depart from the denomination or its presbytery of membership. Withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a matter that can be considered at a congregational meeting. 1 A. Nothing In our polity provides any such right. No such autho~lty Is given in G (powers of a congregation). No such authority ls given in G (powers of a session). Dissent is always protected, but defiance Is abhorred (G-9,0303). Con9re9ations that fail to abide by the principles of the "Gracious Separation" response "have breached Important responsiblllties and duties. " 2 There may not be any secret acts by the pastors and sessions diminishing a church's connection to the PC(USA). B. Congregations may be released only with the approval of their presbytery. G : "The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery." G : "The presbytery Is responsible for the mission and government of the church throughout Its geographical district. It therefore has the responsibility and power... to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members ; These consultations tnay be in the form of listening sessions, hearings, or other consultations and are for the benefit of informing the presbytery as it considers a request for dlsmlssal. 3 c. "By giving to presbytery rather than to session or congregation the power to dismiss a church, the constitution of this denomination guarantees a formal meeting of presbytery as the forum in which loyalist m inorities of whatever size might press their claims that they were sufficient in numbers and dedication to continue a church in Its connectional relationship within this denomination" (PCUS 1976, 92, Strong v. Synod of Mid-South). ti. There are also significant restrictions on how and under what circumstances a presbytery may release a congregation.

124 'IJSA) - Constirutional Services - Advisory Opinions op/nole 19 of advancing the mission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the presbytery's geographic area. "The presbytery... has the responsibility and power "to develop strategy for the mission of the church in its area... " (G a); "m0b!uzlng their (member churches'] strength for the most effective witness to the broader community for which it has responsibility" (G b). 8. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has found that "(a)n 'Independent' or 'congregational' Presbyterian church is an anomaly which runs counter to the notion that we are a 'family' of churches and dismissal must therefore be made to another church within the family group The... presbytery had no constitutional right to dismiss... the churches to independent status... The policy of not allowing members and ministers to be cut loose with no ties Indicates the historic Presbyterian policy of ecdesiastical connectionalism. This policy likewise forbids... dismissal to independency" {PCUS 1973, pp , Anderson v. Synod of Florida). C. While not explicitly prohibited by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission's recent decision in Sundquist v, Heartland, we believe it would be risky - In llght of the Foundational responsibilities involved - for the presbytery to delegate the. final decision to an administrative commlssion. 4 Power may not be delegated to another body; the decision must be made at a "formal meeting of the presbytery. " 5 0. Presbyteries are responsible for enforcing the trust clause: "All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title Is lodged rn a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property Is used in programs of a particular church or of a more Inclusive

125 (USA) - ConstiMional Services - Advisory Opinions production of Income, is held In trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)" (G }. The purpose of the Trust Clause (G ) Is to support the purposes and mission of the particular church as a part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) operating under the Constitution of the Chur ch. Presbyteries have an obligation to see that secular litigation is seen as a last resort. 6 The Idea of holding property in trust has always been part of the Presbyterian theology and practice as has been recognized by U.S. Supreme Court (Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872) E. Of c:ourse a presbytery c:annot r elease itself, nor all its congregations, for only the General Assembly itself can release or dissolve a presbytery (G n). Ill. If a presbytery fails to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, the synod may be required to Intervene. A. It may undertake review of the presbytery's processes and decisions (G ). B. If the synod finds that the presbytery has not been faithful to Its Presbyterian mission (G ), the synod may direct the presbytery to appropriate action (G-9,0410). C. If a presbytery Is unable or unwilling to carry out these constitutional responsibilities, the synod may assume jurisdiction over the presbytery's G , G & G powers (G m, n). IV. The 217th General Assembly (2006} called upon "... every member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.} to witness to the church's visible oneness, to avoid division into separate denominations that obscure our commontty In Christ, and to five in harmony with other members of this denomination, so that we may with one voice together glorify God in Jesus Christ, by th e power of the Holy Spirit; and all sessions, congregations, presbyteries 1 and synods to renew and strengthen their covenanted partnership with one another and with the General Assembly." 1 Sundquist v, Heartland, BcmedH!I Ca ~c

126 ISA) - ConstiMional Services - Advisory Opinions Sundquist v. Heartland, Remedial Case Sundquist v, Heartland, Remedja! Case (PCUS 1976, 92, Strong v. Synod of Mid-South) 6 sundqu/st v. Heartland, Remedial Case 219 Q3 Updated November 2008 TOP A \Nho We Are I Conaregations I News and Event;; I Ministry and VocatioM I Besourees/Publjcat;ons Giving and Funding I US and World Mis$ion I Search pcusa.org I!!I.mi Copyrighl Pre ljylerian Church (U.S.A.). All Rights Reserved

127 '1 i. Lloyd J. Lunceford from: Sent To: Subject: Thursday, April 26, :44 PM Lloyd J. Lunceford [FWD: FW: Notice for CalJed Presbytery Meeting, May 12, 2012] Jonathan Jehorek Original Message Subject: FW: Notice for Called Presbytery Meeting, May 12, 2012 From: Jonathan Jehorek Date: Thu, April 26, :42 pm To: From: Rob A!len On Behalf Of Rob Allen Sent: Thursday, April 26, :06 PM To: Subject: Notice for called Presbytery Meeting, May 12, 2012 Having trouble viewing this ? Click here BiJlllllJ [ifibl. Jb,, ~::: ~:::~:ery April 24, 2012 A special meeting of Grace Presbytery is hereby called, to be held at Preston Hollow Presbyterian Church, Dallas, Texas, at I 0:00 am, on Saturday, May 12, 2012, for the following purposes: 1. To elect the First Presbyterian Church, Longview Administrative Commission constituted on March 19, 2012; 2. To hear and act upon the report and recommendations of the initial Administrative Commission for First Presbyterian Church, Longview, (constituted on March 19, 2012) and to discharge it with thanks; 3. To create a new administrative commission for the First Presbyterian Church, Longview, Texas, to be known as the 1 EXHIBIT 9

128 ~ Ad.mini. c c C.. $'. strative omnuss1on First Pre b. J.OC s ~enao. \...aurc..., Longview to exercise the full authority of the presbytezy to consider and conclude all matters with regard to First P.resbyterian Church, Longview, and to execute the powers granted to the Presbytery by the Book of Order; 4. To authorize the Administrative Commission for FiI'St Presbyterian Church, Longview to exercise the following specific powers among, but not limited to, others: a. To examirie the present conflict and to determine whether a scbism exists within the congregation; b. To continue to seek reconciliation among aggrieved parties; c. To restore full and open communications; d. To provide training in communication and conflict resolution; e. To work to effectively represent and inteipret tho Presbyterian Church (USA); f. To make a decision as to what is "the true chw'ch within the Presbyterian Church (USA)" as described in G of the Book of Order; g. To confront the advocates for schism; h. To determine if and when a meeting of the co.ngregation is appropriate for the purpose of voting to withdraw from the Presbyterian Church (USA), to determine which members wish to stay wi1hin the Presbyterian Church (USA) and which ones wish to leave; i. To call such a congregational meeting, determining the nature and method of voting, the quorum requiremeu1, the notice requirement, the method for counting ballots, and naming the moderator and clerk of that meeting; j. To report results of that congregational vote to the congregation; k. to..recommendio Gtace.P.resbytexy dismissal of the persons wishing to leave should they wish to leave for another Reformed body; L To assume original jurisdiction, to designate a moderator for the session, and to replace the existing session; m. To dissolve all pastoral relationships existing between any Teaching Elder of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and First Presbyterian Church, Longview, and to negotiate the terms of any dissolution, with the concurrence of the Collllllittee on Ministry of Grace Presbytery; n. To freeze the assets of the congregation, real and liquid; o. To secure the building. grounds and other property of the congregation foe the use and be.nefit of the Presbyterian Church (USA), including obtaining appropriate insurance coverage; p. To authorize oversight of the congregation, its

129 mgtty and its property, as identified. as thee cbw-cb within the Presbyterian Church (USA); and, q. To propose to the presbytery its recommendation for the ultimate disposition of all property held by or for the congregation, including the assumption of any liabilities of the congregation. 5. To name to the Administrative Commission for First Presbyterian Church, Longview The Rev. Stuart Baskin, to serve as Moderator, and The Rev. Richard Hollingsworth, and Ruling Elders Tom Sartor, Carol McNatt ano Harriette Malcolm; staff to the Administrative Commission for First Presbyterian Ch\Uch, Longview to be General Presbyter, The Rev. Dr. Janet M. De Vries, ASsociate General Presbyter, The Rev. Michael Thompson, and Stated Clerk, Ruling Elder Connie 'I\lbb. 6. To require the Administrative Commission for First Presbyterian Church, Longview to report regularly to the Eiecutive Comrruttee of Grace Presbytery, and to the Presbytery, and to request dissolution upon completion of its work. ~v O- Micbael J. "Mike" Vaughn Moderator of Grace Presbytery Forward ema!i 3

130 A.. l', rj. Grace Presbytery l. Presbyterian Church (USA).....,..,..,. Mar.di.. 2i/'2oif' Dear FPC Longview Members, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We are writing you on behalf of Grace Presbytery to let you know what actions have been taken by the Presbytery and your Session over the last few days, and what you can expect over the weeks and months ahead. We fear that the bonds of trust between the congregation and the Presbytery are badly frayed, and we regret any role we have played In that. All we know how to do In a situation like this is to be as open, honest, arid forthcoming as possible. That is why we are writing you this letter. Th~;J;xecutiv.eJ~ommittee:-ofCGrace;;P,.{~.;~-=b,~~-~.W.;;Ut~~1t.J1J~;.r.M.9Pslaw;, OO!'!r.~IJ r.~~;,:8ti:that~meetin-9.,.wer~isk:ed~-tfie 'Exed:1tive~cbmm lffee to" api;>olnt-;.ar.f;wdmlnlstrafive''go'fffmission1.and to empower the Commission to work with the congregation and its officers directly on Presbytery's behalf. The.'Execfutive,committe.. 2~.RPRt9."~~~.. ~_,.. :-<\:: Go_mm.issiorr.whose names are listed at the end of this letter: We know this action may feel punitive; it is not. The reason for forming this Commission is to move the process along more quickly. Forming an Administrative Commission is simply one of the required steps in this process. Here's what we have observed in the past few weeks that led us to the conclusion that an Administrative Commission Is needed now: A significant portion of the congregation appears to favor leaving the Presbyterian.Church (USA) A significant portion of the congregation appears to oppose such a move A significant portion appears to be in some distress over the resulting conflict, which has begun to affect relationships between faithful Christian people within the congregation Little remains to be accomplished by continuing to talk about the reasons behind this conflict; it seems to be time to move to the question, "What now?" Last night we spent significant time with the Session. At their meeting, they voted to request that Presbytery through the Administrative Commission call a congregational meeting to request dismissal either to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) or to the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians {ECO). The only way we know to move beyond this conflict is to move 2 EXHIBIT 10

131 through this coct and get us as quickly as possible tge other side, to the end that fractured relationships can begin to heal. If in this process sotne of you become angry with us or with the Presbytery, we belleve this ls better than for members of FPC Longview to be angry with each other. Many of you feel that you can no longer belong to a denomination that has opened the way to the ordination of homosexuals. We accept that. From here on, the question before us Is not ordination. The question is where we go from here. Let us get on with that question as forthrightly and as peacefully as we can. There will be points at which our lnterests -diverge-a-n'cl'we~ Will tontend with one another. But we Christians are no strangers to conflict. Paul and Peter had a significant argument over the question of whether Gentile Christians should be required to adhere to Mosaic law. We Presbyterians are also pron~ to conflict. Let us therefore not treat this conflict as an aberration but as a part of life In the faith. In order to get us through this conflict as quickly as possible, we want to invite you to speak directly to the Administrative Commission this Saturday, March 24. We will be at the church for three separate meetings. We Invite you to select the one that seems most appropriate to your personal situation; but you are of course invited to any or all of them. We will have no closed or secret meetings with different groups In the congregation. Time Place.. Youth a.m. Center 11:30a.m.-1:00 p.m. 1:30-3:00 p.m. Youth Center Youth Center Who Should Attend Those who wish to leave the PCUSA Those who wish to remain in the PCUSA Those who are genuinely undecided about what to do These conversations wlll be tightly focused on each group's desired outcomes. For those who wish to leave the PCUSA, we will outline the steps required to accomplish that goal. We will also encourage the group to decide on a new denominational Mme as quickly as possible. For those who wish to remain, we wlll outline the actions that are coming in the next few months. We will encourage members of this group to begin thinking about their options and we wlll help them define their options. For those who are genuinely undecided about what to do 1 we will outlfne the actions that are coming in the next few months and we wlll encourage members of this group to decide what makes the most sense for themselves and their famllles. Anyone is welcome to come to any or all of these conversations. We will simply ask people who are observing to respect the desires of each group and withhold comment. 3

132 r. cj Please feel free fo contact any of us individually, or to write us collectively. It is much better for everyone If we talk directly to one another with our hopes, fears, and concerns. At the end of the day, we all want to be faithful to God and to be faithful dlsclples of Jesus Christ. When the dust settles, we wlll belong to different denominations, but we will all stlll belong to the body of Christ. Our prayer as a Commission Is for the long term health of the congregations that emerge from this controversy, that we may all continue to serve our one Lord, Jesus Christ. To him be all glory, majesty, dominion, and power, now and forever. The Rev. Stuart G. Baskin, Tyler Administrative Commission Moderator sbaskln@fpctyler.com cell: (903) office: (903) home: (903) Ruling Elder carol McNatt, Athens cmcnatt@suddenllnk.net home: (903) cell: {903) The Rev. Victoria Griffin, Jacksonvllle vlctoda.gdffin@sbcqlobal.net cell: (512) office: (903) Ruling Elder Tom Sartor, Kiigore tsartor@falconresoyrceslnc.com cell: (903) office: (903) The Rev. Richard Hollingsworth, Longview rflolllngsworth36@yahoo.com home: (903) cell: (903) Rullng Elder Mike v"ughn, Jacksonville mikeyaughn@cayugatexas.com home: (903) Rullng Elder Harriette Malcolm, Marshall tbmalcolm@sbcglobal.net cell : {903) home: (903) The Rev. Jan DeVrles, General Presbyter fan@gracepresbytery.orn office: (214) cell: (520) The Rev. Mike Thompson, Associate General Presbyter mlke@gracepresbvterv.org office: (214) cell: (817) Approved by t.tie.executive Committee of Grace Presbytery on Monday, MatCh f9, '2012 Motion for.an Administrative Commission for. Fll'St Presbyterian -Cl)urch, Longylew I~

133 Approved.by G,C Presb t~!y. ~~~ve-commlttee 3!::;2012 M.otlcin: -r;hat Gr:,ace Presbyt~ry;~~polnt an Admlhlstratlve ~o~mission to work with First Presbyterian Church, Longview, which ls reported to be affected with disorder, and to Inquire Into and settle the difficulties therein. lhe:commi5slon shall eicercise:thejollowlng-power(s) as needed: o to examine the present conflict and schism; o to seek reconciliatfon among aggrieved parties; o to restore full and open communications; o to provide training In communication and conftlct resolution; o to provide for a complete and Independent review of all flnandal records; o to establish sound flnancral procedures and guidelines; p... tg s.~r;:!-!ri:.9llllr:tar:iciat...assets; c,- lo address supervision and oversight of staff and a constructive work environment; o. to work to effectively represent and Interpret the PCUSA o to call a congregational meeting, as may be necessary to determine which members wish to stay within the PCUSA and which ones wish to leave o to recommend to Grace Presbytery dismissal of the persons wishing to leave should they wish to leave for another Reformed body o to recommend to Grace Presbytery distribution of property o to make a decision as to what is "the true church" as described in G Book of Order.... ' [.~.: ~ (! ~ ~!:,. i \ (s); 'The Administrative Commission shall report regularly to the Executive Committee of Grace Presbytery, and shall make a recommendation to Grace Presbytery with respect to the distribution of the real property and other assets of First Presbyterian Church, Longview, and shall request dissolution upon completion of Its work. The following Individuals shall constitute the Administration Commission: Teaching Elders: Stuart Baskin, Pastor, First Tyler Richard Hollingsworth, Pastor, Alpine, Longview Vicki Griffin, Pastor, First Jacksonville Ruling Elders: 5

134 1"6m Sartor, First Kilgore carol Mc:Natt, First Athens Harriette Malcolm, First Marshall Mike Vaughn, First Jacksonville Staff to the Commission: Jan De Vries, Mike Thompson, Connie Tubb The Book of Order provides the following with respect to Administrative Commissions: G b b. Adminlstratlve Commissions Administrative commissions are designated to consider and conclude matters not Involving ec:cleslastlcal judicial process, except that In the discharge of their assigned responslbllltles they may discover and report to the designating council matters that may require judicial actlon by the council. Functions that may be entrusted to administrative commissions Include, but are not limited to: (5) (by presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly) visiting particular councils, congregations, or agencies over which they have Immediate jurlsdlctlon reported to be affected with disorder, and Inquiring into and settling the difficulties therein, except that no commission of a presbytery shall be empowered to dissolve a pastoral relatlonshlp without the specific authorization by the designating body (G ); A commission of presbytery, synod, or General Assembly shall be composed of ruling elders and teaching elders In numbers as nearly equal as possible and sufficient to accomplish their work. A quorum of any commission shall be establlshed by the designating council but In no case shall be less than a majority of Its members (except as llmltecf by o-5.02"04). - A commission shall keep a full record of Its proceedings and shall submit that record to the councll for lnc.orporatlon Into Its records. Actions of a commission shall be regarded as actions of the council that created it. A commission may be assigned additional duties as a committee, which dutles shall be reported and handled as the report of a committee. The decisions of an administrative commission shall be reported to the clerk of the designating council, who shall report it to the council at Its next stated meeting. A council may rescind or amend an action of Its administrative commission In the same way actions of the council are modified. When an administrative commission has been designated tosettle differences within a particular organization or council, ltshall, before making Its decision final, afford to all persons affected by Its decision fair notice and an opportunity to be heard on matters at Issue. G Property of a Congregation in Schism The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a congregation can be severed only by constitutional action on the part 6

135 c. r i of the presbyterv-tg b). If there Is a schism witfun' the membership of a congregation and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division Into separate congregations with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine If one of the factions Is entitled to the property because It Is Identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This detennlnatlon does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the congregation at the time of the schism. ~.t.~u:;e pre~.by..~~rv t~n~lng RtJles prqvide; 7~:1 An.Admlnlsttative':G:ornmissloo as.. esta.bllshed by the Boo~ of Order (G b) In <Gra' e"pr~byter:y Will -be.formulated :<by, ;a1 c.ornmittee:;cdt'fsl~tlng' idf',jb.e; ~ne ral. P.resl>yte'r/;.tbe Stated!«ler.I<, the ~.Qggr,M.onot:the seresby,te.w;...11:l~1 MPJ!gi:ator.o.fthe:<COunclL-an d ~the Mo.d~ta.tor::ofitne:.Goiiin:ilttee~en ~ M lnlst'.riv,j';q!'-..'.my Jtir.~_e.:_c:it,.tbQ~-e,~ 1!!.cll'illd.u.als ;<::.wor.i<rrig1f'ogeufer: to~proposeiiames, which wlll be chosen for their abllltles, their talents, their history of service in the Presbytery, and their diversity In terms of geography, and the commission shall be balanced between elders and ministers, as equally as possible..l\~sl!pt~j.strattv.e~ 0mtrl1$.Sl.0Jf'm a -:--ll>erc~t1tu.ted l?~~j! ~-P,~.$..QY.!eP.J,.;~e~.ltf9~ifani:t 1 sh~!! J1~~1~iitl! a~.t!tt:r~x.'1efyj.hext P..@il:l.ytecyfme)!t1..ng;5 ff>;r,:_~r:'ifi~~~o:cq1'itlnue~or. ttfe~i!iritlo1i '!Cif~ f.lie task Involved, or for the life of the project tor which It was created. Administrative Commissions may add addftlonal members as needed, and are constituted and empowered with all of the powers specified In the Book of Order as well as those enumerated in the motion which creates them. Names of members will be reported to the Presbytery. The Administrative commission will ordinarily exist for the duration of the life of the project or task for which It was created and wlll report to the Presbytery on its progress and upon completion of the work will request flnal approval from the Presbytery and dismissal of the Commission. Forward this 7

136 ACT OF CONGRESS STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE I, DOUG WELBORN, Clerk of Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the following 115 pages from Suit Number C Section 26 entitled: _ Carrollton Presbyterian ChUrch Versus The Presbytery of South Louisiana are full, complete, true and exact copies of the following document(s) contained in the original record: Order, filed: February 13th, Exhibit Pl6 Evidence, filed~ March 2nd, Affidavi t of Lloyd J. Llmceford, filed: March 25th, Ex Proprio Motu Order, filed July 25th, GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 4th day of _,.,Jun"" ""'e"----' 201!t_.. Do"gWolbo~ Parish of East' Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF EAST 8'1P~ I, 8 ~ ~. Presiding Judge of Section ~ of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in and foflthe Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, do hereby certify that: Doug Welborn, whose name was signed to the above certificate is now, cind was at the time of signing, a erk of Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge; as Clerk of Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Doug Welborn has custody of the original records of which the aforesaid document(s) are a part; Doug Welborn is the proper person to make the above certificate; the seal affixed to the above certificate Is the seal of the Cl~rk of Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana and said certificate ls In due form. GIVEN UNDER MY HANO In Baton Rouge, loulsicina, this 4th day of _ Jun_,;.:e _, 20~. STATE OF LOUISIANA PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE I, DOUG WELBORN, Clerk of Court for the Parish of East Baton RoLJge, State of Louisiana, do hereby certify that Kay Bates, whose name was signed to the above ce rtlficate Is now, and was at the time of signing, presiding Judge of Section 26 of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court and that ttie signature on said certificate ls the genuine signature of the said judge. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 4th.. day of ---'Jo..: un=e, 20_!L. EXHIBIT 11

137 ACT OF CONGRESS STATE Of LOUISIANA PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE I, DOUG WELBORN, a~k af Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouae, st;ite of Louisiana, rlo hereby certifv that the following 5 pages ftom Sult Numb~r c5654ez Section 26 entitled:---- CarroJJ t1 1 Presbyu!tian Cburc.'1 veri!us Presbytery ot South Lottl..si.vla an: tull, oomplete, true and exacr copfnof the foll~wing document(s) co11talned m the c:ulgln~i f1!cord: A:>pc.-ui:I x: A and' n, filr.tl.jul.y.25tb, :zon. GIVEN UNDER MY HANO ANJ> SEAl in S.ton Rouge, lou l$1~na, this 'tbday or-"".j~""""''"----' 20ll_, STATE Of louisiana PARISH OfASTB~9~E I, I'\ W./ fl~. Pmid!r.e Judge of Section _ /Jj {A_ of the Nlneteemh Jlldlcii l Disb1Gt Court In~ Paruh of fast Baton Rouge, State of Lou!stan~y certify that: OotJg Welbor!I, whose name was signed to the above certificate is oow, and was at the time of signing, Oerl< of Court tor t~ Parish of Fast Balon Rouge; as Oer~of Court for!tie Pari$h of East B'ilton Rouge, Doug Welborn has custody of IJ1e or)gin;, I rewrds of which the afores.aid document(sj are a part; Dous WclbDl'n is the proper p1t!'$ofl to make the above certificate; the seal affixed to the above cfi'tlficate 1s the sclal of the dtr~ or Coort for the l'arl.sh of l:ast Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana anc:l 5ald certificate is in due form. GIVEN UNDER MV HAND in Ba toll P.ovge, lou1slana, this 5th day of JUDI! 20..ll. STATE OF t.ouisiana PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE I. OOUG WELBORN. Clerk of Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State o( Loul$ian:1, do hereby 'l!ftlfy that.kay llat:ea Whose name wa) sign~ to tho above certtllcali< I' noiai,.and was at the lim~ of sisning, pre$lding Judge of S9ction 26 of the Ni neteenth Judid~J Dlstr1ct Co urt ancl lhal tlie slanature on sakl certificate Is the tenuine ~ignature of the said Judge. GlvtN UNDER MYHAND AND SEAL in Batoo (Wu~ Louisiana, thls.2t;htlayof JU!)(' 20J.L. Oou1WiThorn~~ Parisi! of ast llatlln R~u1e. Sta~ of Louisiana

