tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post3072506320790036066..comments2024-03-29T12:44:28.973+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: What is the meaning of this?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10752975818146792602012-11-20T22:00:43.133+13:002012-11-20T22:00:43.133+13:00Poor Curmudgeon! He's doing his best!
Sadly (f...Poor Curmudgeon! He's doing his best!<br />Sadly (for him) it's not good enough!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10438200202032496282012-11-19T18:35:07.510+13:002012-11-19T18:35:07.510+13:00Q. Why don't sharks bite lawyers?
A. Professio...Q. Why don't sharks bite lawyers?<br />A. Professional courtesy. <br /><br />And now, to raise the cultural tone, some Shakespeare:<br /><br />"CADE <br />I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;<br />all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will<br />apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.<br /><br />DICK <br />The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.<br /><br />CADE <br />Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should<br />be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:<br />but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man<br />since. How now! who's there?"<br />[Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, scene 2]MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10100168195035988582012-11-18T17:01:31.675+13:002012-11-18T17:01:31.675+13:00MichaelA said...
I am a lawyer
Oh, MichaelA. We...MichaelA said...<br /><br /><i>I am a lawyer</i><br /><br />Oh, MichaelA. We may have clashed on any number of subjects over the years, but I have always held your opinions in high respect. And now you tell me this. The disillusionment is just to great to bear. <br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24417382644775595572012-11-18T15:34:48.542+13:002012-11-18T15:34:48.542+13:00I am a lawyer but not in New Zealand. I will haza...I am a lawyer but not in New Zealand. I will hazard a guess that this issue might depend as much upon the wording of the particular trust instrument, and the wording of the insurance policy read in context with that. <br /><br />In other words, it may not have much relevance to broader issues. <br /><br />But I emphasise that is just a guess. You will have to wait for the "qualified (in NZ) legal opinion"!<br /><br />One thing that does seem to be emerging in all this is the place that Christchurch Cathedral occupied in the hearts of local people, whether Christian or not.MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45833363822745391862012-11-18T14:45:42.116+13:002012-11-18T14:45:42.116+13:00Hi Bosco,
It may help to disentangle some entwined...Hi Bosco,<br />It may help to disentangle some entwined matters.<br /><br />As I understand insurance payouts, the situation viz a viz the judge's reminder of the trustees obligations under law is that a payout for X should be for X [but only my understanding, mind, as a non-lawyer]. What I would not like to put even a non-lawyerly view to is what the application of the act he draws attention to is when a global payout is made for many parishes. The insurer makes the global payment (let us say) without requirement as to what is spent on what parish: is CPT then obliged to disburse those funds "pro rata"? (Could "pro rata" be determined in the rather fluid situation we find ourselves in as we assess matters from parish to parish?) [In short, I think clarity is required on the range of possibilities which might be presented.]<br /><br />On parishes taking property with them should they leave etc, I am not sure that anything in what the judge says changes the fact that ultimate ownership of title to Anglican property is in the hands of diocesan trustees and thus a parish leaving the church cannot presume to take "their" property with them.<br /><br />Of greater concern in this respect is the number of trusts around and about (so I hear anecdotally) which hold funds in trust for the parish they are associated with without reference to CPT. The less control CPT and other diocesan trustees have of parish assets, the harder to maintain "the line." <br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52536512559202377062012-11-18T14:00:21.644+13:002012-11-18T14:00:21.644+13:00This appears, does it not, Peter, to fit with the ...This appears, does it not, Peter, to fit with the other recent clarification that the trustees hold parish property in trust for the parish – not the diocese. All that is quite contrary to the oral tradition that we had constantly been told, without reference to the written agreements, nor clarifications by lawyers. All this appears to dovetail into my concern about other “agreements” that we, as church, have drawn up (eg. liturgical ones) that no one appears to understand. Are alarm bells not ringing anywhere in central offices that if a debate does ensue within the Anglican Church here, with people wanting to take property and funds with them, it may not be as tidily clear as we have been told? Might TEC’s legal battles look very friendly when we cannot determine who the true Anglican Church is etc. You keep using the refrain that you are not a lawyer – is this the time to retrain?<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.com