Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Fearless in Fresno

Having prayed that God’s will would be done, and having just as repeatedly assured everyone that God was on their side, the legal-eagle Schismatics of San Joaquin appear to have decided that in Fresno the Lord’s omnipotence isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and have announced that they’re taking their “We is allowed to rob them liberals” routine to the United States Supreme Court.

What they’re keeping quieter about is the fact that it’s far from certain the Supreme Court will decide to hear their plaintive cries, but as I’m always trying to teach you, my dear evil-doers, a true Gafconeer never lets the cold waters of reality dilute a good batch of home-brew. That’s why our little Layman Schofield and his friends have bounced back in the face of this obvious slap in the face from God with a headline that truly epitomizes the Spirit of Half-Truth that makes me so proud to be the Communion’s leading Reasserter: “St James Church Legal Battle Moving to United States Supreme Court”

Now I fully understand that most of you lack my distinguished personal and family history of legal entanglement, so the naïve optimism of this proclamation might pass unnoticed. Thus let me once again guide you from darkness into light: at present the case is only “moving” to the Supreme court in the sense that Layman Schofield et al have announced their intention to complete the appropriate paperwork, and pay the requisite filing fee, so as to request the Court consider whether or not the Learned Bench is interested in joining our communal wallow in the Communion’s mire.

This process will hardly be conducted at warp speed – the earliest anyone can expect to know if the case will be heard will be late October. If – and it’s a very big if – they decide to proceed it could be years till there’s any decision.

By which time who knows what else will have happened: young Fr. Matt and Bubba could have seen the folly of their belligerent past and settled down into gentle and peaceful domestic harmony (speaking of which: don’t you just love the way certain Viagravillains are livid at my suggestion something untoward might happen to their poster-boy while he’s in the big house – but not one of them has expressed any doubt as to the likelihood of him heading there!), and little John-David Schofield might well be have come out of hiding in attempt to negotiate a truce. After all, if he can find somewhere to hide anything is possible.

I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible.


Wade said...

What a shame for Layman Schofield that his most likely ideological allies on the Supreme Court will NEVER allow him or his solicitors to challenge current legal doctrine on hierarchical Churches, what with them all being devout Romans.

His only chance is with the "liberals". Scant cover for a man of his stature.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Christian,

The St. James case you cite is from the Diocese of Los Angeles, not San Joaquin. Similar attempts at thievery, but these are separate situations.

The Rev. Dr. Christian Troll said...

Of course, my child, you're quite correct and i stand corrected - although I'm quite willing to bend across your knee if you prefer.

Even so: in a world where Colorado Springs is in Lagos, and Binghamton's in Kenya, one can hardly be blamed for forgetting St. James hasn't drifted over a little: in comparison this geographic miracle would be hardly anything at all.

david virtue's bountiful bosom said...

Shouldn't they be busy packing, rather than filing frivolous lawsuits?

JimB said...

The real problem they have is that the California Court has already decided the facts and the law. Their only argument is that the Court erred because the California law as it is settled is unconstitutional. That is a very tough sell.

Other than the Chapman memo theory that constant litigation hurts TEC I cannot discern a motive. Oh wait! I forgot the appeals for funding of "god's legal expenses!" Silly me.


susan s. said...

I'm sure that the Layman Schofield will follow suit, if you get my drift, Dear Father Troll...

Canon Itchy said...

Yes, Susan S! This is obviously a case for Man Lace. All hands on board, please! Bruce+

Alan Rogers said...

Little John-David Schofield?