138 . ""''\!ill " Ro~ rar\$11 Cl'<rl:<i! C.1111 CS1541l2 OIWIOR P ye 1 ors9 CARROLLTON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH VBRSUS THE PREs.BYTERY OF SOUTH LOUISIANA OF Tfffi PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA) SUITNO. 56'5482 SECTr~; 2 1 9~~ DIS'IRICT ~-"'~'~ EA.~h'b\) ST GEPARlSB EX PltOPRIO MO'fU ORDER AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW of the proposed wrltt:en findings of fiml Wld reasons for judgment on the issues of sanction~ an4 the f'"'olecttw Cll'der submitted by the parties, lhe Court hereby l!dopted the proposed written findings and rel!sods drafh:d on behalf of carrouton Presbyterian Church. IT IS HEREB\' ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREJ:'rl> THAT the ''Written Findings and Reasons for Judgment lmpo~in& Sanctioni> and for Rescinding Protective Order" sul;mntted on behalf of Carrollton Presbyterian Chun.ih is hereby adopted by the Cowt. Counsel for Carrollton ~byterlan Church is to prepare 11 j11dgment consistent with these written reasom, circulate it in accordance witl'! Rille 9.S ai)([ subm1t it to lbe Court for signature. Judgment to be signed acx:ordingiy. Bato.ll Rouge, Louisiana, this 18th day of July I REC'D C.P. 'JUL J5 Zll13 JUL1s2mi ~~ 19UIJUDJC1& OISTRt01 00\) ~RRDFCOUA

139 CARROLLTON 'PRHSBYTERIAN CHURCH VERSUS Tiffi PRESBYTERY OF SOUTH LOUISlANA OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH {USA) SUIT NO SECTION; 26 l 9Ta JUDlClAL DISTRICT COURT 'EAST BATON ROUGE PARisa STATE OF LOUISJANA WRlJIEN!JNDINGS AND REASONS FO"Jt J UDGMENT IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND FQRRESQINDING P.ROTECTJVE ORD.ER 1. SANCTION'S. A) INTROD1JCJ10N AN1J OVEJtVIEW ln the underlying property Jitig$1ti0!1 a Lou,isi;ma. nonj>i-ofit corpora:1;i.on1 CamilltClll Presbytm11n Church, sought to aell its real property, titled in ils. tpl'po(ata name, lo its contiguous neighbor, Th~Stuart Hall School for Boys. The Presbytery -0f 8outh Louisian-a, the rullional dcllqmination's d.iirtrict govc.tning body witbin whose geographic bounds Cmollton is located., blocked the sale. The PSL. assent<! iliat d\1e to an e).'j)l:'css property trust clause in the denominational constitution in favor of the denomination, pel'.mission by the.!'sl was requjred before :m)' sale by Carrollton. Tilis court dis!ibjccd, granted SUl1lllUlfYjud,gment in Javor of Carrollton. lllld now addresses Can:ollton's motion for sanctions and to wi1hdraw or rescind a discovery order that plaoed under seal certain documert~ filed end Introduced i'n cooncction with Carrollt.on's motion for sanctions. Conc~illg this-. c_ourt.'s Decelllbet 4) Z009, discovery Order (whicb 1eltert:rted tlte C-O(lrt's Onfurs of September 22., :2009 ~d October 22, 2009, compelling tbe f SL to prodliec c;crtain document9), lhe court preyiously derued 1WI JUDIClil.LOISTRICTQ()lJRT REC'D C.P. JWL

140 C81TOllton'~ motion to rescind the protective order compooent bu:c stated the oourt would revisit the mutt«and lj"kely lift the protective otder at the appropriate time, BecallSC the doeumenll! that. ore the subjecr of Elie protective order pertain to Cnrrollt.on's m()tion fot sanctions and the ooun 19 now ruling on that motion and providing Wri~n Fltldin&s and Reasons for IudiJllcnt imposing sanotions, oow is. the ttpprop ri~re titne 1o also re'9islt the issue of the December 4, 2009, d.iacovety (protective) Order. Cmollton's motlon fol' sanctions oamo for hearing on May The court has carefully considered the memor:uida 1111.d argwnent of oourniel end the exhibits and evidence introduced and now provides these Written Fl~ end Reasons for J uqgro.ent. Prior to the time the PSL filed its first pleading, the PSL knew that the &Clll of conveyance, local church articles of incorporation, applicable state tnl.'lt or property law, or any reasonable interpretation of the denomination's own governing documerns offft'ed no support for its assertion ofao enforoeablc trust. Al! relevant d()()ulljents were voluntarily furnished by Carrollton to the PS'L on th_e date suit was filed. The PSJ. later stipulated to the authenticity of these documents and never introd\wed any documents c:ontradlctin.g the fucts set forth in lhem. 1 At the time Carrollton filed wit on March 27, 2008, seeking a declanrtory jud,gment the PSL I~ io place a written policy, which lhe PSL labeled a "definitive smtement, that said that churches llke Ciurolloo 1hat had timely exercised tbe property exemption of G of the PCUSA Book of Order could "buy, ~11.. lease, cnongage or 1 B(ltl I~ l'sl 1111d Carrolllon IJl'l'C tblll pcfu,.,..w 1! eslablishfd prini;lpl'* oflnul lllw hi sen nl nor the particular tcquim:ile:nts of Louiiiua trust Jaw recognize as vaijd Uld ldf.t;xcculina m~ trusj ~ad by wollld<be benefieimy '._ property owned by lft<llber. 7bo PSL lroknowledtod: By 1979, wb.111 the Svl)A:llle Court issuoci ii' nilini in Jone. Wu)t it - clear lhai, u IUlktr of Nit tju! i.w K!llor WU miuired to IDllllifiert... inlrndon ltl create the lnl'1. lta11!emc:ni (Second) oftr\!jls, i 23 (1959). t'..oltisiw law is lloi peculi&r In lhls rcpd. Ser La. StlL Ann. 9:17S.l (!964). Jllllfl 14, 2011>,.ESL Po.t.Hearing Memarandum at p. 8; cilift& ~ Lorio, Loulsi&Da 'J'rdf: 11;e Expl'{leoceofa CMI LewJ11ri5diciioowill1Tnisi.,42!.a. L.11.cY (19'2).

141 otherwise enc.umber e.ny of their real property without futtber permission of 1he Ptcsbytcey. Prior to filing lu rm;t pleading the PSL was bluntly informed by the denomination's top in-house legal authority, Mr. Mark Tammen, Dil'(lCtl)r of ConatitutiOlllil Services with the PCUSA Office of the General Assembly, that he!law 110 way for the PSL to prevail. When the PSL's own cotparote representatives were deposed they 100 acknowledged that Carrollton contioued to have 1ho right to sell the property cit issue without PSL pe.rmlssion. Nevertheltl!ill, despite all of this, the PSL opposed Carrollton and u111e<1 as the PSL's central argument in opposition that fone.s y. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 ( 1979), allows the PCUSA to impose a trust on local chureb property by amcndlng the denominational constitution without ll.lri consent of the titleholdiar of roeord t11d wi~out complying wilh either genertl principles of trust law or with the specifics of Louisiana trust law. In other words~ PSL counsel argued that Yl!JJf authorizes a religious exemption ftom general trust end property law. HoWtivcr. Wolf unequivocally states that when appl)i]ng neutral principles oflaw1o resolve church property disputes courts arc to ascertain the mutual lntcntions of the parties an.d 1h1t the Il(!utral principles of law method "relies exclusively on objectlvu, wellestablished concepls of trust and prope~ law familiar to lawyers and judges". ~ at 603. ~ further states that any asserted trust must be in a "logally cognizable folln". l!l. lt 606. The PSL's core argument is tbu.c; directly contredictod by the very case on which it has relied-a cue decided by the United States Supreme Court mol'll then thirty yw.rs iq;o. It!Mkes no sc:nse to tllib court to argue that the U.S. Supreme Courl in Wolf said that the neutral principles of Jaw method relies exoluslvely on w..,11- cslablished coneepes of trust and property law", Wolt at 603, and then nevertheless

142 argue that ~author Jud 11 self-executing trust to be created in disres-td of those well~establlshed concepts simply by a. would-be beneficiary unilaterally claiming that a tnjsl exists In its ~vor O'l"er property owned by somebody else. Tbe PSVs inteipret.ation oflyq!f is noruiensieal and stands Wolf on its heod In vlolalion of Lu. C.C..P. art The PSL cast aside the genuine coosidenition required by ll2lf of the deeds, local artidcs of lncorpor<1tion. Slll.te property and trust law and the deuom.inolionnl coostitution tind instead asked this court 10 give d!!tennlning weight to 11 slngle factor - the dtjjjomination"s decuion to add trust language in its own constllutlon This upproach, however, would convert the neutral principles of law method advocated m Wolf into the functional equivalent of the deference method that the Louisiana Supreme Court uoanimously rejected in Fluker y. ffit;hens. 419 So.2d 445 (La: 1982). almost thirty years ago. The PSL 's aj:gumeni for a religious exemption rems 0J1 a manifestly false~ of.ly2!f that no coll11 in the United States in over40 years ofne'ltral principles case law bas ever adopted. Despite the PSL's awlil"elless ~ its position lacked legal or evidel!tiary support, tbe PSL erected a "Stal.lngrad-type 1 ' defense intended to firum.oially force capitulati@ft or to make victory by the small, twmt,y member Carrollton church as ooi:tly M possible. tn a January 28, 2009, &-mail (PSL 83, 84), tho PSL's lood New Orleans attomoy confided to some of his collabo~, "One must wonder whether Carrollton is prepared to go to the expense ofli1igating dlis cave. The PSI, $pent over SS00,000 (exclusive of any ekpenditures during or 2011) in opposing Carrollton's e:ffurt to sell properfy valued et less than $1,000,000 (lls determined by both lhe appraiser hired by Carrollton and the appraiser hired by the PSL when the existing, long term Lease of Cartollton's property to The Stuart Frall School is

143 factored). Despjte numerous efforts lo mhigate its costs, as a result of the 'PSL's UM:8SQJ).8ble intnuisigence Camillton was foretd lo medlessly 6"J)elld S336,000 in fees and expenses in pursuing recognition and enforoement of it3 property righ:ts. 1 What ensued during the course of this unfortunate Htigatfon wa6 e profow1dl,y distwt>ing dlsplay of disdain for the rule of law and the judiciary. Multiple Orders of this court we.re knowingly Wld contumaciou.&ly \'iolaled. Tue PSL's lcaul New Orle11:11s attorney had evident reason. to know Ahead of l:imc thnt this court's February l 3, 2009, TRO was going to bt interulon.a!ly violated on Feb. 2S, The PSL's N&W Orleans eounsel and some of his co-conspirators3 actually planned this intentional violation and lobbied for it-«> manufacture a 1 ~ PSL.siipullitt:d to th.. R111SD11ablene11s of h fee! mt! cxpmsics u.c..rml by ewdlton, but di~ u..c aancuoas... WlllTlll~ Tlv: PSI.' pallliilied tiwmciaj -.-nu {1'8L ll'cgllntl ~t fw ia Ft6nl&ry 17, 2010, mcctiag) iodlcctt dial dlrin& 2008 (Carrollloa 61ed suit Oil Mll'Ch 27. looi), 111.o PSL JJ>nl.599,ISl.OO in legll! fees ml expeases. and in 2009 spc91.. oddiliom.j SOI, 7S.U5 la i.g.j foee &lid ejgltmce, for an~ S11111 of S S. fl~ for 2010 ha \~ OQt *ti pwfubed by tbri 1'SL 11 of lhla writiqg. Tho ~lm!ng -_jorily of 1hooe ~ were aped b)' Ck PSL ill IJl!POl!ng Camilltoo's ~ dliim. l'ricrro 2008, lllt PSt:a llql!ulf JbM ~m b!ldgot dlf lop!~... ~ssoo...ciss,ooo. <Am>Oton hlll li\od four (4) J110tioos for sancliol1$. On J~ly 17, 2009, Canvlhon fued moti.\la Co.- satictlo,,. (wllldl m1y be tcl'emd oo as carrolftoii't "llltin'' ancuon:i moda11). Oo July 20, 2009,.ui Oft AU$Uf!. 20, 2009, ClllTl)jltm filod sll!wliom motions II> responh, n:sp1>cdvcly, to the PSL ' Flnt Sec of IJ1111rrop10ries, Req11~ts f<ir J>Toodootfan, 11\d 'R~u"111 JOr Admlnlou, and to Ille PSL'1 deposition trlllice ~ 111~ ~ 1ae11m eoniooraing!ho Stlllrt Fillll Scbool IW Boy.s. Allllousb Ille Court did 11a1 q1.-a.b e.at dilc.ovll)' or muo po'.<:odve orders (illo PSL modified it. in~ 1ad ~), Cmo1JJDn did net~ k raotlaas and llro Court dmmd rul!og on san.ctiong, so thll tho PSL ~at ils own risk.. c..roflbjn'~ fo~ $111llllioos malion-an Ocllobu 2, 2009, IDCJlion!«con\erll~ which t~.<: Coun uai>red fi'om tho bcncb Oii October 22, The Co111t twanled Cern,!llOll Ille ""Qjjls llld W... fncumd ln GClllllldioD with ils molian mr CO!lbmlpr IM no peyment l\u bmn reu!w>d by CarrolltQo. C&rrollton soe1's wietio11& fot fees apd CKpen&e$ it lln5 lnoum:d from flc1'mf)' 2'!, 2009 (tho date of tho L'SL's fll'it pfl:llding filed in this ca!e), to dllo. Sull WllJ filed by Carrollton on MMah 27, Tho PSI.. filed 1.MCfllOl'At1.dum I~ Opposition!:CJ l!1illllclfvo Rellofand In $11pporlof Oleiolv~ Che '11t0 011 C"tbruJIJ)' 23, '2009, 8lld l!d ~r 0!1 July 2,, Tltls ftg11111 soij8)lf by CamiUtt.>n t(lla!s llj'pl'1)1uidlll!fy $390,000.00, ""d 1s comprised of lppl'1jldmlllefy.s!s, in cicpn1- imd $3" ).00 In profo.llloaal lbel. These f\jllln's e:atflde 1=i i nd Cl!pOll8C$ lnoumd In conncclloa with remuval tu Ind.-aQd &o.l fodenl comt. They illclud*, ~. S6,00D.OO ill hes ind ~cs ~umd ii> ~ection wilh c.rnudi' Mo&rt 1Q Compel a11d also h«:ijlll. $54, ill <ces Sid ~ i1""1m)<f lo ~M octilltl wtlh C11m>Uton'e ef('oltl! to obqiin C0111pcnnmry ~rioni (i.e., CvtoJJIOll ~umd S336,000.00infi>cs111\d ClC(ICCl"G as& n:sult of dta PSL 'ssmiclim>mlooppositioa, e.odotou ~ uodicr 16%, ot $S4,000.ll0, suiting teem'cl)i). Tho Mey 17, '2010, A ffida~t allbinillcd by C11n1llron'1 oltamey lilib C11rroU1on' efforls to mitigata it files and OXfl"'l-, including di~nted hourly r*ea and dol'lall>i time ~ lls llttcm>eys, "l).f\lflw11y produeln11 10 tho l'sl tll rdevlllt docwnelltl on tbe ~ suit MS filed, IDd lhirtoen (13) e>iplanator) letlm Hl)t by Ct.rrolltao to 'llle PSL or!'sl CC1i11Stl Wb.lcb gn't nodoo &d urpd ~u.iao. 1 Por purjlqigi of I>~. Ibo court will rder to the various U. Civil Code l1t. 2.l24..,. C41DfPlrlCDn, l!uwcl'shlc ln.olido, colledh'ely"" ''the PSI.,

144 Eut Balon ftougo F'11)th CJ"'1< ofcou~ C5~2 ORDE~ P 11 7 or59 false ladc-of-subject-roatter jllrlsd.iction argument in an attempt to circumvent the faets llnd the Jaw dley knew were adverse to the PSL. As egregious as this discrete violation is, though, the vfolatioo of the TRO was not an isolated evant It was i.otc.nded to facuitnte an ongoing plan or scheme that is systemic to the PSL's opposition to Carrollton. Having been told by the PCUSA's foremost legal authority, Mr. Tammen, thllt the PSL could not win on the merlts, PSL's New Orleans cooosel llod one of his collaborators, Mr. F!Mt. came up with <1 "plan" to ciroumvent the tacts and the substantive law. In derwtce of civil authority they advocated that tho Synod administrative commission, acting on behalf or and "for the PSL, int.ention.a.uy Biid deliberately violate this court's Fobruary 13, 2009, TRO and dis.solve CarroUton Presbyterian Church. Upon dissolution they believed the PSL would be able to step in and sell Carrollton's property and direct the sate proceeds as 1he PSL wished. The PSL th-ought it would be able to argue that in dis..<!omng Carrolllon the PSL end i1s collaborators were acting "eccleaia.stically" end therefore this civil court would 1l0t have subject matter jurisdiction to do anythillg about the viowion of its own TRO and the subsequent takeover by the PSL ofcarrollton's property. The court is!lot speculating. The participants to this scheme astooi&hlngly acjmowledged all of this il) their own words, described in Part J.C anti Appendices A and B, The PSL hes violated professional not1ns, disdair)ed civil autborit)', arui engaged in senctionable conduct in many ways other than the delibmite violatiod of the February 13, 200'J, TR.0: In mem.oranda filed and submitted to thls co the PSL called the exercise of this court's subject matter jurisdiction, 01 a request. by Carrollton that this court n:ercise its subject matter jurisdiction, "malevolent". The PSL said that U.S. District Judge Ralph T'yson, respected African Ameri

145 Pt-.le8'1f59 jurist, did not do his own work but instead mcii:ly "rubber Slampcd" the work of othors, in ell'e1:t cberecteri.zing hlm es lazy. PSL The PSL also said that be would be inclined to bne his decision com:cming remand on the $kin oolor of ilie lawyers appoaring beforo bim. PSL 1695; The PSL said that Ille work of U. S. Magistrate Iudge Stephen Riedlinger exemplified the "tocal clcpravity" of man. PSL 2446; The PSL said that tho federal couit 1n Bawn Rouge was "compromised", which by definition is to AOCU!IC the f.edenll coun of being dishooorably corrupt. PSL The PSL flagrantly disobeyed this Q>wfs Seplember 22, 2009, Order to produce doownellts, claiming that it did not know that au persons" mea:ru All persons.. The PSL grossly ll\isrcpl'e$ented case law holdings and rationale and n.trned. cues on their heads, repeatedly urging ftivoloub legil arguments, including: ~authorized a religious exemption from trust and property Jaw even though Wolf states that the neutral principles of Jaw method ~ues exc:tusivefy on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law... ~llt 603. Carrollton. has no right under PCUS S.:eti<,lll 6-B to sell Carrolltoo's property widiout presbytery penoission~ven though the PSL's own OOipOl'tlle signecs, 11peaking a.r and for the PSL itself. testified under Olith that Carrollton does indeed have the right to se.11 Carrollton'$ property under 6 8 without PSL permission and continues to have that right to!his. day; The pmporkdl;y hierarchical nature of the PCUSA is "critical 11 to the PSL'e oppositlo1l to CarrolltOD even though the neutral principle~ of law method "obviates entlrely" an examination of ecclesiastical polity 1111d lllllkes any inquiry into clum::h polity "impennmible. ~ 443 U.S., 595 at 605 (1979); When Caaollton Presbytemn Church wag founded in 1855, it gave its ci:>nsent to an express trust claus~veo tho~ \hat purported trust clause rlid not come into existence until 1982, 127 yc:.an later; Canullton had no right to injunctive relicfbeeausc ii would 11uCfer no lrrepbillble barrn~ven tboogh the Synod administraiivc kJOICIAI. DISTRICT COURr

146 commission,, acting "for" the PSL, dil!aolvcd Carrollton and it's ham to imsgine sn,y hann that would be-more lrrepamble. 4 lgrio.rir!g U\c- ){lllguage in Wolf that directly contradicts its central, ;uogument, tile PSL suggested, oh page 8 of t:be PSL's June 14, 2010, Postaearillg M.emo!'lDldum. tb~ a ltjlilim:rul adopuun -Of a,lrijst clause by the wouldbe benetici!ey.qo!llpo:rts with Wotf bcc11,,.~e it satisfies the dtifinition of "cognizable" (because, th~ps'l sa:ys, the rext of'llle denominational trust cl11,use.is: ~apable ofbejng lmown or pereeived 1 '). This urglljllent-by-dictionary, howe.., er, proves too much. Wolf doesn't predicate the enforoeabi!lt'/ of tntst clauses recited in a denomibational constitution slmpiy on bein~ "oognimb1e". Wolf' says 11 ~. cognizs.ble", Jd at 606. A ti'ust clause inserted Joto a denotninatlonat eonstitutiol), to be enforc~b1e, must be mote lh1t1:1 ju~t <:-c1pable of being perceived in n i.nr.taphy!ilcal semre. Wolf says the asserted IJ'Ust must be in a form liiat the law remgnizes. And whether one looks to thtl genenij pril'jelpie~ of mist law set forth in the Restatement oftrusts or Ill the specific provisions of Louisiana trust law,!ht: luw does nol i-ecognize as ve.iid and self.executing a lrtlst simply on the basis of en asserrim made by a 11on-ow11er, would-be beneficiapy. Whe!Jler measured by the general principles of tru.st law or 1he specific requiteme.nts of L<lui:ilima trust law, there is no writing c~ a ttqsl thlri tefleas the tttutual intenti S of the. pmti!-18 th.et is in a "legally cognizhhle form. Id at 606" The PSL fuis known this from tbe out:set; lllld has offered no good fuith argument for the 1 f11.memqrand~ Sllbniitted to dils C()Urt 11\e PSL tbata.."ter~d its dis~dle!lct fo thi& colllf; Sept,c:1nbcr ~ 2009 Or~, ll.'i o simple ''misw1d~"1g". 'l')lis:cawt. h!>wovqi', did not hold the PSL. coill~pt of court simply llocaus~ of a. "misllndmblli!mg. The PSL llila lffiializlil<! its attorney'. wnf!idlrig rej'lresen!lwrn>& ID llii~ CO\lrt oboilf tlie relat)~1tlp PSL C\'.)Ut!Sd blis with 1he S)'l Lldillllllstill1ivc OOllllnooio11 a~ ' mere 1c u~ {a trifling dlii:tup). but ~ont?lldt~,.hlde-4<1>-bal repmenbltioos w. lilis coun cllllllot be di.amissive,ly brusl'led a'ide u JU5l a "k~le'. The PS Q$V11Ji~1 Jy "'11lW tl-.lt the gonml ct>ull$&t nf!he PClJliA merely" e.~ if the Jooal fedl!l1w e01jlt "coro~d', Aliki:n~ llibcth.,.- U CWli Jiss mil "compf(wj~", though, js DOI BQll!eihisli tlult OD 'merely" l!y.& 8 191~.Jl,DICIAL OJSHllCf COURT

