Reclaim News: LCMS Desperate to Push Lawsuit Against Oakland 4 Past Convention

[therubberball]

Excerpt:

[Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod] President Gerald Kieschnick’s Ash Wednesday seven-hour deposition had so many inconsistencies that his election and convention agenda could be jeopardized by a May 7th ruling in the lawsuit.



Subject: [Reclaim News] LCMS Desperate to Push Lawsuit against Four CA Women Past Convention




March 30, 2010
LCMS Desperate to Push Lawsuit against Four CA Women Past Convention


In January, LCMS legal counsel for the LCMS Board of Directors filed her motion for Summary Judgment in the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer of Oakland CA for their church property.


At the end of February, attorney for the defense Paul Nelson filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment. Both parties are waiting for the judge to make his decision on May 7th. Then the Synod blinked.

Attorney Timothy Noelker, Thompson Coburn LLP associate on the lawsuit with Attorney Sherri Strand, sent a 17 page letter to Nelson opening up new issues not stated in the original suit filed by CNHD-LCMS in December of 2007. In other words, the original suit filed by attorney Sherri Strand in behalf of the CNHD-LCMS is weak.

Nelson’s claim that the District has no right to remove people from their church who are not members of the Synod from property CNHD-LCMS doesn’t own is devastating. In other words, Nelson claims that CNHD-LCMShas no standing to bring suit against these four California ladies.

President Gerald Kieschnick’s Ash Wednesday seven-hour deposition had so many inconsistencies that his election and convention agenda could be jeopardized by a May 7th ruling in the lawsuit.

In a 17 page letter, attorney Timothy Noelker—an Episcopalian—writes a flailing attempt to redirect the suit. We are not surprised that attorney Sherri Strand’s name is not on the letter. Much of the letter appears to be written to confuse the 2010 convention delegates about the original reason the suit was filed and justify an estimated half million dollars in legal fees.

The original lawsuit was supposedly written for doctrinal reasons about women clergy. The congregation is currently being served by former LCMS pastor Rev. Lawrence Richmond, who was driven out of the Synod for refusing to serve open communion. When Kieschnick was questioned under oath, he was not able to name the Bible passages on which the suit was supposedly based, nor were the Bible passages identified in the original suit. The new 17 page letter is about anything but doctrine.

1. The CNHD-LCMS is trying to cut off the supply of all donations to the congregation. They want to intimidate all current donors by claiming they have a right to examine the congregation’s numbered accounts. The 90 LCMS pastors who sued Kieschnick for voter-fraud at the 2004 Convention and their support group were subject to public humiliation at the 2007 Convention and recrimination by LCMS District Presidents. What does the Synod plan to do if it learns the names of those who donated funds to help pay to the legal defense of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church?
Noekler writes for CNHD-LCMS: “C. Request for Product No. 5 - All bank records of OUR REDEEMER relating to the period between January 1, 2003, and the present, including but not limited to bank statements, copies of cancelled checks, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, and records of electronic transfers, withdrawals, or deposits.”
What does this have to do with false doctrine?

2. The Synod thought they could win the lawsuit by suing four elderly women who are officers of the congregation. However, to everyone’s surprise, they are thriving, including 77 year-old special education teacher Mary-Ann Hill. Now CNHD-LCMS realizes they should have sued congregational vice-president Dr. Ben Chavis, but they really didn’t want to tangle with him.

Chavis is an independently wealthy entrepreneur, has two earned doctorates in Education and Philosophy, is a faculty member at the University of Arizona, and is a successful businessman. He recently won a lawsuit with the Oakland California School District Teachers Union to open a very successful charter school on Our Redeemer Lutheran Church’s property. When Strand accused Dr. Chavis during his deposition of making money on the charter school, he replied that he hoped he could make more.

When this writer first learned about Chavis’ involvement with Our Redeemer in August of 2009, he knew the Synod had stuck its head in a noose from which it could not withdraw. Noelker’s letter is aimed at preventing Chavis from donating to the defense of the suit. Noelker writers: “Dr. Chavis' personal contributions to Defendants' defense and any relevant documents and information are discoverable because they are not protected by the California constitutional right to privacy.”