147 extension, modification or TCVersill of this wcll~lishod, axiomatic Jaw. 1n fact, 115 thls court bas previously noted snd lls will be expl111ned again below, there isn't a basis for the ''enforcement of lhe asserted 1rulit Wlder any reason.able inferpmnuon of the denomination's own governing documents. Aue,ust ts, 2009, Written ReasQns at p. S. Jn an eff'ol1 to pet$uade this C<Jw1 that there is "tlw slightest justification" fur.i~ position, during the course of this litigation the PSL hos otlm:presented leg21 authorities to create the appearance of legitimate. disagreement about the basic interpretation of Wolf. The PSL wrote, for citample, that "courts around the oatioo he.vebeen e.od remain split in thetr interpretation of Jones v. Wolf". In support of this statement!he PSL noted that when neatral principles of law are used some Gases have JeSulled in favorable decisions for local churches and other cases have resulted in favorable dcc.isioos for dioceses and presbyteries. This, however, is a non seqllitcr. The differing outcomes are not because of any disagreement about the interpretation of Wolf but 11n: due to the application of the neutral principles of Jaw method to the patticulu facts of each case, and facts can vary widely.~ The language io Wolf itself has bccjl sufficiently cl~ for more thao thirty ycars for state courts to understand all of tho factol'!i to be considered when applying the neutral princ~les of law method to the -lliobi bl'fure \hem to W1Cert:ain the mutual intentions of the p111lies and determine the enforcl!ability or unenforceability of a claimed property trust. Ac1;ording lo lhe PSL, though, judicial idquii:y!j(arts and stops with just one factor, the insertion by the 'ld thls ~all orlll<i faru held to bll IM!Orial ill loru; v Wi!lf wm provlct.ci b)' Carrolll011 dooum1111u ~to the PSI.. at tlie oibel oflhl' $3lit, to which lk PSL lalcr..cipulalod &ll()aendcit)' Noao or 4lloto &cf.1, as funwhed and documm!w by Cllm>DWll. bu boal 4llowa to lie: iocomct er ev cjl:spt*ld by d~ l"sl.. The PSL's O..:obc:r S, 2009, Sblcmtnl of Dilf'IH:d Fa.cQ, nled in oppogldon Conolltoo's ntotioo!or S'llmDW)' judgmomi. i:icl!mkd assertioos or law and 1111\Ucd molc:i1li!y but did a pvinoly ~ chc flw;ts. lllllt JUO!CW. DISlNCT OO!Hlr 9

148 Pe~e 11 at59 denominational beneficiary of ll tnltit clause in the denomination's own C<Jn54itutlon. There i:s nol the sligb~t justif\cation for this position, which is dlr~y coiltrl\i;' to the clear language in Wolf. 6 Contnry to what the PSL has satd, this is not a CIN: of first impression, Over lifty (50) years ago the United State5 Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the departure.-from-doctrine method that had pemi.itted civu courts to resolve church property disputes bilsed on the civil court s own opinion a.bout which party most closely adhered to founding religious -Ooctrinos. Preaby!etiaq Church in the United St.a.tss v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial "Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S ). P.resbvtcrian Church reaffirmed, though,!hat civil courts do have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve cb.u,rch property disputes if they can do $0 without resort to deciding religious questions. The U.S. Supreme Court import1111tly observed, "Civil courts do not inhibit free exercise of religion metely by opening their door to disputes involving church property. And there are neutral principles 11/ law, developed for use in all property disputes, whkh can be applied \Vithout "eshlbli~" churches to which property is awarded." IQ IU 449. OVer tbt:ty (40) years ago the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones v. Wolf. 443 U,S. 595 (1979), wluoh miffirmcd Presbyterian Church's holding lhat the neutral principles of law method was constitutionally permissible for aduplioo by slates. The neutral principles of law method involves no consideration of religious doctrine or 1he form of church government (ecclesiastical polity). ld at 605. f WJJ<:n nwtnj pri:ncip!t.s of 1a,,,. ""'epplicd, c:{mrob pmperty dispute ""'to bo molvad: [O]a the ~ of the 11111~ of Ille cleed>; ti\~ lmll1 of ifie'. local, church cbrter.s, iheslali: mtutn llo'lf'l'aing!he holcfmg of clilll'llh prweity, and!lie pro isl<ms ill the constimioo or the tmeral ah~~"- t>0nceirt1'118 Ibo o...,,,,...q. lll!g conlrol of ahlltt.b ptllp«iy. ~at 6o'J, citidg lmlzy!rriap QnRl!b v. Holl Q!lirol\. 39'.l U.S. 440 (1969); Wl!l.l!IUlll!!...!l'..:t.llJll!J!!!l Cburs1l.,. v. Sh!l!Mbura Church. 3% U.S, J6i at. 368 (l970), and;.,,serbl...,,,, an...,ortb.,,.,.,,,,"""--"!!l!e2-l!.<f Milimievicli.426 U.S. 696(1976), 10 llmll JUDICIAi. DtSTIUOT COURT '

149 lm1ead, as lllreedy noted, it "relies exclusively on objective. wej\-eatablisbed concepts of trust and property law liimiliclr \o Lawyers and judge.s".!!! at 603. ''f11hc neutral-principles analysis shares the peculiar genius ofpri.vate-ja.w systems in general-flexibility in ordering private rights and obligations to reflect the m1cntions of the parties." Almost thirty years ogo a uounimous LoubiAnB Supreme Court held that the use of the neutral principles of li1w method was constitutionally mand11ted in Louis.iana.. Flbker y.l!itch~. 419 So.2d 44S, 447 (La. 1!>82). :For ])fe5ent.sonctions purposes it is significant that ng held Uial fll.ilurc by 11. civil court to exercise subject matt.er jurisdiction to resolve a church property dis:pute "simply because tlte litigllllls are religious orgenjzatioos, may deny a local obun;h re\10\ltse 1o an impartial body to resolve a just claim, thereby violoting it.s.tnembers' righ1s under the free cxercis.e provision, and also i:on.:rtitule a judicial atcjbli.rhment of the hierarchy'$ religi"'1". ~at 447 (emphasis added). That. however, is what the J'SL has asked lhi!; eourt to do. lt b.iu aslced this court to ignore a fundamental constitutional guarantee and a unanimous Louisinoa Supreme Court mandate-by effectively disrcgatdlng the deeds, articles of incorporation, and stale property and trust law and instead "interpret Wolf to authorize the imposition of~ enforceable trust merely on the basis of the PCUSA's 11cldilion of a purported express trust clause I.rt the early 1980's to its dmomiw1tiollol constitution. The PSL urged this court to enforce the 113se~d trust &&ainst Carrolllon Presbyterian Ch~'s civll cwporatlon, the owner of the property, solely on this basis C"Ven though Carrouton has existed iiru;e 1855, hwi been incorpornted since 1894, and acquired or built $lj of its real property vsing its own funds prior to the addition of this purported trust cl~u.se.

150 Eul 811\on ROIJQO l'arl$1 Cler< of Ccl'rl CS&SA!l2 ORDER The court coocludes tbat sanctiom are warranted by the e~oeptional circumstallces presanted. This is no1 simply a mattet of counsel dis8grecing about how to interpret cases, or PSL c-0unsel simply advancing imaginative Jegl\l or fa<:tuaj approaches or making a good faith argument for a reconsideraalott of settled doclrlne. Rather, the cow1 ~grettably but umwoidably concludes that U1c PSL Jws in bad fuith advwlced frivolous argummts in support oft claimed rig'4t rt knew hd.d no legal or evidentiary suppbrt. The PST, repeatedly lgitored or misrepresented lhe fact! and the law and has interposed meritles! pleadings, defenses, and argument to obfuscate, delay, and needlessly increa!e the eost of litigation in an effort' to financially bleed the small CillTolhon church into submission. 'the court takes no satisfiiction in imposing IWlctions. nua i3 a.sad aff2lr. A compensatory sanction is necemsy, though. not only 1o deter the PSL but to preserve the authority of, and mpect for, our.sy.slem ur civil jnsliu and the rule of law. Tb cifc\l!i1slances pn:sented are extraordinary. The ecclesiasti<:al name of I.he PSL does not exempt it from the rule of jaw and cannot shield it &om lhe con.scqucdces of its orisoonduct. Sanctions 8.l'C warranted whether tho defendant is!lllldlcd the Acme Company of South Louisiana or the Presbytery of South Louisiana. Before continuing w1th a more spec! fie discussion of the PSL's sarictionable conduct in this e&o, the court will review the law pertaining to sanctions. B) LAW OF SANCTIONS For sanctions to be awarded there mubl be an adequate record for appellate rc:view. Smcti:Oll3 must be reasonably qullllfifiablc. Witb suft:icie:nt ~use, explanatioo, and example, sanctions may be imposed ~ on the "totality of,

151 ruco«i".7 Conduct that violates one rule may not warrant the same type or nmowrt of sanctions as conduct that violates a different role. But tbc court has m:eded tlcxj'bility in exercising Its discretion-patdcularly in eases mch as this one whc:rc the sanctionable conduct is recurrent and intrinsic to the PSL's oppositi<ln. p:rovide:s: This oourl's inherent power ls set forth at La. C.C.P. 811,!91, which A court possestcs inherently all of the power 11eee&1Ury rot tilt uenilse or its jorisdiction even tho11&h itot granted r3'.ptasly by liiw. Included in the court's inhettnt power ls the ability tx> sanction those who come before it for bad faith, abuse of the judki~ {>1"0CCSS, and contempt of court. hlperunentpart, C.C.P. art provides: 7 R&!dif[ v..&ydi:i!, (La. Ajlp. ~ Cir ), 674 Sl\.2d m~ ~d 111 A'IJd al $91,UOO, CQMj ltlni.:iu2s,ooo iilra rdildi! of~ ftes Wl'QJl&liJOy catc;lll.a.d. S.f.3,000 tor lbtuo cf ~ Sl2,000 fur wte!hical plllg!i=, ~and oonvas!m, and $18,0-00 rot immtiomi irifllction of emotional dbc:=. '111~ ~ oirnuqci diil not CQITOfote ar 1mtli..r!RU do..., du:st lia-o ID 1pccik ~~~~~-~~~~~W~M~ ~~~ ~~ orckml &11 ldafliaiill $30,000 ill 8111XUeys f.ces based en Lou i1iatln Cl vii Code of ~.ilclt 863, ~ lll1 "the ltltllity of the recmd", lbo trial coun ad 1116.appellate c:oiat did 11t11ailW IQ tllt "totatity ofi ftolol'ci", oitios only a few spjlei& pleadilipu JCFf\l'JCl!lativc cx.amplea. In tfftrml11&. lbc ~ ppellr.te court did not itemm: all of tilt plcedings d111i: Wll'l1lnted unctions oor CDl?'Olalll dolln tllld -ts 1o 'l'c~~ plt dlnns, but oitod "flai;rtnt -rl«" '1ld a ~icular t\ling m "the wo"t C11Ampto. Soe elfo, 'R.ocr.afutte v. N l!!!.'!p.!!.o Sc.2d llll, {LL App. 5 Cir, 11129/0S) (11pboldio,s lllflt!ionn-d of$t81,620.86,j Swti""" ft llllll o of CCP Art. 863 were amended, &lid Seel ion G ll<k!od,. by Ao1, No. s~o of Ille 2D10 Regular Scuioo, Ui providt: B,. Pleadings ncod not~ mified or a...:onapanicd by affidl\'lt or ccrtiflcatte, Cll«!J1I iu otj,ctwf~ provided by 1111'1, but tbe ~ignaton: of kn Htlom y o parly i!1j ll ~titu~ II 111.'flitiutl~ by him thlfl he h., mu.i ibc pl1>1dln&lb &Dd 1118\ 'TO tlm; 1*1 Of his k IVl"lfll~. lllf'onnlllion md bclict'icllllll!l after n:asooable incplil)', be aomliot all or be followi1i:;..._ii tfeuas&d ill lilup, ~ht JI ls w-bi!j ~ 113;lMlfl~ ll'iv r ~ f'l'l!lllmim ~emi0ltr1dc>dif"'411ian, or"' lll"jm ~'lit!g lllw; ooli diet it i& 11e1-W~ fef "~ l f..,er fllp.im > f;qllli 119 RI ham111 er t& 88!1Se -ee'" "' <le~ inl"..., ;,,@.e oeo:st eflitie;11titlft1 (l) The pleedh1g Is mil lrolllg pl"c8clllc:d for J' imp,..~!'"']kise, wacb 11!1 ltl lt rctmt ca11t1 va~ry dtiby, or a...u.mit lncn1111& die -i "1 ll14&etio11. {l) 1i'.ub ~.Se&a~ or odler hp!.,.mh i. llm pt.ac!l a la warrutod by e:icblillt law <>r by a ua.frivol.>m atgludellt fl>r tllr. utmllad, modlftcadoa 1 r m elw&i of..i.tblg law. (l) i:.dl Alleplioa or other Cadual osllerlih ill IM pleading IMls willftti1ry support or, for.....,arcallr Mleati1ied alltgadoli Ill' r-.i - '*' b lildt lo llin-e mdimtinq sapport an. a?usocabte opportol(y f r ftn1ht lllvtlflcl&d or *-YffY

152 Pago 15 ol 5Y A. Every plelkiuig of a party represei1tftl by u 11ttorney sluill be aiped by at least one attor1tey or R\'Ord i.11 bl$ lodmdual name, wboff addnss sbad be statrd. A puty w o ls 1ot reprc:scnted by an attoney tball sign his pleadlug and state hb addl"olls. B. Pleadlngf need not be verified or accompanied by altldtttit or certulcah!, except as otbel'wise provided by law, but the sipllture of a 11Hor11ey or party shall co1.ftit11te a eertjfteatioo by him tha1 he as read Hie ple:adlug; tlilat to the best of Jds knowledge, informatioa, and bellcf formed after n:asouble inquiry it i. well poaoded in f.u.d; tut it is warranted by exlstiog law or a itood faith argumeat for tile es:teosioa, modification, or revenaj of existing Jaw; ud tbat jf b not inti:rposed fur' uny improper perp111111, i1uch :11S to harass or to cause un111e4.:enary delay 'Or needlets incl'll2'$11 in the cm& o( litigation. 1t D. U, upon motion or any party or upon ifs owjj motloo, tlae cxiurt detel'lllines that. cectificatioa baa bee.u m11de iu violation or the provisions or tlis Article, the COlll't ahall impom u~a die person who lll&de tlu! certifu:a&a or the represented party, or both, ao appropriate salldioa wbicll may iacl de an order to pay to tile other party or partieti the ant0nt Qf the ra9011ablc erpe1111h l curred becaase of the filiog of tbe plndiag, inc:hadiog a reuonablr atton11iy's fee. E. A noctioa authorized in P rai:rapb D lbau be imposed only after a bearing at which ar party or bi.'! wuanl Dllly prmnt any evideace or a11tumoot rdcvaut to the inue of impo!!ltlo11 of the uocllon. Louisiana C.c.P. art. 863 is derived from Rule l I of Uni Fedcnl Rules o Civil Procedure and LouisillWI courts look td federal decisions applying Rule 11 fo guidance. See e.g., Cop.nelly v. Le~ (La. ApP Cit ), 699 So.2 (4) JAeb denlol la Ule pie.ding f 11 ta<utll -nlon 11 '!l'lll'l"lllu~ bs' dte lr"iilta~ or, for a ipnlllrall:r {clea.tilkil deaiid, la ""'911"'1>' b-4 111,,.,1t or illl'omtatlo nr bdld'. t>. II, pdn motioft of eny patty or upon ~ m 0"'1> motion, tl\e ~ dc\ennlnos dilrl IL Ulltlf!ootro.. hs bocc INJle ill violidoa of the PfO"{sloo.s of th.la Article, lho 00111\ sh.all impom llpcd the person wbo madli Che certifit*jon or th ~lod paity, CIC' berth, Ill appmprloe Ol!Gtlon l"hiah!ill)' iticlode an order ID,ay 10 llle oilier pcty ~ lbe IDIOUllt of the rooso.utbk cxpe11m mcurnod be.:$- of 1lle filing cir the pleading, iooludill&-inh!lo~.-llllleattomey r G. If th coart lmpome IL Hoclioe, It sllall dlllltlik..,. co11dlld de..,,,;oeoi to tonllibrt a IOl.tl o ot lhr pr<mdom ur U.lt ArtJdo..a opw. Ille but. for,... llucili.ia u.p.oo, 14 1!1111~0 '6TRICT OOURT

153 411, 416; Sanchez v. Libertv Lloyds, 672 So.2d 268, (La. App. 1.. Cir. 4/4/%). lmportdnt guidance can therefore be.gleaned &om IDBjor U.S. Fifth Circuit ~es such as Thomas y. Capitnl Security Services. Ipc,, 836 F.2d 866 (Silt Cir. 1988) 8Jld Topalion y, Ehnnan. 3 F.3d 931 (5 111 Cir. 1993). The relationship between Ruic 11 end Article 861 is relevant in derertninin& the ~i.gnificanoe., if any, to be attached 1X> 1he &f8d1111stlcal distinctions between Rule 11 end Article 863. Rule 11 pertains to "every pleading, written motion, and other paper... " attd the soope of ccrtifroatioo encompasses "presenting to the oour.t (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleadln~. written motioll; or other paper..." Rule l 1 (a) &n.d (b). Article 863 pertains to "every pleading" and, as amended, 1o each claim. tlefense, or other legal assertil;m in a pl~ing" and each allegnti<ln or other factual assertion'' ar ~each denial" in lhe pleading. In.construing the scope of Article 863 and the obligations it imposes an partic!i and lhcir counsel. the L<>uisiana First Circuit Court of Appca.1 aeknowled th.al Article 863 is derived from Rule 11 and said that "Both Rule 11 and Aniele 863 apply td the slgning of pleadin~ motion$ and other papers, impo!hlg upon ttt<>meys and litigant.~ affirmative duties as of the date a document ls signed." Sanchez at 271, citing Loyola v. A Touch of Class Transportation ~. 58\1 So.2d 501$, 509 (La. App, 4ll> Cir. [ 99"1 }, and First American Bimk and T~t v.. G11Mantv ~ 6lS So.2d 1060, 1063 ~La. App. I Cir. 1993). This language' Sanchez has subseq,uently beeo cited OI'" quo1ed with approval in other First Citcui decisions. See Tubbs v.. Tubbs. 700 So.2d 941, (J.a. App. I Cir. 9/19/97) William's v. Th:mn, 2007 WL , 2006 l352 (La. App. 1 C.ir. 8/29/07)_ Nodier v. UnwJno & E9kert. L.L.C., 2007 WL , (I.a. App. l C!t ). JS lllm JUDICIAL DISTl'llCT DOIJflT

154 en ; &lo<on ~ P:1 1&h CW1< 01 coun c~1~ OR!lf:R The ccrtifie111fon required under Article 863 is multi-pronged, and fue violation of any prong fatally flaws 1he mtire pleading. Sll!lcbCZ. 672 So. 2d et 272. To be valid, a ~rtitlcetion requires (1) chat the attoroey (litigant) IUls n:sd the plcucling; (2) the pleading is well grounded in ftlct 10 the best of 1he attcmey's knowledge. information, and belief foiided after a reasonable juquiry; (J) the pleading Is wammted by existing law ot includes a good talth (nonfrivolous) argument for the extension. modifioatlon, o.r reversal of the lawj and (4) 1hc pleading was not interposed for any improptll' purpose, such 1111 to bara.~s or t.o cause unn~sary Jeb!y ur ntwles.s increase in the cost oflitigatjoo. La. C.C.P. an. 863; lif. As ameruled, article 863 also requires certification Ul3I'. each allegati(lll, assertion or denial has ev:identiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support after ni:asonable opportunity for further inve3tigaaion or discovery. Ardcle 863 obliges litigants and their atlorneys to make an obje<:tive!y re8llollabte inqujry into the fucts and Jaw underlying a pleading befors it is flied; subjcaive good faith will not!1111isfy this duty of reasonable inquiry. Strosclier v. Stroschgr, (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So. 2d StS, 526. The Miele bas no express ''blight line" i:equ\remimts for lhe timelines.s or the extimt o inve~iiglrtion necessary for compliance. Brown v. Sanders. 06-lt 71 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3(23197), 960 So. :2d' 931, 934. Jurisprude.nce has, however, established c factors chat are appropriate 10 consider in detm:nining whether tj1ere bl.is be sufficient compll'ance with the requirements of Article 863. ]li. at 935. The factotf! 1o be oonsidered in del:ennining whether a factual inquiry ba: been made arc! (1) Ote time available to 1hc signor for investigation; (2) the exfcn of the attorney's reliance on his client for the factuaj wpport for the documcnt; (3 the fcaslbility of the pre-filing investigation; (4) wbe:her the sigrting a

155 accep~ tbe cage from anuther mc!iilber of 1he bar or forwarcling attorney; (5) the complexity of fwtual and legal issues; and (6) the extent to which the development of lhe facrual circumstances underlying 1he ch1im require discovery. Sagel)IO?. 672 So. 2.d at 272. See also Loyola v. A Touch of CJa51 Tr!IDSportatlon Servjce. Inc So. 2d 506, 510 (La. App. 4rh Cit. 1991) (establishing iil.ctors to be considett.d in determining whether-a ractunl inquity htls been made). Similal"ly, the foct:urs l~ be coosideted iu determining w.hether ll reaoonable ~inq uiry was made are: (1) 1be time available to the atto:mty (litigant) to prepare the docwneni; (2) the plaus1blilty of the le~al view contained in tl1e document; (3) the prose status-of the litigant; and (4) the complexity of the Legat and factual issues railled. Sanchez, 672 So. 2d at 272. See also Loyola v, A Touch of Class Tronsportation Service.Inc,. 580 So. Zd 506, 510 (La. App. 4th Cit. 1991). Arlicle 863 Is intended ro be used only in ex.ceptiooal circumstancu. Strocher. 845 So. 2d at 525. Where there is evet1 the sligbt.est.justificatioo for the assertion of e legal right S1111ctiODS are not warranted. Tubbs v. Tubbs, (I..11. App. 1st Cir, 9119/97), 700 So. 2d 941, 945. Moreover, parties' disagreement es to the best resolution of a maucr oflitigution will nc>t give rise to sanctions under Article 863. Sanctions are not appropriate simply betattse a particular argument or growld fur reiief is later fmmd to be unjustijiecl. ~- at 946. See also,.ll.!l!~~.l..!::i v. Aug.ust Christina & Bros., 716 So.2d 372 (La. App. S Cir. 1998). Article 863 was not enacted "fo inhibit imaginative l~al or factual apptoaches to applice,bt law or lo unduly hemes~ good faith ca Us for reconsideration of settled doctrine. Id A violal:loo of lhe Article ls llot to be determined by uging the wi~dom o hit.ldsfght. Whether sanctioni: are proper is based. on what was reason.able fur!lignor to believe at the time of filing. Sanche~ 672 Su. 2d ~ i 9111 JUDICIAL DISTI!ICT COVRT

156 Anicle 863 ii! silont as to when a motion fur llllllctions should bo filed. Hovtcver, as ocmd, the Artide t" derived from Rule 11 of the Fedml Rulea of Civil Procedure, and thus, Louisiana cmn1s look to the federal decisions applying to Rule 11 for guidance in this orea. Connelly v. Lee, (La.. App. lm Cir. S/9197), 699 So. Zd 411, 416. In Otloera!'Motors Acceprance C9Q>. y. Chai fie~ tbeyrolet-buiok. Inc the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Ciroult held tha1 wllen the primary purpose for imposing sanctions ls to deter, "l.t is precept that sanctiom be imposed within a time -frame that has a nexus 10 the behavior sought to be de~md." 14. at 417. &e also TQ,p&llan v Ehrman. 3 Ji. :3d 931 (Silt Cir. 1993) (holding that in seeking sanctions for defending ag.'tinst a fiiv<>lous pleading. a party ha& a duty to mitigate subsequent expenses), C) 'I'HE SANCTIONABLE MISCONDUCT J) Tile PenneatiDg Scheme by the PSL and its Co-Coospf!'!top Tl19 l'sl's 53.llctionable misconduct is not confined to Isolated events. though multiple discrete violations have oocmred. illib case is characterized by lntrlnsic, knowing deficiencies at-the root of the PSL 's ergument thnt are systemic to the PSL's oppo11itioo. TI10Te i~ tno~ that is san-ctionable th.an j~ ll1e knowing and wljlful violations of this court's February 13, 2009, Rlld SepteIDber 22, 2009, Orders. B~1mse the PSL knew from the outset that it had no vinble dt'fense on the merits under the neutral prixiciplcs of law method, it cried IQ circumvmt t)ie fa.cts and the Jaw by ru1serting self-c<mtradictmy arg1wtents based on non me!mial facts and misrepresentations of the law in an effon In delay mattera and prevent Ca(rollton from bein_g able to affurd w litigate, This court has already giv~n an t!vef\'iew o the PSL 1 s li8llctionable c.onduct, and elaboration is here pxovided.

157 EJ> t Ba1:n Roua~ l?orls;. Cle<!< or Court C6654S2 ORDER '!'he neutr8.i principles of law melbcxi requires tlle coutt to a:x;ertain I.he mutual intentious of the parties by examination of: l) the deeds; 2) the local cliwch art.icles of incorporation; 3) applicable trust l!jld property law,!11ld; 4) the denomination.al constituti(ln, Wolf at 603. For each of these four fiictors, the PSL knew from the outset that it bad a.o eviden1iary support to oppose Clll'TOl!lon. Thfa awareness led to the PSL ~g oo a sanctfonable course of oond\lct in an effort to circumvent the undisp1rt~ fucts and applicable law. Before discussi'ng1he scheme the PSL and its co-conspirators pursued, it ls appropriate to review Ute undisputed material fuels the PSL kuew it confrontod. I) The PSL knew wh~ the acts of convey&11cc say. All ofthe relevant acts of conveyance were fumlshed to 1he PSL on ihe date suit was filed. March 2~ 3, 2009, En globe Exhibit P-2; May 17, 2010, En globe Bxlu'bit S. At all times they have also been available in the publk mortgiige and conveyance records of Orleans Parish. Subsequenl formal discovery disclosed oo other acl! of 1:onveyaoce than thooe fwnished by Can-ollton to the PSL on the date tmil was filed. The acts of oonveyance oontain no mention of the PCUSA, the PCUS, or of any den01ninatlonal tniddle governing body, and oont.ain no language pertaiclag to. any reservations ofrlghis, use restrictions, rev~ionary clauses or trusts. 2) th" PSL knew what Carronton's 1919 articles of{j1()0.ipo.ratlon say. Like. the acts of conveyance, they were furnished to 1he PSL on the date suit was filed. March2 1 :3,2009, Engtobo Ex.hibitP-1; May 17, En globo Exhibits. They were already in the PSL s own records. As noted by the PSL in its own corpoate deposition, they were initially drafted and Adopted uoder the aegis of a fonner PST. commission.and promoted by lbe PSL as a model for all churches within its jurisdiction. Although the general article pe:rtaining to corpo~ objects and JUDICI~ OISTRICT C.OUl'IT

158 EaaJ &Ion floogo P """ Cler~ DI Court C5GM82 ORDER purposes makes generic reference to!he PCUS Book of Church Ordar as it may be amended from time to time, this necessarily includes the exemption of G and Section 6-8. That same gent:jal article also Nfers to the corporation opcl'!lting pumwll to mte law, which would include LouisiWUt's property and trus1 Jaws. Can'ollton's articles of incorporation do not stop. though, with a genera.i article about objects and pwpo!les. As the 1'SL was a.war~ they COlltain a speci1i(; pmpejty ar1icle that grants fu.11, sole and exclusive responsibility of the ownenihip end control of the local church property to the local cotporati: bobrd of direo;:tors, subject only \lllder specified cfrcumstanoes to the autflority of the corporate nlbnlbership. 3) The PSL knew that its position and argumi::llts in this C3l;C' ignored all well-e$1abu.shed, general concepts oftnlst and property law. See, e.g. RJ.,51.a~ent of Trusts 3.d, 2. As the South Carolina S1ipreme Court recenuy said in a.cjmrch prope.rty ca.<1e dticisicm in favor of a local cburch, "lt is an axlomatic principle of law that a person or entity must b.qld title to property In o.tder to declare 1hat it is held in tiust for the benefit of another e.>r 1r1111Sfer legal title to oue person for the benefit of another." All Saints Parish Waccamaw v. The Protsst@t Eoiscopal Church in 'Che Diocese of South Caroll!!!, 685 S.R2d I 63 at 174 (S.C. 2009). This basic poil)t of law did not come as a mvelation to the PSL only after decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court, btjt. he.d long been established in Louisi&Jlll, as acknowledged by the P$t in memoranda it submitted to this court. STJJ)ta, n. L 'The PSL also knew that it WB.! ignoring the specific (and particularly stringent) reguiremenu oflouisiami trust Jaw. The PSL 's response to tbe fa.ct thal its legal position is fundamental I) contrary 10 general principles of tnist law and to the l!jlecific provisions o 20 llllh.ijoicw.. OISTRICT COURT

159 Louisiana trust law hfts heen to aswrt tllllt trust law is i.rrekvan\. ThePSL bas said, "The l'resbytezy's pleadings me:re?y assert that /ones v. Wolf and B!llw preclude application of the Louisiana Trust Code to invalidate IIUsts aeat.ed by the church co.nslltution". PSL's January S, 20U>, Memorandum in Suppon of Motion for. Su.rnnwy Iudgi.nc.nt oa Cairol11on's Motion far S1111<:tions at p. 16. In other words, the PSL Wi,, argued that Wolf and l!luker created a special religious exemption. Citing Wol( 1.hougb, ll!i autliority foz ignoring trus1 law is preposterous. Wolf exp1essly s!a'tes th.at neutral principles of law "relies exclusively on wcfleslnblishcd principles of trust and property law", and thal ony dcnomi.nadonal trust clsll9cs musl, WDong oilier things, be in "legally cognizable form". Id at 603, 606. The Louisiana. Supreme C-Ourt, rather than. granting a religious exemption, cmphal>i zed that fhe application of neutral principle,, of law, which in.eludes properly and trust law. was oons.till:itionally m1ndatory if the ftcc exercise of religion was to be protected. fl!!!!:!: at 445. Sec discussion infra at p. 21, 22. 4) The PSL lm&w the co11tents of the PCUSA's Book of Order and the 19S2/1983 edition of the PCUS's Book of Churcll Otder. Exhibit P-6; En globo Exhibit P-7. Th.is court previously conciuded, "Carrollton's timely, properly notic:ed decis.ion to avail itself of Section 6-8 precludell cnforocment of tho asserted tn1st llllder arry reu11onable interpretation of the dcnontlnation's own governing documents." August 18, 2009, Written IU:asonll at p. 5. From Ule outset the PSL had in its custody its own minutes which document CM"Ollton's tlmely ex.eftise o tlle exceptio11 provision ofg of the PCUSA Book of Order and notificatio to the PSL. thereby making 6-8 of the PCUS Book of Church Order operable as Cai:rolhon (i.e., the provision preserving Qu:rollton's ability to sell i l~ JV'<l without PSL permission). Tite &rgument by PSL counsel to the contj!ll}' is re~ JVolCIM. OlSTRICT COURT

160 f'a!io<z?of 59 by the PSL ir.sclf. At the PSL's coi:porate depositfon, iu designated corporate representative, speaking art am! for the PSI., testified Ullder oath that C&n'OUt.an CODtinues to thls d~ to have the righl und~ PCUS Section 6-8 fo sell Curollton property without PSL pemiissioo.. Carrollton previously sold and leased property lt ffi'lllb without obtaining pennission from the PSL. See PSL corpora1e deposition, Roeling u.tpp.16, 17, 31, 79-81; Cutter atp. 2l. Bver.y document, provision, or fact.or th~t llie United States Sup.rune Court and the Louisiana Supreme Court have said 11re celevant to a re!olution of this matte!'-llll acts of conveyance, articl~s uf incorporatio~ sw.e trusl and property law, itlld denominational governing documents-was either already known by the PSL or was voluntarily provided by Carrollton to the PSL on March 27, 2008, the date su.it was filed Despite the PSL 's insi~cc 011 formal discovery. and 1he subsequent delay and expense, when lhe PSI, f'mally filed its Ooio~r S, 2009, staiemc:ot or ''disputed'' rnmnal facts, it didn't sctually dispute anything. This pleading by fhc PSL is in filct the p.roverbial "Exhibit A" in support of imposing su"5taalial smx;tioos against the PSL. The PSL admitted lhe relevance aod correctnes:i of a.ii of the documents that Carrollton haa voluntmil)' furnished h:i the PSL at the O\l.tSet. 9 When Curollton tiled suit on Ma~h 27, th~ PSL even llad ia place a written policy~ which the PSL cahed s. definitive statelnt10t 11, Umt said that churcl'tes like Cw:rollton that ~ timely cxcrcisc)d the property exemption <Jf G of the PCUSA Book of Order could "buy, sell, lease, moftsage or otherwise encwnber any of their real pxoperty without further pemrlssion r>f the Prcsb,ytery". Exhibit F-21, p. 36 (February 19, 2008, PSL meeting ageuda). The 9 Jn Ra!clilh. Hoydell (La. App. 4 Cit, ). 674 So.2d a 8'IOOiorl awan! 19 l,doo.ot ""' alfatncd, with ti~ OOil!1 oori~ ~ Ibo wo~ Dlq!le of a.unctlon.tbl&-pleodilg" 11>a delbld.nt's _,, affidavit of~ malsial faots tl11st WM UntllppOrtecl by IQ)' C1'ic!.enoe and on\.v ~ Co 11rwart plaiwf!' J ll'lotioo fty 5IPnill8I)' J1l olgn>e«tl,,, M 22 l!idl JLIDtCIAL DISTRICTCOUR'I

161 P i!o 24 of ~9 PSL never ptodueed any document or other evidcnoe that eontr11dic~d any of t.he materibi facts presented by Cmrollton that arc genntllle to a.neutral principles of law ysis, aod prior to the filing of its first pleading the PSL either knew or should have known it could not do so. As already noted, on February 18, the PSL beard from Mr. Mark Tammen, the Director o( Constilutional Services with the PCUSA Office of the OeMral A.ssemb~y (the denomin!ition's Louisville, Kentucky headquarters). Mr. Tammen is the PCOSA's furemo3t in-houae legal quthori~. He :ls l!ll attorney whose responsibilities include giving advisory opinions to PCUSA clergy 11nd to legal counsel for synods and presbyteries concerning the meanini and application of1hepcusa C008tinrtlon. the Book of Order. Mr. Tammen told the PSL 31 dlls early juncture thal Carrollton had shown a s\lh$tjl.ntial Likelihood or prevailing at both the "preliminary level" andtb6 "final delennination". PSL 544. Regrettably, In response to thls awanness the PSL neyertheless confectod a "plan" or scheme to circ\lll\vent the facts and the law. This scheme can be traced through a number of e-me.i18 &he PSL was compeflc4 by court order t.o rmduce (e11.1:erpted in Appendices A and B of these Written Findings and Reasons for Judgment). On February 13, 2009, (the same d.ay as thi~ Court's TRO), the PCUSA's regional 11ccle$iastical authority, the Synod of the Sun., agreed lo the request of its administrative commission w ei<pand tbc commission's powers to additionally include dissolving churches, which the c:omm.isbion said it Wl>Uld do in an extrame situation. See PSJ. J 14 (e-mai1 from coj11j11ission moderator Gordon Edwards 1o commission members, PSL counsel, and PSL executive ~byter Alan Cutler). 10 IO rt. l'cusa is orianizal lllillg four c.~ries of go~ bodla or ~ioglr wide ~;c jvrisdk.'llcn: the JOCSSiau mpmticulnr cl>1~ (clislrid) ~es; (rirgian111) tynocll, md;

162 During the February 17, 2009, PSL meeling (at which IJ1c fact of the TRO was wmounced from lhe podium and copies dis.1t11>uttd) several members oftj1e Synod adminlstrauve commission wei:e present along with P~L commlitt:e chair Lisa FAsterli11g who argued fur the Synod administrative commission to use its newly added power to dissolve churches "as a meallli to r~jve things wlih Carrollton..." PSL IS8 (February 18, 2009, e,mail by Synod ooltll1l.ission co-moderator Rupert Turner to commission members, r;opied to PSL cqunsel and PSL executive ptc$bytcr Alen Cutter). m response to Mr. Tammen's February 18, 2009, (PST. 544) that e.j1pre&5ed his legltl opwdjj that the PSL had oo defense on the rncrits, the PSL, throl its New Orleans c~el, replied later on February 18, The PSL's New Orleans counsel ~ressed his pleasure o'wr 1he Synod commissioo's newly added alllhority to di.c;oo!ve churches, and cxpmsed his ftustration that. I.he Synod commission had not yet seen this Court's TRO (which prohibited the dimlving of Carrollton Pr~bytedan Church) BS a good enough rca1en to UR thett authority against Canulltou. Like Ms. Eastetling before him, the PSL's New Orleans' COU11.1tl lobbied tlte Synod adminimative c<immission to see this court's TRO itself 115 a sufficient reason to nevertheless dissolve Carrollton and in the process violeti: the clear language of~ ceurt's TRO itself. PSL Later that same dsy, al ll:ll p.rn., Mr. Tammen responded to the PSL's New Orleans counsel md expressed hi' agrecjilenl tfult 'the Synod commission should go ahead aod ose its 1 (pmomtl) 0.-1 AsHmbly. The s,ttod wilhi.o. woo,,. gcc>grtphle ba\alol.$ Iha P8L ~ ~led, lh Synod ~!the Sun, h~d pceviocrly 1ppcirnted a:n "udmin~lndi.., c1>111minion ID '111!1iclt Ill)' J>SL propeny ~l.fllod d<cbions bad bce11 lilt&: llllbjechd appnw l On Fcbrucy 13, 2.009, tllis wthurily Wf'!l c::spanded Fot smoredc:alled cllrooololt'f, seeappeudbr.a oflh-wriltlmfuuilnp &lld llmsods Corludp-. II The>~' l'ob:vwy 'J. TRO npn:ssi)' prohlbitod dd5olvina Canolltco. _'!.:._.:... Clum!\ and -d 11>11 l!lo n.o $MIJ be effec%ive ~Ile P~ ofsoufi Loulmll-. its OQJCOrP; ~1J, cmpl~, em CCMIScl, ti!d IUI)' pot300$ in lred~ G concon ot puticijllllidll wilh it. on ill bcball; ' IO tll.ued

163 EaSI ~at on l'loug~ 1' C-OI Coutt C ORDER new lluthority t.o dissolve Carrollton lf the TRO was not llftacl Mr. Tammen Wei that violating the- TR.O would ''drive" a (purported) lack--0f-subjcct-mn1.ter j\!rlsdiction iugumenthorne. PSL 554. The ne>.-t day, Febru!ll')' 19, 2009, Mr. Tammen followed up with another e mail to the l'sl's New Orleans counsel. He noted with approval that the f'sl's New Ocl.eans' eotm~l and another PCUSA lawyer (in San Francisco) bad ccn:ne up with "a plan". Mr. Tarruuen volun1eered tn work with the Synod commission to make sure they (lhe Synod commissi~) would peifonn "the role you (ilie PSL's New Orleans counsel) need for them to tilt-like taking action tc dissolve, etc.'' PSL 688/l The Synod commission did so by vote on February 25, 2009, then mailed a February 26, 2009, leucr of' notification to CarroUt.on in which it stated it had ac~d ~ror" the PSL, "in suppc>rt of the. J>SL, and "in order to ~plish the stated ends of... the t>sl ". The PSL and lts eo-oonspirators then came up with two argui:nents which were asserted in the alterna~ive Qn<l which illuminate lbe reason behind the willful vio1ation of this court's TRO an<;! the plan it was designed to facilitate. The l'sl hoped its plan would let it side-step the dilemma presented to it by the undisputed mets and the 'Well-emibllshed law. The fusi argument was to 11$$cl't that the facts and the law don't matt.er because this court was allegedly without Sllbjcct :tnattet jurisdie1ion. The second, alternative argwnent we.s to urge ~ de facto form of the deference method by nonsensibly arguing that Wolf and!'.!!!gr. Instead of Jespectively authorizing and requiring, the genuine use of neutral principle& of law (pe.rti<:11larly weu-~blished lnt!lt and property law), gi:anted a religious 12 f~ fiinher dl1cussion l>f11ie 'I'RO viol&tion and tlio tole:!he PSL, its l'icw Or~ CQUll$tl, and crthcr oo-con~rs played. see pp. 3:t-3S, infni, and Appendite&A and B Cll JUPtOIAL DISTAter'COVRT

164 el.emption by au~ lht' nort..ownei PCUSA 10 u111l11tcully cmd.e a ~lf operating tnlst in its own favor over property owned by a Lou.islana llorporation - without regard to the mutu1ll intentions of the partic:s (I.be consent of the titleholder) and wilhout regard to the 1J:\JSt being "embodied in some legully cosnizable fotm". ~at60q. TI'lis 1wo-pronged scheme by the PSL, which the knowing violation of this Court's TRO was designed w facilitate, permeates the PSL 'a opposition and ma.kcll the PSL solidarily liable with its co-1;onspiralors for the sbdcti.on ijj. the amount sct fbrth below. If the PSL's argument5 WeN merely incorrect they would not be sanctionabk. But they are. more than merely incorrect. The PSL hu not simply engaged in creative sd\ oca<:y. The PSL 's fun argumem, perta!niog lo subject matter jurisdiction, has been forcefully rejected by Che U.S. Supreme Court and by ihc Louisilll\ll Supreme Cowt. Since Presbyterian Church and Wolf ruuncrous stale courts thtoughout the United Stat.es have commooly u ed neutral principles IJf law for forty years to resolve church property disputes - a method!bat has 813.le court pceudent.s dating to at least!he 1840s. The PSL hu known this, or should h(l\le known thls, from the outset. The PSL'& scoond orgwnent no nscosicslly misrepresents contmiling ca.se law. Brief elaboration demonstratos why the court concludes that the imposition of 11anctio11.B is wma.nted by Ifie Oll.Ceptlonal Girwrultances presented. a) The First F.ob e PSL Arpmeut in Support of its Penueatila&r Sc.beme: 'fll4: Civil Court Lackt Subject Mattel' Jurisdiction It is wclks'fablished that civil courts cannot intervene in doctrinal di w.itbin a church but can adjudicate church property dispute$ if they C3I\ be rcsolv: without relimwe OD religious doctrine. The boundary Hnc or civil coutt subj

165 matter jurisdiction is autb.or:i1ativel)' set fotth in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. MUtvojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) and in Presbyterian Church and Wolf, Sllpra. The Ullderlying ~ matter in!his e1rse did not present an ecclesiastjcal issue of religious doctrine that du: court was asked to decide. The case p;esented a question of pxoperty tights whose resolution wa.ii not dependent upon ao 1lllSWer to ~ religious question but instead co111..d be resolvtid using "objc:qtivu, welteslablished concepts of trust and property law familiar t<> lawyers and judges". Wolf The. PSL'11 jurisdictional argument:. that the cose before this court ls ecclesiastical and, therefore, the First Amendmcm guarantee of religious freedom places this case beyond civn court authority, was exj)tessly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf: 443 U.S. 595 (1979), T.hat c..ase involved n tnernbe. c.buroh oftbe PCUS (the l>cusa's legal predecessor). The denomination argued th~ as the PSL did now, that. its prope rty-rejsted internal processeii were "ecclestilstical" i.o narure 11t1d merefore could not be iaterfered vffih by civil courts without violating 1he denomination's free e:ccn:ise rights. A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court forcefully rejected th.is argument, c~laining: The dissent also argues that a rule of compulsory defci:cncc is necessary in order to protect 1he free excroise rights "'of those who have fonned the association and submilted themselves to.ijs 11utbo1itf'. This argument assumes that tbc neutrnl~principles method would $omehow frustra,te the free-e?1ercise rights of. the membeni of a religious association. Nothing could be further ftolll the truth, The neutral-principles approach caonot be s11id to "inhibit" the ~e exercise of religion, any more than do other nelltral provisions of st:att; Iiiw governing the manner in which church.es own property, hire employee11, or purchase goods." Jones v. Wolfat60S, 606. The wor~ of the lj_s. Supreme Court are unoqu1v0clll. "NoChlng could be turtber from 1he lru.th." What wes true then remains ~o. Th ' > NOlOIAL DISTRICT coum

166 PSL has not offtted a good fai!h argument for the cx1ension, modification, or rev11111al of existing Jaw. In ~ the Augusra-Maoon Ptesbytcry htd appointed en administrative commission jw;t like the commissions appointed by thr: PSL and the Synod of the: Sun. "[n TC.!lponse to the schism within the Vln.eville congregation, the Augusta Ma.con Presbytery appoirttcd a commission to investigate the diapute lllld, jf po!!sible, to resolve it. n Wolf irt 598. The mere background existence of this. ''wclc:sillbtical proces:i" 0 did not act as a bar in Wolf to!he civil court exeroise of subject mattec jurisdiction to resolve the church property dispute Wling neutral ptlnciplea of la.w. The PSL knew this. or should hil.ve known this, from a simple reading or Yi2lf. For over forty yean civil court.~ througho\jl the United SCatet1 b.ave often exerciood their subject matter jurisdiction to resolve cburcb propeny di.sp\lti?# using Deutt:al principles of law notwithstanding the invariable background p~ of some fo:nn of denorolnarlona.1 admlojstratlve machinery Ii.kc

167 More than twenty-five years ago, io Fluker y. Hilcl!pls. 419 So.2d 445 (La. 1982), the Louisi:ina Supreme Court not only held that ~ivi l courts have rubjcct mstte:r jurlsdiction to decide church property disputer; but that they /nll$t exerci~ thel jurisdiction when the resolution of the dispute con be decided 'l'rithout reli.ance on religious dol1rlnes. Fluker specifically rejected the argwnert'l.llui.t denominatlooal procedures concerning resolution of prupeny di~putes were neces..wily of a sph itual realm into which civil courts could not lnlnlde. 'l'o the contrary, the. Loulsiana S\lpreme Court said; IJldeed, we thij'lk the safeguards against laws establishing religion and prohibiting the free cxerci~ th~of contained ln the first Amendment anti in Article I, Section 8 of our state con:stimiojj n~siiule cur ado~n of the "neutral principles" approa(:fi. Whate\let' ambodcy a hicrarchictl organiz31.ion.tllll.y hav() over assooietcd local churches.is derived solely from the local chw'ch's consent. Refusal to aclludic~ jts feud over property rights or canlnlctw1i obligetionj, even when no inte1j1l'l!tatio.n or evalvaiion of ecclesiastical doctrine or practice is called for, but simply because ibe fitiganl! are religious organnations, may deny a local cburclt recourse to an impartial body to resolve a ju8t claim. 1hereby violati.og its mcrnbers' rightb ander 1he free cxoo:ise provision, arul also oonstituting a judicial estllblisbml!ot of the hm'archy' s religion. Fluker v. Hitchms at 445. The PSL's position ijl this Iitigatfon b sanction.able not be~use the PSL sinnply interpreted Wolf ll!ld fluk.er di:lferently. 1.'hc PSL has dpne tomclhing qµa!itatively different, Tne PSL has ignon:d th.: plain ]aaguage of the~e ooses. The PSL would distinguish this c.ase from Wolf and Fluk_tt on the basts that this case involves injimctive rdief. The wurt notes, though, that C11rrollt.on only amended Its petition on February l , to seek' itijunqlive relief~ Cam>llton Mark Y'unm&m {copied 10 P8L e:eoul!ve ditet<or Alan ewer t111d S)'llod admln111n!lve c.roiodoritt1r IWport Tmnc:r). "'l\'hd we (PSL Cou~llil) lhinlc. 1''0uld be lh:.!mt l/0111'1" ts lo Ilk\> arlgnlill juriiwefioo (by tbo Synod adm!t1istr.me conunl~ e) tlld rcplat lbc i~llorl, fire UK atto1'11c)' the clrmdl h.u bim, ~ L>msfonl. end eitbor proceed..,_;a, lhe sale of the prop.rty~ or tb<n i& a,...,.,.e r.huci! a iede~loplag \J'". PSL OSO (piremlleosis ~lied).