Again Noelker writes: “Even a bank customer's personal financial information transmitted ‘to the bank in the course of his business operations,’ is not absolutely protected by the right to privacy.”
In other words, when the Synod sues a member of a congregation they claim the right to know everything about you. Welcome to the evangelical hand of church fellowship.

This is astonishing because CNHD-LCMS refuses to tell Nelson the source of the mission funds used to sue Our Redeemer Lutheran Church for its property. Kieschnick testified under oath that he had no idea where the money CNHD-LCMS spent on the suit is coming from, even though Sherri Strand is acting as his personal attorney. Nelson believes CNHD-LCMS has been paying the legal fees of the four plaintiffs with mission funds and running the suit through the Synod’s legal counsel. Strand ordered Kieschnick not to answer when Nelson asked if Kieschnick had discussed the suit with the LCMS Board of Directors.

3. The CNHD-LCMS asked Chavis about his religion as follows under oath:
Strand: Question: "Could you please describe for us your religious background, your religious history?" Chavis Dep. 47:6-7.

Nelson: Objection: "For the record, I'm going to object that that invades his right to privacy. He's not a party to this case and his personal religious history is not discoverable; however, to avoid having to go in on a motion, I'll permit him to answer those questions subject to a motion to strike them on the basis that they're not discoverable and they're without any waiver of his right to privacy." Chavis Dep. 47:7-15.

Why didn’t they simply ask Dr. Chavis when he was confirmed? But they wanted much more! This must be the first time in the history of the LCMS that a member of a congregation has been asked to justify his faith on the witness stand.

Noelker writes: “Plaintiffs merely wish to depose Dr. Chavis on his alleged membership and involvement at Our Redeemer solely for purposes of litigating this action.”

This reads like the Inquisition. They want the court to judge Dr. Chavis’ faith merely for the purpose of litigation! In Kieschnick’s era of Church Growth, where LCMS mega -churches confirm new members in one afternoon meeting with the pastor and then go back to listen to the praise band, the Synod wants the court to judge what kind of Lutheran Chavis is. But the Court cannot do that because it would be a fundamental violation of the separation of Church and State under the First Amendment.

“Hi, I’m from the LCMS District Office. We want to know about your church membership for the purpose of litigation.” We can see why Strand had Noelker sign this letter.

Why are LCMS district presidents exempt from judgment of their faith? Why doesn’t the Synod put Atlantic District President Dr. David Benke under oath and ask why he is still a member of the LCMS when Benke claims that Moslems worship the true God? Why aren’t LCMS District Presidents accountable for the firing of Dr. Wallace Schulz from the Lutheran Hour? This is because Kieschnick protects his District Presidents.

Noelker claims Chavis’ vote was important in Our Redeemer’s leaving the Synod. However, the vote was unanimous. Dr. Chavis’ vote wouldn’t have changed anything. The CNHD-LCMS is doing everything possible to stop Dr. Chavis, and they don’t know how many others, from giving any financial support to these women.

Noelker keeps asking for more than financial records, which is really nothing more than harassment. This suit was supposedly about doctrine, and now we find out it is about money and Dr. Chavis running a successful charter school on the former site of Concordia Oakland. Numerous LCMS churches have leased their property to charter schools. Other LCMS congregations consider charter schools a blessed source of income and an opportunity for outreach. Why is the CHND-LCMS trying to shut down this charter school?

Noelker complains: "Defendants continue to exercise exclusive dominion and control over the property, books, accounts, and membership rosters of Our Redeemer in spite of the fact that they are no longer 'communicant members' of Our Redeemer and in spite of the efforts of the District President to rectify and resolve the issues on behalf of the LCMS-affiliated members of Our Redeemer." The Defendants are only four of the congregants who voted to disaffiliate and they do not personally exercise exclusive dominion or control over property owned by the church. They are part of the church that exercises control of its own property under its constitution.