168 h~ received notice on February 4, 2009, that the PSL had iucluded on its 11genda for the February 17, 2009, PSL meeting a recommendation that the PSL appoint an adltl.inistrative comm:is~ion. The purpose of that commission was to assq.me original jwisdiction aver CaJTollton and effect seimre and cd11ttol of Carrollton's property. Under sucli circ.wnstances seeking Bild obtaining injunctive relief to prevent a non-owner from interfering with the property status quo while the merits are under review by the civil court was necessary if there was even to be an opportunity for "recourlic 1o an impertial body to resolve a just c:wm". Fluker at 445. lf the PSL teally thought tht this Court's Febroory 13, 2009, TRO or September 14, 2009, Prelimimuy hljudclion violated its constitutionally-protected religious Hberties, il could have irnmediah:ly filed an Application for StAy, Request for Expcidited Consideration, and Petition for a Writ of Revfow or Certiorari variously with the First Circuit and the Lo1lisiana Supreme Court concerning this aue,ged infringement. The PSL, however, did not take l!lly of these steps. 'The court notes that 1he FSL onl5' soqglit a Writ of review when it was sub&equ.eotly otdered by tllis cottrl to pl'oduec the 441 so-ealled privilege log documents ("PSL documentsti) wboise disclo~ ure would shed addltion6l light OP sanctlonable cond)lct. In addition to poirrt.itlg lo Carrollton's obtairllog mjunotive relief (the need for whl~h was 'prompted by PSL notion), the PSL sought to ovoid the law establl.sbir\g subject matter j01isdiction by atguiag that this case is dlstingllishable in El second wa.y. The PSL argued that Camilltou, in trying to sell its retnailllng 30 19U'I JUDJCi.-L DIS'mlCT COVlll"

169 "'9 32 "' 6V real property, was allegedly in the process of tryins to dissolve itself.ts Tue PSL, however, has not offered a rum-frivolous arg111t1ont wby this would remove subject matter jurisdiction. A.J the PSL 1s aware ftom 1be pleadings, the plaintiff in this case is a civil corporation formed under the lam of the Slate of Louisiana. TI1e plaintiffs. corporate articles gnint e><;cfusive authority fo the e«p<>rate Trustees to "hold title to and 0011trol the properties o.f the corporation.". TI1e PSL wa., also aware from lb0 oul!et!hat. this corporation ls the title hold~r of record. It ls aiciom.atlcthatthe dlsgolution of this corpora.uon is not governed by the PCUSA Book of Order but by tjie laws of the S1ate of Lo\lisiana, in particular, La. R.S. l 2:249, ct seq. The PSI. art all timcs knew tba1 Cam:illton did not want to be dissolved and had not acted Co become dissolved. Nor could the PSL usurp the IWlhority of the state to aissolvc a civil corporation that Wal> crcatc;d in the fir.rt place pursuant tq the laws of the State of Louisi.arut.. It is wed-established that ceding such civil power to e~clcsiutical authorities would coostitute an Wl00Jl$tutional state es(ab\ishmcnt' 4. Accordingly, when a presbytery llct$ \l1ldcr G \i ufth.e PCUSA Boole of Order "to divide, dismiss, or di.ssolvc cl1urches in consultation wiih tfl.eir members", all the presbytery c!ld do is either divide one PCUSA church into IWO. PCUSA churches, dismiss 11 PCUSA church 10 membership in 111Jolber Presbyterian de.oomination, or dissolve 11 churoh as a member church of the PCUSA.. 'Ihe loool church still eicists. It's just not a PCVSA church any longer. And tbe corporati " The only "dluolution" of Co?Tolllon wu tly the PSL-iequcsted Syood 1Eb1~11'1.tt1/ef -1 Jlo.'l, in laiowing violation of Ibis Court's February 13, nto, wt»eh d!nolutlccl Ibis AlllSCqUeNI)' htld 'WIS 1tillto11t ~. 11 ''Vesting "'111111$}11111~nt" ocell!j wlt\';q dlo elate codce,. lende. 01 dolea-ics IX> Ibo~ - Che!la!D's uadllioul ~I pc.w.-rr. See. e.g., 1NkJ1 y Grmdel'sj)t~ 459 U.S. 116 (1912 Tribe, AgwrigJI Cgrutjbd:jrnia! Lp (2"' ed). 1+11; Nowat and Rolllnd.I, CpnttihltjMal I.aw. (6 oo.t f 13.J, 173 ucl Li.A. 31 1~ Jl.QCll\L OiS'ffilCT COVITT... ~

170 contimles to exist and own i!s property. 11 The PSl.'s argument concerning dlssol\uion as a means of avoidioi the 1amifications of 1be c)car langllllge in ~ and fm!!!: is not a good faith argument for!he extensio11, r'versal, or modification or existing Jaw' This failure by r.be PSL is underscond by the flicib oonoeml.ng the alleged effort r.o dil!solve, For wnctions purposes, fow undisputed fuels, all known by ti~ PSL from the out~et, are pertinent: First, Carrollt.on ha,, been ta~ with the PSL abo-ut the possibility of di$solving fur over twejjty years, in conv~l'8ations th3t also included a1her possible firtul~ foi' Carrollton such ll!l the hiring of a "tum-around" pmtor and revival. At no time, though. was any particular date evec decided upon for a final worship service. PSLIRoding corporate deposition at pp. 91, 92 and.psl I I; Second, acwrdine! to the PSL's admitted practice, in order for the loce.l clrurch i.o acttia!ly be di,solved, the susion and congreaat.lon of Carrollton m\1$\ vote for dj.,solutioo-tmd il is uudisputed that no such vote has ever occ~ 18 Third, whatever Carrollton has or has not done or said concemiog ~ dissol"ing. it has at all timu acted as a rouober of the successor dc:nominatioo to the PCUS. 19 PSL corpora~ deposition, Rev. Roelin~ at p. 64. Thus by its terms 6-8 of the PCUS Book of Church Order, whieh gnurts Carroll Ion the right to sell its property without PSL permission, applies, as the PSL b.es e.dmittcd. s~. e.g., PSL corporste deposition, Sept 23, 2009; Rev. Roeling et pp I, 75-81; Dr. Cutter at p. 21. Fourth, the PSL also admitted that propeity ownership is not a requirement to be a member chwcb of the PCUSA, 11rtd that for many years another church had remained an active member of the PSL 11 Article VI of Camilltou's llltlcjc$ gf lncorpg"doo. dcfiruf1 the ln1u11bo.ra of Ille 011rpo18tloo 11 ll0llllstl8g of virious categorits of memb611 af "Clrl'o1ltcm l'lllllbywiaa Chu~ who ll'o not dtlined In 1hal &nlcl& as -"ly rnem.be11 PCUSA dlareb. From Ilic llm frf il4 flrnt 111.iorponilion In I 8911 lhrou- lu lfto!ji *"II 1979 l!riclcs tho idt>ntity of lhe ~od Jocd Carroll! cl\um blu TJtM:r boon &r111ed m Its lllticles by spccifio clemalinalianal 111embenhip. Tho mabetll of tho cri!jlol' tfoo have lloyl:i boco do!inod.as the m~bcr of a J>ecitlcally idenllflod d.c:not11ijimlonal ch-h-11nty M die -.embartaf"cairolltoo Pno byteriad Chun:h". '* Altboush Ibo Book of Or~ does not 111.-ke a pretbytefy' occlon to dinolve 1 ch\8'1!11 eollliuljut ua ll ~ by l..,.t d:l~h to b dissot\lcd, in h:s QOIJICIUl't ~lion!be PSL sul\ld tblt its lac~in8 pnctictt bu al,..ys b8al lo DtYer dissol'i 1 ~Ji llnlcn dte oblfth 1u~ to ti. dluolll<ld..i th& locel d>drcb 1C111&lly ~ ~ dlgo;ol.-e by fin:t o~l)i Y-OOflll IO dimolve or va11ng IUd.!llc p~ ta GIS:IO!vv it Sn l'sl.jraelingcorpomcdepositioaat pp. 10'.2, ID7, 110, 1 IJ. " ln o~ltlg nmmuy ~ont the PSL poirooi t.o certain ll&tero.!ots naldc: by CanoJltllt! ~ ibat llldliooed a di=lution in due co-. ThCM> otalamcntt, how vcr,,..., Ol&de a.s Cmollion ""l""'ded to d>e PSL\ ru.n.nd for dis&ohitio<i u t condition of Sdtlomc:m and do not, tee~ lo th~ l'sl.:s DOJPO"lll< ~CllU!l l vc Re..koelmg, rvndcr I H ln.tpplicabk<.,

171 despite having!told all its property. PSL/J,Wcling corporate depositio11 atp. 64. The PSL has also ignored the language in Wolf end Fluker in another, fundamental way. lntenvoven throughout almost every plca.dij:\g and metnohlnda the PSL bas filed ot submitted to this court the PSL cmphasw:d the form of e~lesiastical government (polity) said t('i cha.racterize th,c PCUS and PCUSA, 1".he PSL ergued that becau.~e trust c)(ll.iscs nre contained in the (982/1983 edition of the PCUS Book of ChlUCh Order ( 6-J) and the l'cusa Book of Order (G ) Cru:ro11ton W8S therefore necessarijy bound by them due to the PCUSA's all"gedly hierarchical polity. The PSL wrote, "Critically, the. PCUSA is a connectionel chureh that is hierarchical. in natwe, nither than congtegati011.11l..,>llo What tbe.psl has sllid is ''critical", though, the U.S. Supret00 Coon has said is irrojcvant. Comparing the neut:rjll principles of 1-.w epproaelt with the dcfetcnro llj!ptdbch, the U,8. Supreme Ccnut said, '"fbc nelltral-principlcs approach, in ~Ire.st, obviates entirely tl1e need for!!ii anlllysi.s ot eicamlnalion of ecclesiasticitl polity..." Wolf at 605. The majority in Wolf said tmt, "[1)be suggested l'ulo (by the minority, of oqmpulsory deference) w(jtl]d appear t.o require a,.~c:arohijlg l!dd thcl:cfore impermissible inquiry into church polity"... Wolf at 605, citing Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 426 U.S. 11t 723. What Wolf said about polity, juxtaposed ag!linst w&at the PSL said about polity, cllll.llot be J"C'JConciled. b) The Secolld False PSL Argument l» Support of Its Penneati._g Scheme; Notwithstai:11J{Jt.g Wolf's Clear Language About Trust Lsw lbquirem.ents And Consent, Wolf Autho,-ib:d EufCJr-eeablt T"1Bt$ By "'Pase 4 o1 lu Octokr S; 2-009, McmorilldUlll In OppoU!ion Co l'wnlift's Morion for Silllln&I;)'!l'.ld!Pnl!nt, Bec~lll$Q!l21f. said that dlllroh 90lity, or fonn of govemmeat, is aot to be considered \\ileil ~~lnjl llouu'sl pr~iptos ofla.w, v;bolher tllio l'cu8a is or la n01 bieurohical Is (; l!lly irrelev1qt \a lhls.,asa, Th~ 00111tobserws, lbough, tbllt th<> J1'Sl, bu ~lawll l;i Ibo Roeotd'in,tJ\is wie!hattl!o l'cusa ls nq!.hicrm~ieal, PSL~ deposition (Pr, Cu&r) at pc 18, 19, 33 t 1111! JUJ>ICI~ DISTI'llCT COURT

172 IimlateraJ Amendment To Denominational Constitutions The PSL ignored the dear l1,1nguag.e in Wolf lo nom;eosically argue that if this cow"t -does have subject matter jurisdlction then the neutral principles of Jaw method, authorized in Wolf and mandsted in Fluker, allow the. PCUSA lo create e trus1 over local churnh property simply by amendmoo.t l.-0 the denominatlanal wnstitution without regard to consent (If state law trust requirements. As this court noted, thollgh. In over forty years ~f neutral principles case law nu court in the United States bas ever held that Wolf autborized tbls. ln alleged support, of m ~cot, howevw, the PSL relied heavily Oil a 2009 decision by the CAiifornia Supreme Court, Bpi!!COoal Cbureh Cases. 45 Ciil , 198 P.3d 66 (dee. Jan. S, 2009; cert denied, Oct. 2, 2009). The PSL cited or refe~ to Episcopal Cliurclt ~ eleve,n \11) times in its October 14, 2009, Memotandum in Opposition ro Smwtions and cited br referred to thls case fourteen (14)_times in its January 5, 2010 'MemorandUDl in Support of Motion fen Swrunary Judgment on Carrolltcn's Motion for Sanctioru;. Ecl1JCopal Church Cases, however, doe! not come close to saying what the.psl claims 11 says.. This is not simply a ma~ of opposing attotneys having a difference of opinion about how to in~~ a caso. The PSL bas misrepresented EJ2iscopal Churoh~ and ill!he proce5$ bas stood!mf on its bead. Bllcause the PSL placed such reliance on Epjsconal Church cases discu$siou of this case is 11ppropriate. The dccisian in EsiiscopQI Church Cases in fav<tr of the diocese was spe lfically based on two readily identifi ble factors dla.t llt'c obviomiy ebsent in the dispute between Carrolltvn and the PSL: l) An implied trust Ul\lder Calit'wnia la:w that arose from Episcopal canons that state tbe opposite of 6-& of the PCUS 34 I Viii JUDICIAL ' CT COURT

173 Book of Own;h Order, snd~ 2) An express trust olause that waa onjy made operable hy a unique, one-of-a-kind Cell'fomia S1lltute that hlls no Louitiana counterpart. Iii mling for the diocese EpisROPal Church Casq did not say th& pisoopnl express trust claosc (the 1919 Denrus canon), without more, controlled and then conclude its opinion on that note. Instead, the California. Supreme Comt addressed 11t leogtb the i5$ue of necessary local chwcb consenl-81\d found consent on the liasls of u separate, implied trust arising from local oburcb adherence to BllOther ca.non (Seclio11s 2 and '.1 of canon IJ.G} lb&t dated to t868. This canon required the pennis:don of the bi8hop and dioea<.e before a local church could sell or encumber propmy. The i:onlra&t between ~ilcol!.al Chgn;h CIK and this case could nat bo sharper. Fint, the PSL has not relied OD the existence of an implied trust as a b~s for opposing Carrollton. The PSL has relied exclusjvely on the exp1-ess trust claiise of of the PCUSA Book of Order. Set:, PSL Answer and &ceprlons To Petition As Amended. Moreover. the contrast between Sectluns 2 and J of Bpiscopal canon ll.6 and Section 6-8 of the PCUS Book of Church Order is welllmov.n to the PSI. and cou]d not be.simper. They are oppoirites. ~pj!l Cburoh Cases alw awarded the property to the diocese on a second ba.'lis, a unique, California statute that has no Louisi&Jla couute.rpart. 21 The: " The Calljlllnle mm; ( 9!42 of the c.iifumia Corpofllllom Code) WD Milled in 1982 " IOl\ly lllu.1l!lllf iiljd rtl'.-s thal -IS o[ a..,.]jgjo;i& curponllon all not ~deemed to be!mpl'cmcf wlr.11a of llly lclnd unleu eilber the local a~lu or bylews of Ille corpon;dan or ti. dtnomh!allon'1 ~vemlllg ~IN "~ provfdc, If tllh«w prov!'* ())e1o a 11\ISt Is 1hcJd!y cjutod ulldcr llk: sollw- ood can only be IU'Jlcnded or diiaol\oed. AOCCnliog to llmt ""1111:, by 11mwdlnent to the documnnt Whicb pw rlocto fhtttllst. The Pennis c:anoo, the C1Jtrom11. coan ruled,"'" not sdf-qjcl'lrior;but wu nnly made wo«uabl1: by O.is Cal:UOtllia s'.litute, and unde Ille l!'lalu~ could thus ooly b& ~tl 'b)' ln*idmcm lo lbe ~aol eansubitioo. no Callfumia Sup<cme Cowttliid tbetihir C'M "'ill slame ' ii Cll'Dtim<il odi" ~ t111g111gt.pp 606 in :lylllf!ht ~li> lhc. genml cburdl 1 1 CCJ01litutica beiqg ~~ lo iec:uc tnnl.

174 Pt~37 6/59 PSL knows this. This statute is central to the rationale in Episcopal Church Cases. The California Supreme Court specific.ally cited or referred to this statute sevenie (17) limes. hpisoopal Church Cases. at pp Those bas.io features ofes;!iscopal Church C~ are evld~ 1,1pon!I simple reading of that. brief Cll&e. Neither Epiaogpal Chun:IJ. Ca11a11 nor Wolf provide the slightest justification for the PSL':s opposition. 21 Chun;h C-o a.l p This iii true ill 0110 l!cll!o, The Califomla 81atutc ~ il1 lc-nni i:i n:hmnt or applicable onj..v if the rkijpmlii81jo11's c:onstim iqfl n:cile!i a trust, F41i"""Jl'l1 Chttrcli ~ did not ~.l'. l!oms\la', 1bll~ ~ Uthori'G!.d lhll de110111ijl81jofl to r.r.:ol<1 * ll<!lf..up;:rllting UUl1t sitnply by uqilaleraj MWldn'leolt or dw dttiominatlonaj comrttru1ion without f\lnll<:r llcdan by the 1osishmlrc or 1he iocal ohu"'h, f.(lloopjlgi Churell Cos did llllt aoy lhls ~~~not say thi$. As no~ 'Ille Calffilmla Sl4Jll'11!11> Court dllvotw mugb of ill) opiaion to find~ lol>ll cll\111:1\ consc11t. lb{i Callforuit Supteme Comte~lairu:d how 9142 was "0onsirtmt wil.b" l'ig]!, Tho Court said ''This statuie appc!ids to ht lllg lyj>o of :ital in& fti.i U11ill!.d Stllles S1tJl"ll"O Court bid ill mind wheo it approved n:liai:ioc on 'proyisiorui of 5lllle ~ l!iw gl>vtl;mfng!he holding of propotly l!r rej(giou~ oorparatlom' ~ Bpi~ Chi.v;cl!!&a at.l93, quotillg Md. & Y.. Cburebw " ShRmlib9 Ch,, $. I p. '367, Ct. '99 Th' Coll!( a6led, ''f~ n_, n... Md Oii! d! point in hli! concllrridg opinion in S11tt ease (SI~ He oxpla~ that one p09&ible ~oh 111 re. om~ churcli property diil]llltec is 111 p11mge ()( spcolal SIBIUte govmting cltarcb inopert)' ~ in 11 ~ that phcludcs sf.ate int~ in docirino." Tuii!eppa! Cburcl! Caw It D To j0$llfy tt$ ~l...j litk:rpretlllioi> of~ 01e: f'sl ha " cih:d a lone """ll:jloc C\\eerptcd frooi fij\y.tw<i (S2).f"'ll I' Law Review utiole, 32. St. I.""" U.L.J This article, lho!tf;ll. doei not lndlcalcaw.,,,_ of the i:xcqrtiocuifo.ul7di ol'dlo J>CUSA Book ofqrt'lerand f 6-8 ofllie l'cus Dool: of Chwcll O(der, nor- ladicllllo awcn:nea> <1f OJ. diitinctiw requirement> for tlie ~eat of ecfbj'oe.jbfe, L~ IJU!IS, In 11\9 40 )'l!gi'! of ~poned case law since Wolf. im PSL!!AS llo! polnllld \0 lilly wlllt ~1011 in a aeutnil principl0$ Jmitdict.ioa 81lywliere ill the \Jitk.cl Slalw tlw ha~ citod the Law Review llticlo lld~ adqplcd Ille vfcyp l4koi1 by!he PSL. Given 11\cse ciruwlls1lliioes!bis lone acmloncc i1 not a arc ))lllbor" th!ll exwse8tlic PSL1i'crm its ob~gation.< 11nder La. C.C.P. uii. 191, 224, :m, 863, end864, 'to tied sjlsht j1jalif1e~!lo11 w ayqld on~iong the ESL 111&0 p\linfi to 62.Maine,L ~v. 23, 1f n, 168 (loio}. 1lle PSL.quotes 1he alllllor of ihia lllticl6 as si.yins lhat Califomi and New York ~islons ~ 111" mete """lllltton or a ll'ust i~ Ill dll'unmi.nrion.u eoosrltutio11 &a.i1.y..i.11ne'. }Jowover, upan rwieow of thiw urticl1> ii is clear that the outbor -used ilw watd "disposiii»~ 0111y with!'olero~to a~- Y:ork case,.eplsc"ll"i Dhy!IS ofr!?chcl!ct y Hmi &99 N.E.2d YZO. 92~2S ~.Y. 200S). '\\'hell one ~D tlie portion of~ C:ited by tile ~lie 111llhor, ltowtvcr, Ille ~llrt Jn whioli tbe IUlth(IT ~ tlio word ''dispositlw! 11 become alorr-.:1 i.t is na.t ilie - ""SS""ied by lhe PSL.!!i!:!l!m he1d tllat!be tru1t claubc w111 nor sclf-"1b!g 01, clitposlliva by lll'elfbu r. controlled jn th - betor. it Ollly becw$~ ibe local pvish bad giveu ics consent to i1, Tho tooal pc 'ish blid ~Jy agreed to abide by it when Ill@ local AGrisll prevfov.sly mgned a tpe1:ific! doo11ment bl 1 9~1 lll which it ca'.preeiily 11groeed "to abide 1!51 IBld oont<imi co tl~e 11L1io"'l Epl5eop&l -~ Ille canons ofibo local diooellll- 111>cl ell tl\e ~ad l!lg!ll odllc!lllents tbciwt'', Tllo~ O>ust f~ ov!dcn<:c ct the owner's consoat to ~ DeMis, CaooA fr010!he foot fh&ltlho local pulsh had ncmr \'}ll}ecio:d lo lhc Dc;rmis canon tot lllat tllail h\-cl\11 (20) ycar.1 ainoc it V.'U adopa:d. '(be eourt found Ill~ silenoe 'sitnif11;an1. ~Ill 925. Tuo>c k1>)i facts-ate app.veut f;t>lll a read}ng of U.Jlilis.;b, artd ClClllnlits!nlrpJywilfl (l)e faot< of' tb~ oaso. 36 1~ JIJOICIAl DISTl'ltCHlOl!Ri

175 C.st Baton P.aige P rtsr. C!elk GI Olurt C56'.>4E 2 ORDER l ) Repeatedlv Assertlni: Frivolous Arguments The PSL h~ repeatedly asserted legiil argwuo::nb thal du nol consti!ute a good faith argument for the exti:mion, modificalioo, or revemil of existing law. These :&ivolou$ arguments include: Wolf tromps slnte property and!rust taw (Chus moo tine need for mutual. consent by the owner/settl.or)--even thoup ~ expreasly states 1bot nootrl!l principles of faw "celieb exclusively on pbjeclive, well~bli'shed concepts of tnist ~d property taw familiar to lawyers and judges." Wolfat 603; The purportedly hierarchical nature of PCUSA polit) (forro or gove.mment) Is "critical'' to the PSL' 11 opposition to Com:iUton (Oct. 4, 2009, PSL Memorandum at p. 4)--even lltougb tbe neutral principles of law method approved by 1il1Jt and mandated fn Fluker "obviates ~tirely" an examination of polity and makes in.quiry inropolity "impei:mis:tible". Wolf at 605; PSL contesting Carrollton's right undl'j PCUS Section ~ to sell Carrollton's property without presbytery perroisalon-even though the PSL's oorparate deaignees, speaking as lllld for the PRl, fualf, testified -that L'airollton has the right to!ell Carrollton's propt:rt)' withoot PSL pem:usxion. PSL corponte deposition, Roeling at pp. 16, 17, 31,?9-81; Cutter at p. 21; BetaUSC there is no ~peciflc Louislone church property trust statute, Louisiana's general pr<>po::rty and!twit statutes do not appl>'+ See e.g. October , PSL Memorandum at p. 14; When Carrollton Presbyteriaa Church was fu'w!dcd in 1855 it gave its consi;mt to an express µ-ust clause that,clid not ~me into exlslence1,mtil 1982, 127 yc111s ~er. See e.g. June 19, 2009, PS,L M~orandum at p. 1 3 ff; October S, 2009, PSL Memora11dUt1J at pp. 5-8, 12; Carrollton would ~uffer no ir.repuabkt hattn even thoiigh the Synod administrative commission, acting "for'' the PSL, dissolved Carrollton (in knowing violation of this Court's February 13, TR.0). Sec, e.g., Feb, 23, 2009, PSL Memomndum ot p. 1 O: June 19, 1009, PSL Memorondwn at p. 14. By "dissolving,,. Cmollwn the PSL fljld Synod intmded te> extinguish Cum:illtoo' s existence. On.e cannot imagine hmm more irreparuble; QilT(10ton's timely vote to ijse the exception of G-&.0701 (the act by wtiich Catroll1<ln fell back on 6-8, which negates any ttust}

176 East 9.atcn ROV!I" Psr,$n C!el'i< o: COM Cli65462 ORDER evidllnced Carrollton's intent to be bound by a tru&t. June 19, 2009, PSL MerooTB11dum e.t p.11; See e.g., The Articles of Agreement (forming the PCUSA) preclude Carrollton's property claims--even though Article 13.1 of the Articles of Agreement expressly S'ta'les that the Articles in no way alter, abridge or oullify any civil law provisions concerning property ownership. See, e.g., PSL Fourth Defense, June 19, 2009, PSL Memorandum at p. 10; Ocl S, 2009, PSL Memorandum at pp. 25 if. Article 13 (the only Articlo tbat mentions property) expressly app1ies only to "dismissal", and it is \llldisp1,1t that Carrollton has not sought disntlssaj from the PCUSA nor been dismissed from the PCUSA J\JDtCW.. OIS'Tl11CT COURT

177 3) Misreprc.1e:niinr::the F11cL'4 about CaJTollton s 1922 Acquisition On October l3, 2009, during the hearing on Carrollton's Motion for Summary Judgment counsej for the PSL said in reference to the property acquired by Qit'l'OlltOn in J 922 on which Its Sl!llCWllJ}' stts, that ''We (the PSL) don't know if they (CmTollton) paid fulj value, We just don't know. lt happened too Jong ago." Tmnscript of P8L counsel's remarks at p. I 0. However, on March 2, 2009, the PSL stipulated to the authe)llioity ohhe April 27, 1922, Resolution Adopted by the Presb)'teria.n Board of Dcmicstlc Missions for the State of Louisiana Blld Elsewhere whloh stores in reference to the 1922 act of cqnvoyaru::c that the grantdr was teimbut'lled its full original purchase price by Cw.Tollton, 23 4) C1111ige; This Qourt's Subfect Ma!ter Jurisdiction "Malevolent", And Otherwise ShowiD!I! Disdain. For Tiit Judlclaa On page 22, 11: 13 of the PSL's June 19, 2009, Post"HearlngMemarandum the PSL calli CmoUton "malevolent", that is, someone seeking to do evil by D r\nj) WITTHNjthtamopgt pa11) (Otfeh! properlylias been nlmbol'!!!f bj ~ PALMER J'ARK PJU;SBITTRIAN CBURCK!Ml IM CARROLLTON l:l!e&mrjan CUUJ!.CR Of tjiw QRLl!:A.1111!. 1vl&ish twi; Chnre!Ua lh>n!l!'eed to C<lD!OliJ!nc uader ~ - gf nn: CARROLLTON l'llsbyterijj'1 CJIDRCH OE N'EWOBLEA.f!S. AND '\\'lielma.s Ille PreebyW,,. or Lollililllla b11t direeted ih PJtESQYTERIAN BOARD OJ" DOMl(S'ltC ~ms10111s J10ll 'rar. STATE 01! LOUISIANA AND lu..sew~ to il'll11,rcr ilid ho~ tl<ttrlloed l>j'qperty -«> THE CARROU:ro"' PRESDH'EIUAJi CHURCH OF NEW OR.LEANS, TH!REPPRB, P~ IT.RESOLVED, llaat J~ J; MMISON, J>rahlf!lt qf the l'res'.q~ BOARD O)J DOMES'l'lC MISSIONS FOR THE STATE OF WU~lANA A.'~ ELS~ be. nil 1-II httllby 11uda~, in the uam oad on bu.if ot Boan! to tnlllfer tllai pntperty lie~ a-rtnct ' nu: CAMOLLTO!'i PRJ:SBYl~AN CHURCII OF NEW O:RLEAN:S, and fllt' ft!al, p>1rpllk ud tu tlisi eoid Hid MANSON u alltho'rii.ed bl liit ld"ol'esllld Upa~, to tip eil ~k Ille IH>tCMUJ' Nobtlll Ad. el1'nmtcr, ud Is furtb~r aldborired tll cso aud 911rform aor ouier d"" cmlai: a...,,. to comommatc ~ trutoru or 1ald obo e d1':m!rihlid p"'l"'f11 U HlboriJ:ed b)' tllls H.e""1utioa. lildl. l' :Z (pp.~. 4) fntroduccd at lhco M..W ~-3, l009, hearing on ClllTol!Wn's petiti1>0 for preltaibiry' injllnetion, &lid ~Uoduced at the O«obl!r 13, 2009, bearlag Oii CaJTOIJlon' Motibn for Sl!!mr.a.ry J.!Jdwmmt. 39 I!Ith JUOICIAl 016!'RICT COURT

178 wit.jked ways. In explaining why Carrollton deserved tfris invective ~ rst. pomted to Can"oil~'s decision to come before this court for a determination of the dispu\lld pj:op,y tlgbt9 in:llead of plaqltg the fute of its prnperl,y in tho luulds of the PSL, art adverse, faterested party. In secldng: 1;i\>il adjudicatiqil rather than ecclesiasti~i ~lutfon. though, Carrollton was merely seeking re\:ourse to Sil "i:rnpartial tody to rcsolv-e a just ch1im", as il wll!! encourag~d IQ do by ti u1111uimous Laui:ilima Supmne Court in Fluket. Subsequen:tly, on page 17 of i1s ~tober 14, 2009, Memorandwn Emd 011 1><1&e 19 of its January S, 2010, MernorandtUJl,,tl).e PS).. suught again to justify its invective by ex.plaining that ii had not called C11.1TOllton if8el[ malevo1ent but ottly called Carrollton 's r;lec.ision tn seek civli oolll't adjudication malevolent. This i~ a distinction without a difference. If the PSL thinks,.that an entity that seeks civll court subjec~ matter jurisdiction is ""malevolent", ~1 neeessan1y impugns the excrdge of the court's sl.lbject matter jurisdiction. Dim:spectl\11 oo:ntempt by the PSL ru1d its collaborators for o:ivil authority l.s aadl'y and di:rtutbingly evident elsewhere. wnen 1be PST::> petition for rem1mtl was allotted to U,S. Disuict Judge Ralph Tyson, a respected African Amcri.ean jurist.!he Synod suggested, in 11 March , e.mail to the PSt~ Mr. Tammen. and others, that J\ldge Tyson 'vas inclined to rule based on the skin oolor of ilie lawyers invotv.ed in the case. The S)'U(ld poted that Frestcin C1urtille, an Afri AmeriCllll partner in Taylor Poner, had been one of the lllw}'wll- lisl.cd Carrollton in the state ClO\lrt pleadings, and said that the PCUSA should thinking ii.~ own black law')'~ now that 1be matter bad been allotte to Judge Tyson. l'sl Hi95. The following oo); March 13, 2009, 011,e of lh lawyers advising tjjc PSL and the Office of the PCVSA G'enera.1 Asiletnbly, Mr JUDICIAL DlSTlllCT COURT

179 i1o!j(' 42 o! 59 finst. e.maijed 1he Synod, the PCU'SA (Mt. Tammen) and the PSL 1 and ~d if anyone kllew whether Judge Tyson's home church, Wesley Methodist Church. was unhappy wj1h its parent cknominat.ion. PSL The Synod replied by oo..march 13, 2009, and volt_ll'.lteet'ed to secretly investi~te whatever was going on in the pew& of Judge Tyson's church. PSL When U.S. M~gistrete Jud~ S en Riedlinger i.ssued bis Report and Reoommendatlon that the matter bo :rem.anded back to state court, Mr. Tammen e-rna.lled the PSf. an(! others Q1I Match , and said, "A cenl.r:al lheologloal tenet in my world view is total depr11vi1y, I do not want ID believe it. but could even the Federal Court in Baton Rouge be compromised?"' PSL When Judge Tyson subsequently ordered the matter remanded back t.o state rourt; the PSLe-mlliltd Mr. Tammen and others on June 4, 2009, imd chmncteril'.ed Jurlge Tyson as lazy by 11Ccuslng him of not doing bis own work. The PSL said thllt Judge Tyson had simply "rubber-stamped" U.S. Magistl'lile Riedli!lg.er's Report and Recammendil.tion. PSL In all fue'e communications none of the recipients ed in 1'Cp1y a single word of sdmonislmient or disagreement S) Recurring Misrepmieatsfion or Case Law Words he.ye.meaning. Faithfully artlouiatiug tbe flu:u, rationale,!llld holding of a ju<uoilil opinion is fundamental to the responsj1>ilitie3 of officers of the court tllld to any honest use of case law. The PSL's b.cav-y reliance on atid dfstortion of Episco.ra! Cllllt h ~.like it.~ disregard of.!?l2!tandj!'lu,ker. are examples ofthe PSL's sanctionable efforts 1X> ol?fusca~ and delay by interposing patently mq!itless arguments. The PSVs misreprcsenlatlon of case law, however, Is not confined ro presen1ed at pp of CtuTOllton's March 2S, 20 I(), Supplemental Memorandum JUOICW. tmltrict COURT

180 ID S1l71poM 1,1( Motluos fc1r Sa:ni:ti91).J. ln fufth.kral'l Ct of fn ~ o lq1js a~umo111! lb.: PSL has exhibited a 1eoorring pattern of misreptesa...ntil'g CB$ law, specifie:slly: m I.Re: Cb.11TCh of SL.Jomes the Less. S8S Pa. 420 at (Pa. 2005); Babcock Memo!W Ptesbytgian Chun;b y. PrcsbYTery of Beltimorc, 464 A.2d 1008 (Md. 198:3); Calvtty Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Lake Huron, 324 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. App. 1986); Shirley\'. Ctrristi!IP MethodlstEpiscooal Chureb, 7~ So.2d 672, 676 (Ms. 1999); Yl).ltcd Pentecostal Church lntematjoo,pl. lnw. y. Sandti.mm. 391 So.2d 1293 (La. App. 2"" Cir. 1980); Bethany lildependent Church v. Stewart (La. App. 3"' Cir. 10/5/94), 645 So.2d 715; Ql11Ss _v. F.irsl United,!?ent.ecostal Church of Deridder (La. App. 3rd Cir ) S<>.2d 724, and; Mills v. Baldwin, 377 So.2d 971 {llla. 1979). 6) Prigr Pfil- KnO'fl'ledge. of and Participation ill the Plan to. ly.il!fudr Y)olate this ~ourt's TRQ The willful Yiol~ion on Feb. 25, 2009, of this Court's Feb , TRO WlllJ not just 11 dillcrete ev~ lt was part of a wider plan or scheme intended to facilitate R ooru:plracy that permeates OJ\d is systemic to the PSL 's opposition. As pnwioosly discussed, th.!s court's February 13, 2009, TRO was intentionally violated by the J>SL end its c<roonspirai.ors to manufacture a false Jack.o f-subject~ mauer jurisdiction argumen~ To address culpability for this willful violation, rov.icsw of the ilisturbing. Ca.cts is 11ccessary. 'They are collected chronology in Appendix A end are made a part of these Written findings and Reasons for Judgment. AF, recorded in the frans<,,'jipt of the March 2, 2009, bearing, lit a time when ~ w11.s trying tn distance himself sud hi:t client from the violation of Ibis court's TRO, the PSL's New Orleans counsel told thi~ couri lhal be did not represtint ~ ro JUOIOIAL DISTRICT COURT

181 Synod. Jk omphasized that his elicnl was 1he PSL (the only party def.endant in the ca.w) and chat he n..~cd only the PSL. Ott &<ptewber 14, 2009, however, when arguing for a "COI11tDOn intaest" doctrine to apply to shield the so-catted "privilege log" documents from discl08ure, the PSL's New Orleans CO\IJ\SeJ told a different stocy that is dircclly contniy to what be Se.id on Mareh 2, The PSL's New Orlc:ans attorney said lhilt if all.00, the Synod Commission woultl say that he WllB its Jawyer at least to the time of the.february 25, 2()09, vote by the ooounission to dbsolve Cllil'olllon. (Counsel's September 14, 2009, repill!lematians lll'e referred to in the transc.rlpt of Sept. 22, 2009, hearing on Cmollton's Motion to Compo!, at pp. 19, 21, 22.) Thu court is impos.ing sanctions in part due to 1he PSL's violation of this court's February 13, 2009, 'l:ro. Sam:tiOllll are being imposed no1 just because of the duplicity of counsel's r~resentati ons to the court. That is bad enough. The truth is worse. The evidern:c introduced indicates thu.t the PSL hnd rcl!.'lon to know in advaru:e that the Synod administrative commission, ~tins "for'' the PSL, intended to violate this Court's TRO on February 25, The PSL documents (which the PSL bu tabe.jed "Privilege L<ig" or "comm0n idt.erest" documents), Whose <li:;closure tb PSL fought to prevent, reveal that the PSL actually lobbied for and pllllllled the vrolotion. Recognizing early oo that there w~ no deitose on the merits, the PSL eame Up with a "plan". lt astonishingly decided to intc:ntionajly violate ilie TRO..s a tneans to "drive" home o poiported lack of subject matter jurisdiction. l'sl 544. The relevant.psl documents ( s) are variously excerpted and synopsized ln Appeoclioes A and B and arc made a part of Uiese Written Findings and Jle8S01)8 for Judgment They muminate words and deeds this court finds unc:onseiotlllblc. There is ample basis for imposing saoctions 1Vitbout 43 ti!!>./ooicl.l!l0"1'rict COVf'T'

182 regard w these PSL docu:mcllt$, bm they illustrate with pllrticular force why sanctions a.re jastlfied. 2 ~ The PSL ai;gues that It has no responsibility for the violation of the TRO because its exeoutive presbyter, Dr. Cutter, and its stated clerk, Mr. Bottomly, testifted that they did not know that the Synod adminibi:rat.ive commission had. speci.jicwjy voted to l&so!ve Carrollton until the d~ after lt happened, when they bath received a phone call. The court is not persuaded as to the PSL's leek of Clllpability. The PSL asked the Synod to appoint an administrative ~ommission in the first place, know the commission bad been granted additional power to dissolve cburr.bcs, and lobbied the commission to use its added poww to dissolve Cnmillton. The PSL cannot then cl :laim Tesponsibiti~. The PSL's New Orleans counsel by hjs own admission gave the Synod legal advice on how to wist!ht l'sl in it& opposition to Carrollton and on the basis of that advice tho Synod lletcd knowingly to violate this Court's TR~"for" the PSL. The PSL's New Orleans cow18el knew about the planned violatioo ahead of time. He planned and lobbied for IL The PSL ls no im1ocent bystander. The.PSL is not simply Dr. Cutter and Mr. Bottomley. Purposefully keeping those two individwtls in tho dm about the actual titnlng of the Synod commission's vote to dlmolve C3f1'0Uton doe,,n't absolve the ISL of responsibflity. At the same February 17, 2009, PSL meeting where copies of 1hls Court's TRO were distnomod, influential PSL com.mi chair Lisa Easterling urged the Synod commission to use it:s new power o 1 Th; PSL'o "privilege log" liats '441 i1mri diet had not prmousjy bc<m dlscloicd. fubslutiaj majority or~ llfflllf conwt of~ hl\slnluloo of Carrolllon's ploadijlas find Diil u dlcy were~ bet-.i PSLCOUl.Sd&lldPSLco-conspimlor.i md tbe lrn'..missloo of-liv drafh of PSL ploodizlga ud memonutdo hi11gciieolell>d benweed PSL 0011nscl ail<! PSL "-'Plmton for l(l(l<41uiod lt\'lcw, edit, ud iltlalil&'jon. Of time <41 PSL ~ ap~1llllcly 110 or colll!diag of HDails,,.,..,. invoduced illtt>..videtice and llllde pan of the m:ord.

183 dissolutiol\ "()S a rneans to resolve thin,$$ with C,moUton". The PSL executive presbytec, Alan Cuner, was awqte of this and other commu.rrlcations where the Idea of d,issolving Carrollton fo violation of this Court's TRO WllS raised BDd, recommendod. The commission was designed to act, and did act, as tb PSL's surrogate. When acting lo violate the l'ro; the Synod Rdministrative commission said it was sctin_g "jg the Presbytery r:>f South Louisiana" and "in support of the '.PSl!' and "in orderto ac.cotnplish the stated ends of... the PSL," as 11cl:nowledged!Jr me oommission's own February 26, 200~~ letter. En globo nx. No. 7 (anttoduced on May 17, 2010). The actions o( the Synod administrative commission and the other participants in the broader conspiracy are properly imp'jted to the PSL; The PSL is solidarily liable for the Februmy 25, 2009, viohltion ofthiscoun's February 13, 2009, TRO. ll. THE SANC110N1MPOSE'D Sanciions 111ay be compensatory, punitive, rehabilitatlve. ed1.1catiomil 1 or any oombinahon!hereof. The court ls given wid.e latitude under C.C.P. art The court Is not required to impose the least se~ sanction. possible but is req\llred to impose the least severe saootion adequate to dew:r. Jn some 03Sell that may be punitive, in others rehabilitative, and so forth. In the present. case the least severe sanction adequate ro serve rho puiposc of article 863 is a compensatory sanction that will reimburse Carrollton for the rl'lgal ccst it has incurred subsequent to February 23, 2009 (the date the PSL first filed opposing pleadings in this matter}, less the fees and expenses that Carrollton incurred Jn sucgessfully obtain' remand from federal court This,court bas reviewed the invqioes subqlitted lo and owed by Carrollton and this amount totals $336, in needlessly in attorneys fees plus expenses as 11 direct result of san.ctionable conduct that w ) JiJolCIJll.. DISTFllOT COURT

184 E.. 1 eo:.n Rooo-P8"'h r.... or Cou": C!~82 OROER recurring and systemic to th.e PSL's opposition. Cam>Uton has also had to spend anolhct 16%, or $54,000.00, t.o seek oompensatory sanctions." The party in this ca!c, the PSL, may lawfully be lie.id responsible and "answereble in so lido" fut its own act& but also for all of the acts of those who oonspircd with it, which ectb are Jegally Imputed to the PSL under Louisiana Ciyil Codo Article '01e ooun can therefore impose a fully compensatory sanction again6t the PS!,, the named dcfend!lllt in this case, under Louisiana Code of' Clvll Procedure Article 863. ~ Louisiana Civil Code Article 2324, amended in 1987, provides: Liability as solidary or joint and divisible obugatioo A. He wbo conspires with BI10ther person to commit an intentional or willful act is BmWeI11ble., in eolido, with that person, for the dam11ge caused by such act. The 1987 llldcl'ldment rephrased the Jaw.in terms of "conspij'acy...21 Liabiliiy llndcr Article 2325 C8Il1IOf be imposed absent a oonspir.oy.u Oldor C8SeS hold th.at thooe who commit a wrongful act or nssist or enoourogo another are bound in solido for the damages oocasioned by its commission.'2 9 More recent cases discuss IJ1e involvemel\t in 1enns ofa conspimcy. The burden of proof under article 2324 require& a showing of agreement between the parties for tho purporo of " fl noted wp,_, the PSL dool' oot dlrpu~ the te111011abl1111un of me amo'lllll lncrumd by c.irnjll<m bul;h&t oo.ly di111wid wfl.cll<er ~llcns.re~ " Looisiano CXJlll(S bave 1Wlhoii.ly r.o hold n non-part)' lo wot!'lllpl. Seo,..Sll!Ua..l!i111ll1Uf a.ls So, 2d J , n. 9 (Le. 1986); Gnlwll! b>a. 200 La. 137, 7 So. 2d 6111 (1942); )JI Be Sl!C& ocnnblra 200'J \YI. ' {La. AJll'. l Cil'. S/13/2l)09); Jn tltt lp!fiat o{ M.A,A , p. 9 (La. APP. l Cir. 9n 7/04}, 897 So. 2d 42, ; Bllljgl..,,!lillkll (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/16101), COf So. 2d 423, 415; ml'd on oder~ {La. 1/23.I02), BIS So ; Al!l91lo!l..1(, Fjdellty Nlll'l'&nk Tl»!t 61~ So. 2d I I 70, 11"/:l {la /\pp. II\ Clr.51211'3). The remedl~c (or ~nklmpl by r.onp411ie& requirt ~ of perflepc 1111Jltipl1 Rult to Show Qruse 1111d conhalictoly cvldliniw::y llllmiag' mid with thcftl oppam.lllil)'!dr th!urtb.er multipfkllcion of pn>ceadiop 111d com. Set,. LL Code C.P. Ari. 2l5A. Jn the prcscat cuc lltcc.oun f; not holding a nonparty In C0t1!1:11tpt but I~ impwlnt 10 llit PSI.. th.. actloo1 or 118 ~ors pumuaat w La. Civil Cocte ArL S~n. tl&il fj!bs:qpntof!,,.osf re \1.. Aw-1" Cir. 2/14197),690$o.2d 11.4 (oitins La. C.C lllt {n<>ling1hoi the hrw ~ &om liability bdiig IJiuued by till ll!lhwr.j ~l lo ~> Gwidry v. Bmkgf!.&J'lp, 9'1-1751, p. 10 (La. App. 4~ Cir. 9n.sl9S), 661 So.2!1 )052. ~ K11Q!t1'. L!t!Oll, 81So.~d 1 14 (Lo. App. U Cir,!9S5) ! JU01CIAI. QSTR1CT COURT

185 commitd.qg wrongdoing, but evidence sufficient to show that rucb an agteement is in pljc:e can take the form of achlal knowledge (in the form of overt actions) or f11'oef of an lnferetjcc (drawn from the impropriety of lhe actions taken by the other con~j>r.itol's). The actioonble element or a conspiracy claim is not tllq conspiracy itself, rather, il is the wrongful act that the conspirators agree to perpetrate an~ acn.ally commit in whole or in part. w Simply stated, the unlawful act is the wrongful conn~?' The ''intenuonal Qr willful act" ll\l'lguage iu article 2324 has bel!o exlended to "Unethical uonduct arising lliklet Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure l;ij'ticile 863. Jn Ratcliff v. Boydell, 32 the Louisiana Fourth Circuit held in part that a foimcr client was CD.tiJled to recovery based on an attorney's W1ethical conduct premised on La. C.C.P. article 863 and La. C.C. aniclc Under article 2324, the court round that one of 1he lawyers was the ''principal actor" bu! found another lawyer in the firm solidaril)' li11ble because tho Other lawyer knew a d~ mstcd and did nothing to resolve il.u Ill the prcaent case, a conspiracy clearly existod. The PSL asse'rtcd on several occ11sioos that it acted at all times in concert with the Synod administrative colxllulufon and othcn in a "coordinated litigation effort"."' 'The J'SL and Syood representatives were heavily conspiring with, among otltc:ts, Mark Tammen, the PCUSA's Director of Constitutional Services in lhe Office of lhe OCllCnlt JO Thomn v, North 4(1 J:,;!udDiti:olt>pmedL l!!c 201! , :23 (La. App, 4 Cir ), 894 SoJd IJ60, 1174 (elridg Boss v. Conw. Jiu:. Z002!1m, pp. 7-8 (L.. IOM/O'Z), 828 So.2d S#, 5SZ; ~11_qyJ.~.!L 91 '166, p. 6 (Lt.Aw. I Cir. 4/Sr'98), 71GSt>.2d l 171, J t?~)). l: Cl!mlac Credit Corp. v, Wbii11cyN1f!R!!!lt, ~) P jd S53, SS7 (~di Cit. 1995). n,r.tlcllft'v. Boydell 93~\Sl {La. App." Cir, 4131')6}, 674 So.2d 272.,, The 1oli~ impo1ed by arncte 2324 caonot be used, lhoogh. to - puoitlllo dlln1se1 lpinlt a pmty baso<i cm the acls of oo-conspirt:un. To be nbjegt 10 punitive ~!!ff, tllcb cooonspltal(l(s l.idivlduel O<»ldt11l1 num!'all wlll>ln Ille ~ of!he app.llcahle penal "1.lttrte. J.!.9li!l.J:. Cqlpgo lt4; 20 ' {l4. 10/15102). 828 Su:2d 546. In U.G iu-nt - l:olvo.or, CllT'oltt0'1 ~ c:oinpcmmlary, not Pllllitive, sanarlons. " S., e.g.. Augn&t 27, 2009, PSL Mtmoc..idlm 81 p. 4; Scp.cmncr I 0, W09, PSL Memorandum 11 p. '2:; C>ao1-26, 2009,l'SL ~lopintcir.:ai1 For Stay md For &peclillld ea...o.jcno1ion llf'o 14 1 IOd; Nu C111bet ll, 201!1, PSL Writ A.PJ>llical:icn to the Lqufsima Supresue Co\111 *' p. 13.