We ask, why shouldn’t the majority of the congregants of Our Redeemer continue exclusive dominion and control over the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church? The State of California says they own the property. The State of California has issued them a document declaring them to be a tax-exempt church including their own tax ID number, regardless of what the LCMS says, which is why CNHD-LCMS is suing them. If it were otherwise, CNHD-LCMS could simply ask the Sheriff to throw them off the property.
There is a lot more to this suit than anyone is talking about. If these four women win their case, some LCMS officials may be leaving the country for the mission field. These women will then have standing in court to discover what happened to some of their church property that was used by the former Concordia Oakland.
View interview with Oakland Four

 

[DaRev]

The one real sad thing I see that could potentially come out of all this is if this suit is found to be in the defendants favor, what would stop a group from within any congregation from splitting and then claiming the rights to church property through court action using this case as a precedent? What I see as being at stake here is the integrity of the synod as a whole.

This is certainly a mess, and what makes it even more sad is that the only information that is forthcoming is wrought with innaccuracy and misquotes in order to support an agenda.

It is certainly time to turn the basket over, hose it out, and make it ready for some fresh eggs.

 

[therubberball]

What is at stake here are three (3) key issues---1) whether or not the traditional Waltherian ecclesiology of the Missouri Synod will be jettisoned in favor of a papal model which replaces the ideology of Synod's role as advisory with the notion that Synod reigns supreme; 2) who, in reality, constitutes the congregational membership of Our Redeemer Lutheran in Oakland--we are not talking about "a group from within any congregation" but the legitimate Voters Assembly of the congregation itself [the summary judgment for the defendants now online on the WWW addresses this issue in great detail---who are the 4 people the California--Nevada--Hawaii District of the LCMS has recruited as Plaintiffs in this case???]; and most importantly, 3) whether or not the Kieschnick administration has read what the Apostle Paul says about un-Biblical law suits in I Corinthians 6.

Walther assured the Iowa Synod in 1879 that Synodical leaders should never attempt to obtain the assets and property of local congregations "through craftiness" . . .

It is also clear that what is happening here is the Kieschnick administration's version of the Church Growth Movement (CGM)---put smaller congregations whose finances and demographics fall below St. Louis's corporate computer models out of business through denial of pastoral supply--and if that fails in a timely fashion, step up the process with litigation. Get their property--use the proceeds according to the dictates of the minions of Babylon by the Missouri. You know the drill. Can you spell yuppie suburban megachurch?

The summary judgment for the defendants is now available online in pdf format.

One thing is clear--Jesus said, "Feed my sheep," not "Sue my sheep."

Pope Leo X lives---at least until May 7th.

Let's truly "turn the basket over, hose it out, and make it ready for some fresh eggs," as you suggest.

How? As they used to say in Brooklyn, "Throw the Bums Out." Put Kieschnick and his Council of Presidents in a breadline at the Houston Convention, after docking their Corporate Pay to repay the legal fees of the defendants in this case.

As John Lennon (or is it Lenin?) wrote in the lyrics of "Imagine," "It's easy if you try."

 

[DaRev]

The summary judgment for the defendants is now available online in pdf format.

Where?

 

[BoC]

In order to subscribe send a blank email to the following address
reclaimnews-subscribe AT yahoogroups dot com