186 As~cmbly at the denomination's Louisvill,e, Kentucky hcadqul.u'ter:s. A3 indicated in the "Privilege Log" of the 441 PSL documenta ( s) that the 1'SL event..ually produced in response tp this Court's September , and October 29, 2009, Orders, Mr. Tammen was,a sct1.dct or roclpient on approximately 398 of them. Th& relev;mt e mails (PSL docunlents) have been. excerpted and reproduced in Appendices A and B. They dqmonstratc with clarity a OOQspinicy not just to pmvn5 futly rlefy this court's Fllbrwicy , TRO but ~so reveal that thi$ violation ofthe TR.O was simply a 1ncans to facilitlrte s wider schciile or plan. The PSL has funded the oppositit:m to CG.1TOllton imd authorized Hs attonre)'s w act thrq'llghout on its behalf. Tho PSL pleadings and mo,m()j'allda, not only coni:.aln mujtitile di,scre!(: offenses but also intrinsic deficiencies that are.d.t the i:oot of the PSL 's arguments', thot taint everything that springs from them and are s~emic to the PSL ;s opposition. Bec:.ausc-0fthis «inspiracy the actions of all are legally imputed to the PSL L111dcr Article Accordin~Jy, this oourt ordels a ~pi;n~atory san~tion ot's39.0,000,00, llf, R.ESCINDJNG PROTECTIVE ORD~R This court is grannng Carrollmn's Motloi! ro Modify an4 Rescind its prior December 4, 2009, 'OrdM wwcj:i has kept tbe PSL docuptents under seal until ru>w. ContinuC<i secrecy of these fotjuer discoverr documel)ts. that subsequent t.o the. court's December 4, 2009, Order ~re in'tl'oduced into evidence. and discu.ssed in open court on May 17, 2010, is not warranted. 1be PSL never moved tor clostll'e of the N1ay 17, 2010, hearing -0t1 Carrollton's motion ror sanctions. Absent a motion for clo\jlll't\ and closure order, an~ one could have ~~d into tbe cou.rt:rqorn and heard everything as the PSL docw:nents were discussed in dett\il. Thost same 48 1~ JUOICIA~ OISMIO'tCOURr

187 P~SUot ~~ PSL documents have also been discus.sed with pmticutarlty in these Written Findings Md Reasons for Judgment.~' The court believes its Finding.i an<! Reasons shoulcj be public ab!!eni an overriding oodstitutional interest..h.ece the PSL has not alleged any constitutional interest wt instee.d o:ffered policy reasoos for IXlntinucd closure. If sanctions-related briefs ere filed wjth the First Circuit and oral argume11t is held on llppeal, the court cannot envision that appeal briefs would be tiled under seal wid the First Circuit copjtroom clc:arod of all spectators for oral argument. N01 can this court envisioo similar secrecy concerning any &MctionsreJated writs of certiorari that might be tiled with the Louisiana Supreme COUI1 or related oral argument. Such is the logical extimsioo, though. of the PSL's argument for continued secrecy at this junctwe, after tho documanl.9 have beeu flied lcto the suit rcconi. incrodu.ced into eyjde11ce. anrl discussed in open court,!ill without In UJguing for coofidenliality, the PSL emphnsized du11 the "meotal impressions, cooc!usions, opinions, or theories of any attorney" are protected by the work product privilege and shall not be subject to production or inspection, oiling La. C.C.P. art. l424a. l'he PSL also noted the.. well,acccptcd rule tb11t wort product protection i.s not waived by its disclosure to third parties." However, tile pro1ection affi>rded work PJOduct documents is not uruimited. la Hodges y,.s.!ll&t.~ Flllll1 Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 4.33 So.2d 125 (La. 1983}, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that this privilege is "qualified." The Hodges court said, "'The trial collrt has the discretion to order the production of a writing prepbji:d in anticipation of trial if it i& convinced that the denial of production 'Will unfairly 11 l1'e1'sl ~ lbzt wm illibally tsaied"""" 11i1.a ~uborlttod.. filed. and inln>duced mlo ffideou ' lcjy in COllJlection Wllh dje Ml.)' 17, hearing Oil c..r.othofl's '111Ctla.! fbl Jftlltdooi. l1ao C rt was oot privy II> the IXllllenb of1htae J'SL ~ llnd did DOI n:ly on ti-. whee &Jllllflns llllllmll)' juolpicn! oa Doce~ 4, 2009, in favor of Camllllon ii> IM undettyiq pl'oj)ony ~. 49 IOI!! JliOICIAL OtsTlllCT CO\Jf\T

188 prejudice the party see.kioi; the production or inspecuon in prepbl'ine, his claltn or defense or will cause him u.ndue hardship or injustice."' Hodges llt lj 1. Sec also, Land.is v. Moreau. n9 So.2d 619, 697 (La ). In ~ the Supreme Court beld that the ''Work product" docwnents-. even if Ibey were prepared by a lawyer in ~11Dtic:ipation of Jitigation" or in «anticipation of trial," should be produced becauae "the non-production of the documents would unfairly prejudice Hodges in preparing his claim.'' 433 So.2d at 13 l. The Court then foll!ld that the second part of La. C.C.P. art. 1424A. which protects the opl.niom of counsel from disolosu.rc, wu inappuc<lble based on the evidlltitc presented.. Here, however, in both hearings held before this court, there was no evidel\ce imiscnted by the PSL tc> cstnblish that any of the 441 withheld PSL documents listed in the Pri\l!Jegt Log came within too protection of 1he wwk product privilege. The party see)(ing to ovoid production under La. C.C.J'. art "bears the burden of proving" Chat the requirements to establish lhe privilege sre met.~ ~ 344 So.2d 95.3 (La. 1977); Turner v. Winn Dlx:!e Louisiana. Inc So.2d 1070 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988); Sasso v. National Union Fire Tns. Co., 689 So.2d 742 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1997); <;argill. Inc. v, c.emootatioo Co. of Amcricy, 377 So.2d 1334 (La. App. J Cir. 1979). At no time, hqwever, during the two hearings by this court did the PSL attempt to present any evidence that any oftbe 44 1 w.ithheld PSL documents contained any "mental impressions, conclusions, opiniollll, or ibcorics of an attorney!' The PS:C. siropiy asked this co1,rl to accept at fooe value the assertion that eveey one of the 441 documents listed on the PSL's Privilege Log reflect the ''mentnl impressions, oonolusions, opinions, or theories of an lllt(lmey." The Privilege Loi Itself is Dot evidence that estzblishes the requirements of eny 50 19th JUD4C1111. OtS'TRICr COUFIT

189 privilege. The 441 PSL doc\un~ts do not qualify for protection \fllder either the wotk product or attorney client privil~ge simply because ihe PSL typed 'those Jabels ihlo a column,on Ute fu right of tt Ptivilege Log. 36 Uie court note5' that most l)f the 44 t PSL documents initially withheld by the P.SL as!lllegedfy prmleged were ttuthored by lawyers who rcpresei)t clients ether ttian the P$l, and who are not "patties'' to tbe$e proceedings. No one can question Chat 'the work product privilege belongs to tile la-wyer wh(lse work ptoduct ls at inue and/or his cliejtt and not lo.fhe lawyer/recipient of ihe.document - but tiot one of the la~.t's or their clients li*d 38 the authors on most of the 441 PSL do.cuments {other thlul the PSL and its lawyer, Mr. Duniap) came furward to claim a privilege as to any ofule doclltnents. The PSL also argu~ thi the protection Mfonied by La. C.C.P. rttt. 1'424A is< Dot waived by disclowre to thiro parties, but,fhis is not absolute. The Jaw~re!l there to be some attempt and intention tc;i maintain the confidentiality ofthe wqrlc prodµct shared with other:; for tile privileg~ to be rnaintamoo. Despite two separate heiu'in~ on the production of these PSL doe'ublenls, at no time did the PSL attempt to esta'f>j!sh that these aommunlc.ations were kept confidential by anyone - the PSL, its lawyers or their COl)lnrunicants, Boyd. v. SL Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Oo_, 71~ So (ta, App. 3 Cir. 2000) provides 8dditional reasons why the PSL documents arl} not privileged. Boyd beus some s~arityto Carrollt.on's. c:jairns for san~ti.ons agail;l!!tthe PSL for oollaboratin_s. with Others on 11 litigation stjategy designed tq test the 2o+member oongre.gation's financial ability to litigato this case ag!linst tbe. combined financial 16 'The PSL'!! Pri\lllege tog is oxhiblt.no. 2-lo Cmuliton's ()Q(ober 12, 12-00!1, Mcti'Oll lo Modicy l11(: S()(lfimlhcr 22, 2009"Qn!i;:r. 51 ll!l!l JUlllCIAL OISTRIO! OOUF11

190 resources of the PSL, S)'llod md PCUSA &Jd their JO lawyers3 7 In Boyd, the plalatiffs alleged thl!1 the defendants co115pired to deprive them of a te(:overy from the Patient's Compensation Fund by agreeing with the medical malpta.etice insurer to offer less than it& policy limits of $100,000. The plalntifil alleged that documents the defendimts claimed were protected by the work product privilege were needed to show dishonesty and a conspltaey to undermine the ttuth-s~king process. Boyd held that the pen<>n upon whom!he woclc product prlvil-ege is confejted "may not invoke it for the purpose IYf cotmnittiiig 11 orime. fraud, ot tmt" citillg United Siare.<1 v. Kelly, 569 F.2d 928 (U.S. s" Cir. 1978). In the words.of the Court, "Otherwise, a client could conceal l:iis illegal (or tortuous) dei:d merely by disiclosing it to h.is attomey or u:~mg the attorney es aq emissary to pcmct it.''!!2if! at 65:S. Notwithstanding that' no evidl".nce WllS introdllced to suppon a claim of privilege. the PSL atg.ltes that ClirroUton initially stipulated to a protective order to keep the PSL documents under seal. In fact, tho\lgh, no stipulation ~er became o~c. Counsel mutually agreed that any proposed stipulation would be Sl.lbject to the conourtaice of their clients. If both clients concurred, tbero would be an be n.o agremmml The PSL dcclineid to concur. Th.e December. 4, 2009, Order memorialized and reiterated this oourt's October 22, Order that kept in place this court's September 22, 2009 Protective Order. The several OOlnJlC!ncn!S of the oourt's multi-faceted, September 22, 2.009, Order were Intended to work ill collective, complementary fashion to tnJIJOICIAL DISTRICT COUR1

191 CHI Ooton Ro"11e Pon h Clcl1< o! Co1J11 C~~'2 ORtlER P"J 5~ of 5g resolve multiple pending discoveiy disputes. A major oomponent of tlm September 22, 2009, Ordct- was 1o requin:!he PSL lo produce all of lhe documents that Carrollton had subpoenaed "within six hotlrs" (as agreed t.o by file PSL bccousc the depositioo to be Ween by C.arrollton of the PST, wu scl\eduled to begin the following m.oming). The PST, did not ollject-but then it breached that Order. Thls court later held the PSL Jn contempt The PSL can't breach one oomponenl of thls court's multifaceted Orda W1d elcpeot 1he couri lo maintain all other components, such e.s sea.ling, wheo those componon1s we~ designed to constitute a coordinn.ted, compromise approach to facilitate the molution of multiple discovery issues. The court further Dotes thet the September 22, 2009, Otder sreoifically said that its breaah oould result!lot only in a finding of collteropl bul in the Imposition of penalties. Such a penalty can include tho withdrawal of the ptotective order component. CarroUtoo bas met the legal ~dar<! of good caljs6 shown for the modification or withdrawal of 1he protective order. Additionally, another legal standa?d applies that tbe PSL h~ not satisfied. Upon introduction ioto evidence, the burden shifted to the PSL to make a ooustillltiona!ly-n:qu.ired showing why the protective order component of this court's December 4, 2009 Order!lhould not be withdrawn. The PSL failed to mill that showing. The PSJ. documents that have been inttoduced Into evidence arc no longer simply "di$covery materials''. The cases the PSL pre-viou.sly cited in support of continued secrecy pertained to dlscovei:y materials Md, if p.rtviously apt, no longer are. On May L7, 2010, Carrollton introduced brto evidence approti.mat.ely 70 of the.so-called Privilege Log docwnmm (which the collrt is refming to withe "PSL documents", since the court ruled they are oot privileged 8.1\d do not qualify for a common interest doctrine l'c<'.ogni.zed by Louisilllll ~ _.

192 courts). 38 T:lie same day the PSL introduced int<> ~vldence airotlier 40 of the PSL db«'u.lllents, Upon fuel.r introduction Into evldel'l\je ll Flrst: Amendment right of the well es~l isbed, constitutionally required ptesuro.ptie)lt of public access lo court re001ils, the c.ourt concjud_es that it cannot keep those do~uments soaled Ullless the PSL m_et a constitutionally-required burden of showiog ~ 1) that> irttei-r:sts of a constitutional weight mulct be jeopardized -by dlsclo$urej 2) alternatives to se~ hav:e been considered by the court- and foupd Un!lvailirtg, and_; :3) seaiitig wmtld b" effective to protept the constimtlonal interests that disclosure- would 011leJ11vise Jeopru-dize. In opposing <lisclosurec, though, the PSL did not ajlege a constiojttonar right that would be je~zed by disclosure, Tile }'SL instead Qffer _~ a "'policy ' c-0psideretion".3'!- This court bad not revjewed the 4,0QQ Pst. documents when the Protective Order was inifiatly issued on September 22, 2009, reiterated on Oerotier 22, 2009, a.nd memorialized on December 4, Review by thls: court ofthe docul)lel1ts at issue only occurred well 11ftw'tho First Circuit's N:ovember 12, 2009, 'denial of the l'sl'~ Writ A-pp!icatJon and Carrollton!Ind.the, PSL subsequently submittl.'4 l 10 af the 441 PSL documents listed in the :frivilege Log into ~idence at the May 17, 2010, hearing on Carrollton's motion for sanctions. The couit IJ_as now rcv;e-...oo the 110 PSL- doc:ume11tq inll'o<lui;ed into evic:fonce -and concludes that 31 Th~~ rejec!w the PSL's claimed attomcy<lie11i and wort product lks~aiions e1t lheiie documents jlll,j the PSL'$ colbllli)ji mwreot" th"4jtf w~ the co11rt <limiod the I'Sl:s MOlio.a Ul Qlwlgb Cmollton's subpoena duq=; leeum. The PSl.., liowe~er. di.sregllfded this court's deoision when tho PSL Sllb~rttlyrcfbs~to Pf'O(IUi;i!1»dilcurocnts u <;micrcd Md in$a.:i li*d-441.jowmcots ia 1,flivllegc; ~ - l9 The 1'.SL argn~s thal colllilluiog die pruu:clim onkr un~r llie. ~~t pn:mrtw would "~ 1he ~ey and vcllllllary producilon cf do01lllleill$". fji dli.s ~, Jiow_,,, dte J>SL bi?.< 001 ae~ wli:h!'ffici"1tcy or displllcll to Ylltu1111lrily prodl!ee OOcunlieni&. Tlf Ille ~OJlll'llty,!be dc<:ull)ejl!s '4 isaue W1'fO pan of uw FS!/3 so-qjled 4 Privilog:e L<ig" lhllt lhe E'SL lnr~ in w o110rt not w vohmtorily ptt>duc~ doeumonta, in conil2npt' Df1l1b Co11rt'11 September 22, 2-009',. order. Keeping 1ll' ptl>lccii\'e <mlet in plllcci u1tcler theae citcumsl:!nea v:oo1<1 mo111rd COCltelllJ>h!Oll8 behavior JVDICl.lll DISTRICT <:OUR'!'

193 they present no in~'!t of coostitutional weight that would be jeopardized by disclosure. RathL't, the rea.~on the PSL waoo; to keep under seal the documents that have bfien filed with the clerk, introduced into evidence, and discussed in open court is hecause the PSL is concerned that unsoaling may create opportunity for wider public dissemination which could put the PSL in a poor light. The PSL has so stated ij,1 memorao~ it su!mll~d to tbi.s. court. Continued sea.ling, however, cannot be justified on the basis of Sl'eculative, anticipafocy arguments. Nor is this a comtitutioruil inten:st. There is no objcotivcsly reaaona.ble expectation of privacy in communications ~11.t reveal a plan and scheme to engage in sanctlon11.ble oonduct or ui be protected from potentially negative public reaction to one's own wor<k or deeds. Continued sealing would only cloak evidence of egregious misconduct by the PSL See Appendices A and B. The PSL's only rebuttal to!he.first Amendment presumption of publio llcccss has been to cite to a federal dibtrict coun ddcision from North Carolina, Lonman v. Food Lioo. Jnc.. 1&6 FRD 331 (N.D. N.C. 1999). The faets in ~are vecy different &om the facts in thls case, and the holding in Lon&man ls closely tfod to its Jacls. Longman recognizes the Pim Amendment rig.ht of ncces& that atta1;hes to documents that are part of the judicial record. LongJ!lan at 334. The court in Longman. 1hougb, declined to enforce that First Amendment right ot access becaosc, in the case. before it, ~the Plaintiff agreed to the Order (and) ~iled to object to confidentiality designations.. ft Louman at 334. Under those ei.rcumstances lhe Longman court held that the plaintifi' was estoppcd from raising access arguments that it had "bargained away. Longman at 334. In the present case, though, no operative 5tipulation. was ever agreed to by the parties. Cmulltoo also timely objected to the PSL's confidentiality de$igna.tions, ns not

194 qll81l.fyi.og for ilill work product or atromey-cliea~ privilege that ibc PSI. bs.d asserted waii a basis fur confidentiality. Jn the present case, noae of tht: 110 PSL documents nt issue pertain to the i:if:fondant's trade secreu., cmifidential buslness infonnation, or oommwlicaticm that qualify by evidentiary support fur a.ttomey-dient privilege: or work. producl protection or otherwi~ qualify for a c(!!111tlon-interest doctrine recognized by Louisi1JJ1a courts.. At the OC\IJber 22, 2~. bearing lhls court said It would likely lift the protective order at the cone fusion of "the trial'', October 22, 2009, Transcript at p, 56, 40 The oourt has now ruled on the merits ofcaqnllton's motion for sanctions 11nd, having rulcd, the court js now lifting fhe protective order as to the PSL docwncjlls mtrpduced into evidence 1111d to any documents iliac discuss them. JV, CONCI,USJON The PSL has acted with comemptuous di&reghi'd for civil authority and bus violaled La. C.C.P. art Despite the PSL's attempts to justify {even "slightly justify") its actions nnd arguments in this case, its a<'-tlotls are indefensible and its legal argwnents are frivolous or directly contrary to the undisputed facts and 10 wd.1-cstablishcd law. The PSL bas not offered good faith argument for I.hi: exlension, modification, or rever:s11l of existing Jaw. 1'lw PSL had ieasonable opportunity to make inquiry ~d knew or should have known tbnt iii opposition fd Tho!'SL applie4 for ca:pfo.ilted Slfp<:rlil~ry writs t'tcm dlls Cotft' Seplcmbcr 22,,2UU9, llld ()cb)ber 22, 2009, ruliap lhet compelled pro(luc\ion of the PSL documents. In denying. 11>111 lllrit l(lpljcatioo on No~-em'ber 12, 2009, the First Clrellfi: lloted tllc Sepa:mbcr 22nd llld Oe1ober lldd ndlngs _..,"prior iatcdoouraiy 1'1U1lSJ' tllaf may~ reurged by The Prwsb)-t ry of Salllb Lwfai- ill ooqjimcrion wllb any fut\ft appcol of a final jll:lgnt,mt i>~ Ille m ~ BeccJte tho J>Sl. d0!\u1nelll$ oo1. relied Dll by tbis i:oart in its Dccem.beir 4, gr8llt of~ j\idgmeot to Qitroll.lon but Wlstt Clllly 1ubccqucntly ~nbmitted. flied. and l!riroduced l.aio evidence ill COllllCdion 11o'itb ftie May I?, 2010, beerin& on Carrolllon'& motioo for sanctioru, tile Fim C-in:uil'$ l<:fr:rcncc to a "f'ij\ll Jw!gcnc111 on merits' -:;orily refon lo my Ori:loc by llm wan~ ti... merit& of CAnollt1 11'' rootloo fo ~

195 was not well-grounded in fact and did not and would not have evidentiary support. All n:levant documents were in the PSL's possession the dily ~u.it was filed. Tue PSL wos told eady on by the den.omination's top legal authority that he saw no way for the PSL to pn:vail 1be PSL iiutead choye intransigent opposition. There is ample evidence in the record to support a compensatl'lry sanction evm without reference to the PSL docuiil'9flt.e, but those PSL ( 0 Privilege Log~) <loc:um611ts continn that the PS.L's p leadin~, defenses, and arguments were inoorposed to bara!is, cause unoecesslllj' delay, and needlessly incro11.~e the cost oflitigation. A fuuy compensatory 3anction of S390, is justified by I.he truly exceptional The cowt is vczy mindful that parties have tho right to their day in Court-to present po.pen and mguments th.al are weu grounded in fuct afkr rcuonable inquiry and wazranted by existing law or a good thlth 11.1gument for the extension. modfficl.ltions or roversa.i of existing law, and not interpo8ed for 411 improper purpose such as h~sment, delay or an lilcrease in the cost of litigation. In this coso, howover, the pertinent facts were well known to oll parties before the PSL filed its first paper or made its first argument m this case. ln fuct, they were never comested. The existing law goveming this cue is i:jear, rletennincd by the bighe.rt colll1s in thia state and this nation 8J\.d ~ettled for thirty years. Based on the loeality of the reoorc1 in these prooc:cdinga. e.od for the ~ns set forth herein, thls Court fmds that the PSVa defense of this case mn11 its inception violates the provisions of La. C.C.P. ert Accordingly, sanctions are impoged herein, in accordance with the evidence presented at the bellring od thls Motion far Sanctions against the PSI' ordering payment to c.a.ronton in ~ amowt 0 $390, Additimuilly, Csrrollton's Motion to Modify or Withdraw 57 llllt>juoicial DllTRICl COURT

196 F'ag8 Sil of59 the September 22, 2009, Protective Ol'der, prevfousj:y deferred until a later time in this court's December 4, ;?009, Order, ls now granted. The eourt's prior $ealing of the 110 PSL documents introduced into evidence and of any documents that discuss them is rescinded. Signed In Baton Rouge, Louisiana this 18th day of July, TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FILF D JUL i5 Z013 ~ Y. CLERK OF COURT CERTl"'ll=D :'frl:le AND CQ~RfOCT' COPY ' JUN '{}ll. 201\ 58 I 11t1 J\IO!Cw. D4S't!llCT COUR'f