You are invited to discuss this issue on
wwwLutherquestOrg

May 11, 2010
Lawsuit Claims LCMS Districts Own Congregations: Hearing Set for June 1
What began as one Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod district’s claim to own Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Oakland, California has become a test case for all districts to own LCMS churches.
The Catholic, Episcopal, United Methodist, and Presbyterian Church bodies (and others) own their congregations. The ELCA owns most of its congregations. A lawsuit filed by the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) now claims the LCMS owns its member congregations.
The CNHD-LCMS filed so much information with the Alameda Superior Court on April 23rd, 2010 that the judge was compelled to postpone (continue) the hearing for its lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA from May 7th to June 1st, 2010.
The defendants’ sin is their congregation’s attempt to vote themselves out of the LCMS, but the lawsuit says they can’t go because the District owns their church property.
Another postponement would delay the judge’s ruling on the lawsuit until after the mid-July LCMS Convention. This would also allow LCMS President Kieschnick the opportunity to tell the delegates he can’t comment about the case as it is still in litigation.
If the CNHD-LCMS wins their lawsuit, the LCMS district presidents will have accomplished the largest swindle of church property in American history. The CNHD-LCMS is using the Alameda Superior Court to gain what it cannot accomplish in an LCMS convention: Synod-wide ownership of LCMS congregational property.
Yes, the LCMS Handbook reads: Article VII.2. “Membership of a congregation in the Synod gives the Synod no equity in the property of the congregation.” However, the Handbook doesn’t say that the 35 LCMS districts can’t have equity in the property of the congregation. During his February 17th, 2010 deposition, Synodical President Gerald Kieschnick refused to answer if individual districts were a geographical part of the LCMS. He also refused to answer if he had discussed the lawsuit with the LCMS Board of Directors.
With more than 6,000 churches, most of whose property is worth more than a million dollars and many worth more than 25 million, the total assessed worth of all LCMS congregations easily exceeds 6 billion dollars and is probably closer to 10 billion dollars.
Attorney Sherri Strand, legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, is the lead attorney in the lawsuit filed by the CNHD-LCMS against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA. The suit was filed on December 28, 2007. Every time a hearing is rescheduled, the CNHD-LCMS files another document. It has already cost these four ladies at least $450,000 to defend themselves against the lawsuit filed by Sherri Strand, and the CNHD-LCMS has spent more than the defendants.
There is a news blackout in the LCMS and its 35 districts about the lawsuit, and the St. Louis Post Dispatch has not reported anything about the ongoing litigation. At this time, these four women and Attorney Paul Nelson are the only ones standing in the way of LCMS districts owning the congregations in their districts. These four women now find themselves in the unintended position of paying to defend the property rights of 6,000 LCMS churches. The congregations are not aware that the ownership of their church property depends on how Paul Nelson, the grandson of a Norwegian Synod pastor from Minnesota, argues the suit.
In its April 23rd Opposition, the CNHD-LCMS cites 27 examples of case law, 6 California statutes, and 3 authorities to prove that the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopal Church, ELCA, Presbyterian Church USA, African Methodist Episcopal Church, and other denominations have ownership over congregational property. However, few laypeople realize that the LCMS is the largest church body in the world that is owned by the church members and not by the national headquarters. Laypeople would be surprised to learn that the LCMS quotes case law about Roman Catholic Churches in order to win their lawsuit.
In public, the LCMS claims that it practices congregational autonomy; voter supremacy; and laypeople owning and operating their own churches. However, Strand’s examples of case law mislead the court to believe that LCMS congregations are governed and owned by districts operating under Episcopal hierarchy. In other words, it is the Synod’s religion to own LCMS congregations.
Any lawyer can read what Strand is attempting in her April 23rd Opposition when she writes:
“The CNH District has standing because in this declaratory judgment action its future rights in real property at issue will be determined by the present controversy. CNH’s future interest is established by Our Redeemer’s Constitution, Article VIII, which provides that if Our Redeemer is totally disbanded, the church’s property transfers to the CNH District”
Attorney Paul Nelson had challenged Strand to explain why the CNHD-LCMS has standing to sue for property which LCMS President Kieschnick claimed in his deposition the Synod doesn’t own. Her reply to Nelson in the April 23rd Opposition shows the real motive in the lawsuit: LCMS district ownership of all church property.
All LCMS congregations are requested by the districts to include a statement in their congregational constitution that says the district will own their property if the church closes. However, Our Redeemer hasn’t closed. The CNHD-LCMS now argues that this statement proves the districts already own LCMS churches before they close.
If the court decides that Article VIII in Our Redeemer’s constitution gives CNHD-LCMS ownership of Our Redeemer, it also gives LCMS districts ownership of churches in their respective districts for the same reason. A favorable ruling for Strand means that congregations qualify as collateral for the financial interests of LCMS districts. It is little wonder that LCMS district presidents are silent about the lawsuit. Yet, they fully supported Resolution 8-02A at the 2007 LCMS Convention, which proclaimed that suing fellow Christians in court is a sin.
An attorney familiar with the suit will not be surprised if the CNHD-LCMS plans to lose the suit filed in the Alameda Superior Court in order to file an appeal in the California Appellate Court and gain a citable written opinion that sets a national precedent for LCMS districts owning LCMS congregational property.