197 CERTIFll::D TRUE AND CORRfCT COPY APP~IXA Cbrnoolney of TRO Vinlatio11 ADril U. 20Q8. The PSL Council (executive committee) wrote a lcnt!i" to tile Syood of the l)ull Council ll~kiog that ii appoint an acltninistrati~-c commis~1on, Lnter lhnt month the Syno<l ditl so, but did nor glve it power to assume all of the PSL's ofiginal jurisdlcrion uodor <.;h~er vm of the.boo!.:. of Order to attempt enforcement lhe di!l]>uted trust cl11.use. l.nslcad, tl1e AdmilUsl.rlltivc comh'\ission left 1l1e PSL's allcged authority to ai;i in the fim ill81bncc i11 plact>- hut r~q u i~.d that ar.y J>SJ, decii;ions pe:rlaini.ng. to properry thei' be subntitteo1 IQ the adminisj:ratlvo oomml1tslnt1 for r.pprovel 10 order ro purportroty be elfi:ctive; Jsru111ry In ~1 e-ruail from the PSL Cow1cil P1oder11tor, Harry Brown, to top PClJSA 111wyer Mnrk. Tammen, copi:od 10 PSI, executive prtsbyter Alan Curter tmd to Rupert Tu:ncr, the moderator OJ co-moderator of the S~ no<l1s odmillistrl!tive commis9ion, Rev. Brown said, '''\\"hat we (tile PSL o:ixecutive committee, aka Co1.111cil) thiuk would be the best co1ittic ii to iake original jl.!risdiotiub a.nd teplace rbe scssioc, lire the attorney the church bu hired (Lloyd Lunsfonl} (~ic), lll!d trillaer proceed with 1he sale of the pcoperty, or'lhere ~ o remote possibility ofredcvclqping it." PSL O~O; Etffi Febru11m ~O!>. C11m10ton received nou.ce of Che PSL's PcbrUllt)' 17, 2002, meeting agc:nds which included a motion to appoint aaothec adrninisttative commi~ion. this time by the PST. dircclly, to take over ($SSU!Jle original jurisdiction of) CnrrolJton. lf sucb. o motiou we.re adopted. the PSL would be ijl a position to do what Rev. Brown suggested i11 his J111111ruy 18, 2009, 1eanovc lhe session, seize Cazrollton's proputy, tire: Canolh.oo's auomey, mul!hen t11m 8t<Jund nnd file a motion o dismiss Cm oll1on's 0\\''11 suit; Ubr!!MV Qt. At lhe requesi of the Synod a.dniiwstmlivc commi>ston, th11 Synod of the Swi ga'rc i L~ administrative commission (originally appointed. in Apri~ 2oog), expanded authority to as.sume a limited ponlon of the PSL 's authonty to dis90lvc churcbes; February 13, In rcspons<" to rccehing POti~ of the PSL 's Fe&nw-y 17, 'l009, 11g.-uda. a~ w~ll il~ ~ Synod administrative commiss5on s cxj)wlded auilionty, C111TolllOT1 SQught 11Dd obraincd a T'empornry Rcsnaining Order from thi~ O()UI\. The 1".RO cxrressly prohibited di~solvin_g Carrollton Prcsbytecian Churcli imd S'leot.W tm1 the TRO ~h311 be effective against 1hc Pl"Clsbywry of South' Loll.isiana, its offccrs, Ogtruls, cmployo:cs, e.nd counsel, and any persons ln active oonc orparticip;!lion wilh ir. on i1s-behal f, or lo lt~ stead"; 1! bl'uf!l1' 17, l0!19. The PSL convened, with fow' members of the Synocl Admlni.~tnulve. cc'olnlisiion present A cop)i of this co\ire'i; TRO Wl1S dilibibored to all those lo :iuet1dlll:loc and 11:\e PSL's cxecuuve presbyter, Dr. Curler, ann 1U11ced (be TRO from the pulpit. Rov. EfarsQh, the "stnled supply pastor'' for CairoUton, sllt Jlext to the Syno~ lldniinist:retivc commission comodc'l"aj.or, Rupett Talmcr, at this PSL meeting and they dlsc\isllcd the 'TRO. Soc Mnrch 2, 2009, trnn=ipt nt pp. 19, 20 (testimony of Rev. Har.«ih) add I.he Ml.U"Cb 3, 2009, trllll!cript at pp. 202 (testic1ony of o~. Cutter). Thl~ COlllt' s l'ebl"llary J3, 2009, '11l0 UlOOlCO we proposed [llo\ion that had been lloliced on the l'sl's agcada Co appoit1t a direct PSL admini5tr"tive commi~sion to talce over Ct11rollton, wd SCltbat motion,vru; nev~ majo. See March , transc:ript at p. )91 (telltimony hy lli. Cutter); hbruarv 25, Wilh: the full knowledge of thls cowt's TRO, I.he Synod udnri~tnlfive conuoi.sllion, actiog ''for" the PSL, "in supporl of the l>::>l" and "in otder to accompli:dl the s1a1od ends of- the l'st. ~ w eed lo dissoke Cattolllu.u. Dr. Curter mul the PS l.' ~ ~wed cle?jt. Mr. Dottomly, 1$i.lied they did nol leam of the Synod admllilitlrative con:uniitsaon's vote to d1mtve Carrullton Wltil aftec it bappe11ed. Dr. Cutia, bowcvec, bad been privy to prior ~mails wt=re c!w ulutiun bad been l'llised aod Urged. S«e.g.. PSl l S8. Dr. Cuue.i receh ed e phooc Clil 111ound 4.30 or 5:00 r.m. onfebnwy25, 2009, from Rev. Rich Schcmp, R memberofthe Synod adml:nistnnivc conuniss1on, who informed him of what the Synod comm1~ sion did. Mr.

198 CERTIFIED TRUE ANO - CCRRECT COPY Buumuly rcci:ived i; plume call Uw followins day ftom another Synod co1djd.1ssion member, Gordon Edwud.s, informing bim of wha1 the Synod did the previous d11y Both D1. CUl1.cr 2.Jl<l Mr. Bottomly wcro aslct:d 001 to cdl anyone about the Synod ujmidi>"crabw cor:nmi~ion's vidllltiou of this Courr'.s!RO. They agreed. See Mi.Kl\ '.l, 2009, 1ranscdp1 al pp l (lcstimqdj of Dr. Cutttt) and Mardi 2, 2009, transcript ~\ pp. \J-16 (testimuoy of Mr. Do!tornly). l'sl cowl!!el infotmed CarroUIXJn'.s counr.el nf lhe Synod cojnmissiou's e.ction on Stwd.'ly evening, March J, 2009; l'11bruan: 26, l.009. Mr. Gordon Edwards, of the Syood udrttin~rotlvc.:ummh"i100, <lutes a. len.cr!o PSL stilted clerk WUJiam Bottomley and CarrolltOn clink; Mary Kos6 10 Qiyc 11fficfal no1 ice of the Syi:iuci i:.onimid11ion's February 25, 2009, vote to dis.mlvecarrolltou. 'J"hi~ lctlawl!ji only rec11ivl;lt.\ by bolh int~nded. rwipienls Sometl.tne ~ubscquent r.o Maccb 3, This Jetter mies tluit iu votiug to dissolve Carrollton the Syuod adiniuistrativc commission was actin~ "for t:be Prellb)'t.ery of South Louisillilll" and "in support of the PSU 1111d "Jn order lo accornplish!be Slated ends o(... the PSL.'' March z Al the hear~ oo Csr1 0Hto11' s 'J'ctition for Preliminary 1njll1lCtion, the PSL's lead New OrJeans attomey aclcnowledged that the Syo.od oommisslon blew about the TRO but dooided lo v\olatc it anyway. In response to this court'& quesuon ebou( wl1111 lhe S>=d commission could have: IJ=i 1liinkiug, the PSL ~ aitorney rep.lied, "Well illey had o copy of my Memorandum that says you dnn't have subjec;l rnatler juri!ldictfon... This culloqu_s; occurred in ciwnbcjs. When proceedings were convened in oprui court lhc PSL'& anomcy 1curgcd this ergumeat. He assened that ihis ooun Jacked sul)jeet inaner jurisdlcti.on to do Mythlog Rboul The violatiua of i l.5 own mo bect;use the Synod c.ornmission had been actina Meoolc::>iasticany. I See Much 2, 200~. lmnscript, Volume '2 II pp 10, n: 24, 25. The l'sl ~ liltomey di.stmiced himself and the PSI. ft<jm lbr Synod, <11guing timt he did 001 ~rese11t the Syood, lh.tt he only rqm: eoted the PSC., tlial \he S:i-nod violated the TR.0 iuw aol tho PSI, aod lbal the PSL lwl no poor knowledge of what tho Synod was v,oing to do. See Mlirch 2, 2009 Ttanscciptat pp. S-7: September 14, 21M>9. Se--.\1 disputed ciscovery-rela!l!d motiotl!l filed by both sides were l\c:ard aero~ co.11vening in open roun this ooun met with o.ll tollll el in cbambeij, at which rim" disc11,~~ion ensued co=ning the "conunon interest doelrin('" Jbe PSI. WM allrging us ll b11sis for withholding production of docuolcat!. The PSL's lead New Orleans 1>11.tJrne-y e.ttempl.cld lo explal n wby be \\llls not beini inconsistellt wheo he os.-e11ed on lhe one hand that the Synod and the PSL acted io ooucc-.rt in the de&nse oflhe litigation while 111 the same lime he hud disclaimed an)' PSL responsibility for the vio)fflion of this Court's TRO. After lb.is cowt told the PSL' N1ow 01 lut1r al1orney, "You have t1;1 pick a sido," be replied thal '') dmj't reprt$cl'lt lh.e SyoQd in this Utigatimr" ~.1.1tl "I 'don't n1preseal the SynoO with rupcct 10 the TN.0." 1bosr. caveata trig&ered questlous by Carroll!On coun!ioi. Mr. Groves <l!!k\:d Mt. Dunlop, "AJe you saying. Johll. that you repmc:nt lbe Synod in other maloo!"!i?" After pausing, Mt. Ounlnp snid, "Yes: Mr. Dllokcp uddcd that he lbought it would be the :Synod'! undersmndiug, if ii were al!j;ed, that he hh.d been its lawyer a.lld had advised it llbout this fa.wl>llii at le3st up until Marc)l l,

199 GERTIFIEDIRUEAND CO RREC T COFY APPENDIXJl Sclet:ttd. PSL ("Pr'1'111!ge Lui;('') Ooi:q1aenllf Coo.:t!rning. Prior Knowledge and Conspiracy to Violate the TRO l'sl ~14 PSL 416 l'sl 539 PSJ. 540 PSL 544 PSl 549 Ftbrnw &.m<t.il from jessicayarnall@weil com' to J. Dunlap, M. 1'awmcn and 1ip :Jins;\@w~il.e-0m. Ms. Yam-all ask~<l Mr. Dun.lap to set up a conference-call so the)' Cllll distlllss sij;ategies for hr,iw to rr.spqnd to lhe febn1arv l l'ro. fi:brum 17, 1009 TI-mail from rjp.flti:~t(.?jv.<ci l.co01 to John n1~ and JernC11 Yarnall offeri.ng ideas about how to argue uncoilstltlltiuna! seci.ilar coun e.dtangje.inent io!.o ~ccles.instiesl dispule8. Mr. Fin~l also attaclie.~ 11TI i!ltervi;ntioo motion th111:!he California synod bad prcvlously used which Mt'. f 1M1 s11ys ' 1 coujd prove useful depclldin on the Synod of the Sun's dec!siop. Fcbruan E mllil from John Dunlap lo tf_p,finst, M. Tammen aiul J. Yarnall. Mr..Dunlap says that "The presbytelj' has the riglu tl'.t c11tend the effectiveness of.the 1 RO and hi!s re.quested that I do!hut Rnd get the PI hewing dale resohedulcd ~tho A c time to get r<:lidy," {"Ac" refcl:li to the Synod acllllini ;<;trlllivc conunittet'.) Fcl>hlm 18, 2009 t.:-mail respolllib ~ Mark Tammen. Mr: Tl!m!Dm opposes tho PSL seeking or awceing to an e xteru.~011 of the 'ffio. He <lsks Mr Dunla11 from whom he Is gctrlng pn:~ at tluo PSL level t c;i extmd lho TR() ot ~gree to a p1efonioncy injunction. Mr. Tammen offers to call!hem ilnd s.et them stralgbl,, to icll them ths.t any diregtiv6 by the client pr S.bytery to rts own lawyu lo llgree 1.0 llli ex'tleusioll of tll1:1 TRO ur to llie.prelimi1llll'y iqj11nctio11 \Vuuld (purportedly) b;; beyond the presbytery' s author!.~. Febrvm 13, 200lJ, l\i!r. 'l'amroen ~Elin e rna.ils Mr.. f)-,inlap, i;>.1i, Jlinsl11Ud Mr. Y ru:nall and sbltes, ''Wlthollt 21 very ~gre!>llive re,soou.<oe to th.is bist blan li\jm 1.\medQla. 1 don't see how we can expect 111 orevnil at the weliminl!i)' level or the final de!glninaiion." (The "last blast from 1,unceford" 11un M,. Tammen refers to ia Carrolltoo's Ameru:le.d Pt:tition for '!"RO, Prclimi11ary l11j1111ction, Pem1anen.t Jo~tfou, and Docla.ratory JlldslllC'<ill, with Affidavit and Supplem.elllal Memorandum in SiJW(lri f'tlej on February l '.l'bi!! court later rulci,i tblll CarroU(t>Q b3d sbown a subslal!tia.i UkelihMd oj' prevailing on the 111crhs 1t11d granted c.ai:rollr.on 11. prel.imi.nary injlulati.oo tllld, in. oue course. a perm\lnelll injunction and d~lnnrtory judgmeol:.} Feb1'l:lm J &om John D~ lo Made Tammen, R.ip Fiest and Jessica Yarnall c~singml.jl.'l\d lilp ' s plc!j9ul'~ that 1hc Synod administtati.vc. cgnuniss!on obtained putbority ro djssolv_e cn~bes but eypressing frustratl<m tba,t the Sv.nod ajministzatiye commission bad been coo 0nssive so for ill viewing tbe PSL as still being primary and tlle S) nod commis~ion ooiy!l()ocmdary ootwilhstandlng the C;Omni.ission' s cxpawkd authority tn dissolve J;hurches wi1hin 1he PSL. Mr. Dunlli:p tclls,his recipients thal tbc Synod co111 n1:ts~ion had said to him tbjl! the S}'nod omnmission would only e.~erci:;~.ils aut11ority 10 d.lo;solve cburclies in an e-~treme situation. ~ l'sl 114. a F~ M ~. Ya:rncll, Mr. Fins1, Mr. COlt., Mr. Loe, aoq Mr. Lumi:ih, all of whom ere li~~ as eiiher e mail sender.i -0r rf.cipi~uts on tilt> J>SL's l)ri~il11ge l-0g", are attomeyi; wjt!l lhe Weil, Goisbal & M:mge~ Jaw firm that h;u; over 1,200 lawytts at:ro&s 20 ojrux:& woildwide, 'l'hc ' iru!icote 1i\m: tll<.> Weil C.k'lshal linn was ad> iring Mt. T!l!nt11cn of lhe PCU'SA's Office of Gener~! Asselllbly concwnjng tl1e is6ues raised ill tltll> c.as<>. The fuu e111en1 of theu ijwotvemcnt sud Mi. Tammeo' B Witlt dte l'st. llj1d Sy d is re{lt~ 111 the list nhen&n t d rc~p 1C'l\1s 1ci: forth i.o the "pnyr{ege I<>&".

200 C!:RTIFIEO TRUE AND COR~FCT CO?Y io41jjun e: 2014 eastb:on Ra~1111 Deputy C!ark o Ccurt S.~C.~mail sen1 io Mr Diull'!ll i»~ S\'DOd modemcoc sere.~ tht Synod AC wpultl exeroise j1li aullwrity 14> diuolyr climha oply '59 nn e?cl!'e!!)e situation"'.) i\.u. Dunlilp thcll!c!iqudis to his rccioicnla a lobbving ~ chided 1he Synod commimon by asldng them whether ihey cho~bdb~q was an e.ms:.me situation," Mr. Dunlap says lhnt the. Synod co1nmi~si1>0 replied ''maybe", llild told him that Ille Synod c:omrnission wo.~ meeting on Mond11y {febm23). PSI, 158 PSLSS4 PSL 68R?SL 116::>. fobruan 18. 2()09. PSL co-motlcnilor R1ipen!'umer tr tlte Synod edmillistr..uvo ~'lllllllllssido,!op PCUSA lawyer Mark T"!llDlen, PSL cxr.cutive presbyter Alan Cutlet, and l'st attorney John Duolap, lo Tcpor t thl!1 ul the February 17, PSL meeting, in1luontial PSL. com.1nitrct; chuir Liso I!asredii~g wa~ l ode.rsiam:lably looking lo "the <iddici onal power gr-411ted by lhe Synod Just Thurscfa~ (Febnw:y 12, 2009) to the: AC 1o ~olvc chu1 cb.es ito PSL os 11 tnll!uls to resol'\11,\ t!ur:ig~ with Carro hon..." MI. Turner goes ou to say be and ocher members of t~ Synod admi.uisttallve co11ullissloq Who Welt\: 111 tbc February 17, 2009, PSL meeting (whore copies of this Cm11t's flcbl'l.i.'v)' 13, 2009, TRO wcre distributed) will "brief the AC in deptlj" iu persoa on Monday (FebC\Ul.l'y 23, 2009) rath~c tb11tt discwis these aspecti1 in further e-wails be1wecn Synod AC members. Febrnarv 11!, 2009, Mr. Tll!lllMD c-ll'lljils &t 1 1: 11 p.rd. In Mr. Dunl~J?. Mr Fin11 aod Ms. Yll1Tlllll. Mt. T =en wrote "I lhouqlrt our_mwsiop, the otlwt niuc alout oombly havinr I.he Svnnd wnm1issjon mie aclion. if lhc JRQ is not Jifu:d WO'Jld reall y Orjye the eccl91aj nq!jtt; of!hjs i;onf!jc! home n febrvarr 19, E-rnalf from MJ. T ovomg:i to Mr. OQn!ao. Mr. Tammen writes from ll'll aizplane, "Looks Hke YUU 1111d RID hlvs: been deye)ooin!! a plan wdav... Gprtlon bss ~ me to jpin the Syn AC xia phone on M~ ffebrosty 23, 2009). Do you know if myonc: hu looped 1hcm i!llo 1hc ci1m:ru ll!l!!!? lfyou c.ari lei me know wl\at tile froal ~trate&y tilml out to be, I will PY IO help them work tllj'ough rhe rol~ '100 neetl.fin- limn to fill - like laking action lo dissq~." Febn111ry 21, r Dunlap ll"mailll Mr. T-.nnmen, Mr. Finst and Ms. Yaroall ro send theiio4iwreion of the J>SL's memorandwn io opµosition with a motion to dis!l21ve the TRO (Which lvit. DJ1~ap, Mr. fiiut. Mr. Tllllllllcn, and ibc Synod were planolng to violate). stating that his partner, RuescU rest.er. will file everything Mondl:ymomilig, f'ebnlary ZJ"' Mr. J)UDlnp th 11 lenve.s the mnle for vaca1lon dtirin,g Mardi Gras week- [Black out. No e-m.alls (PSL "privilc{le log" doc.iwl<:nts) were produced foj Febr11ary 2Jid (the day of the Synod administrative commission conference: cllll to tli.scuss bow to tesjxlud to the TRO). :r emwy , Ot' fcbru!ll'y 2s"' Fflbroi.Q' 25, TI1e Synod administ!lllive: cornmiasioo vote11 to dissolve Cauollto11, in knowing. violation of this coun'b TIW. The follnwing day, Febru1ry 26:. 2009, fue Synod ru:inrinistnitive ~on roi.i.siol'i mailed a letler 111 the l'sl stoled cleck William Bonomlcy and to C&roll!on ol(ll k of sessioo Mary Xos.c. In give official nolice or tbe Vll\C: to Ui.nolve CanoUton.. which letter wa. received by i t~ :sudressus sometime afttt Marcli 3, This lcw.-r uuiu. 9!ha!!n"lluling tu di3so1vc Cl;rro!ll(!n the Sy1101l ndaliniw:mvc comui1~inn wlls acting "for the Prcsby1ery of S outh Louisiana" und "io SUPfl<llT of!be PSL" and " id order to accompll.sh. the staled c:nds of.,, U.. PSL. PSL 1163 Febntarv 16, fu day atler the: Synud e.dmini.ruativc conutussion voted lo dis5'.)lve Cami!l!t>n, Mr. Te=en s Mr. Duulllp to send bim a one page 2

201 ,._ - C:ERTfFlcO TRUE ANO CORRECT COPY JUN ~!~~Q~ Oaputy Clork Of Ceu rt S\lf1lmMy of the Book of Ortla'! "mncd181" proceu by which!omconc "'ith Slandlng may oomest ibe act(otu of ~ fcusa rrovemlni body 'through ;)]., PCUSA's iotemal acclesill.$tical coon system. Mi TMl!Pen tell$ Mr Otml!!Jl "I'm not sure 1he <'.Affl)11ton ss:siyon wli!d a tyally chalh;ll!lc!h11 Synod's Bellon... ff Mr. Tammen does not say \~'hat the " Synod action" was, Mr. T!ymnc:n save uo expltmaljon becal!sle the commuo.ii;lllions above jndicate that he knew that Mr Dunl11p alreadv untierntood wh11t 1he "a tion" wa.. that hall lx.'cj! take11 by lbe Svnod w previous day. Mr. Tammen goes 011 to tcll Mr. Dunlap 1!00!.he Carrollton sessioll would nil! h.ave the right to challenge any!'sl appoiotmcnl of a PEL administrnti'l'e ~s!on oi o1hcr acts or omission of any sucb PSL commission, but fl?t the acts of lhe S;mod's udminlstrotive coll\lnissio11 (Owl ball violotcu the orn;rt's 'PRO uctiog "for" the PSL). PSI, 1165, 1166 PSL!181 t'ebntary 2?, Mr. 1'ammen s Mr Ou111J111. Item 3 ~ays, " Deen lhinkip!: mote about your own v.ilncrab!ut'f, ood Seems (sic) to me yf)u may be best off to say th>u whilt: you had hoped thaj. you eouw represent both the presbytery and lhe synod, but tlun tbc 'yood's unilateral action ID.llkcs it clc:ruthat yt>lll' duty is to the presbyteey (if you hilve. tc llll.~wer n ch11ucnge at. nll - since you have nevez.filed 11I1ythi11g in court m1 behalf of synod)... M11stly! lhink we need to m aylmju; vout ability 10 dl~raooe yourstlf frgm the Sypod ~ (oot bave to defend. bu.i rather to be ln position to expl:un why the Synod's action provides an objcc1 hson for the legal argwnerus In )IO\JJ' rcemor.indu:m.)... " March l, 2009, ai 10:57 p.m. Rip Fin.<;1 5eJ>ds e-mllil 1.n John Dunlop, MllJ'k Tmnmeu ;iod Jessie;, 'fliftlllll IO af!er ll'.llltt ltdvicc 11nd ooacbfog to "John" for wbeo the SynCJd commission's " iolatioo ig brought 10 the.ucntion of this e<1urt. Mr. FiMI rerteratcs Mi" Tammcn's point, "[C)an' t you just say Uw -you don' t represent lhc synod (canecl?), ~bat th.e syood did was on its own volli:ion, 1he TR.O certainly did llol -- aor could it - c:idend ID tbe synod's ecdes111sticai actions under the BoO. and they M!n'I e en a parly lo thls case whoso: 11oiCtl has been j,eani? (And 1ben!Cg.UC inro lbe polity ).. 1 fhh!lc.,y,o\i b:.vajl(j nbli!zal{co to dfaclose to Lunsford' OJ ll!l\'orte th& nature of yow JCpJW!iJ!rJon (OJ~ thereon ofthe,svnod - is:!l't that rnivilegodand/or wolk product?... This ~ doeu1i1ujt. PSL 1181, aj50 reproduca Mr. l'ammen's O-llleil c11rlicr tbnr rveoing, at I I :31 p.m., to Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Flnst and Ms. Ynmall. in v.tiicb Mr. T!llllJllen offers to Mr. Dunlap au alibi and cover lllll'nttivc:: "Mark thinks you should distance John Du11.l11p from 1be synod and ~'Is <lctil)os I think VQU shottld indic!lte that!he svnpd acu;d while you w1:1 e Qn Vl!CAlion 1113! officers of the prcsbytt!ry got "heliils upfl of the iynods nc1ion and that official tl01diclllion V.1Juld be ClOlll.ing. And if Mr. LWlSford presses for inlqrrruitioo. that \l/h llo you bellove )'oo vim: representing both fhe sy.nod aiid tlle prby (aod heoco protectii:g :my i11fonn11.ilon you need t\l protect for 1he syood!hat way )'..Ql!J<M we the smosl!is an Qbjeq lesson Cot the danl!cn of her prev:ious rulings, without 1tying 10 defend the syaodi. 8cl.Joo~ r. 3