 

[filosofer]

Just a point of clarification, the ELCA does not own "most of its congregations." Rather, those which had been ALC still own the church buildings and when voting to leave take the property with them. If the congregation was former LCA, then the congregations requires the approval of the Synod Council to take the property when the congregation leaves.

 

[Studeclunker]

The one real sad thing I see that could potentially come out of all this is if this suit is found to be in the defendants favor, what would stop a group from within any congregation from splitting and then claiming the rights to church property through court action using this case as a precedent? What I see as being at stake here is the integrity of the synod as a whole.

The danger, Revrand, is as great to Congregational Polity, as it is to Congregational property ownership. There is currently nothing whatever stopping a congregation from splitting and fighting over the facility. It has happened in the past and will happen again. What makes this situation unique, is a Lutheran Synod's involvement. What's happening here isn't just two sides of a Congregational split fighting over their common facility. What's happening here is basically that the Synodical leadership is attempting to wrest the property from the Congregation in residence. This is exactly what you've described as happening. The smaller group has broken away and is now demanding the facility from the group that refused to disband or shut down.

This is the situation as it has been presented so far:

first, the congregation shrank to around a hundred members. The property was paid for and was being maintained.

second, the Pastor of this flock retired. This left them without a Pastor. They applied to the District President's office for a list of rostered Pastors.

Third, the District President decided that their congregation was not viable (too small) and refused to allow a rostered Pastor to be presented for call to this congregation. Not even a Mission or interim pastor. He advised the congregation to disband and turn the property over to the Synod.

Fourth, the congregation refused to disband. They tried several methods of continuing. The past President of the Congregation had been apparently enrolled in the DELTO programme and was authorized by the D.P. to conduct services and serve communion.

Here's where things got muddy. It seems the Congregation wasn't satisfied how things were going and wanted an ordained Pastor. With the approbation of this past Cong. Pres. they called an Episcopal Priestess to preside over their worship services (still conducted with Lutheran liturgy). Since they were'nt going to get a pastor from the LCMS the congregation voted to separate from it. The P.C.P. and his followers were advised by the D.P. to leave the congregation, which they did. The D.P. used this as an excuse to declare the separatists the 'true Congregation,' and demand that the rest of the Congregation vacate the premises.

Now, if the District President and the Synodical Attorney weren't involved in this, I wouldn't think much of it. However, they are listed as co-plaintiff and counsel!

This is certainly a mess, and what makes it even more sad is that the only information that is forthcoming is wrought with innaccuracy and misquotes in order to support an agenda.

I do agree with this to the extent that it is never good to hear the information of a dispute from only one side. However, in this case, the Synodical leadership is acting in a rather questionable manner and not forthcoming with their side of the story.

I quite agree with your assessment of the situation:

It is certainly time to turn the basket over, hose it out, and make it ready for some fresh eggs.

Only, I'm quite sure that the basket and eggs are different by yours or my definition. That is to say, in my case; Synodical leadership, and in yours; the congregation. Frankly, the LCMS seems to have a basket of rotten eggs in the Synodical Leadership that needs cleaning out. The problem is that the people who can do this don't seem to have either the will or the impetus. Unless the middle leadership of the LCMS awakens, you will wake one morning to find your Synod has become an Episcopy and you are answerable to a Bishop, not your congregation.

 

[DaRev]

Only, I'm quite sure that the basket and eggs are different by yours or my definition. That is to say, in my case; Synodical leadership, and in yours; the congregation.

Nope, my basket is the same as yours.

 

[BoC]

Nope, my basket is the same as yours.

I've perused through old posts on this board and found many of them by you on your congregational problems over the years. From what I've read it seems that some of your congregations have been less than Christian in attitude and deplorable in some cases. There seems to be a theme running through this that many of the problems in synod and problems in congregations come from these problem members or groups. I havn't seen many posts that have mentioned than the synod has their own major concerns. Do you really think that the congregations are the ones to be straightened out and not the synod and that congregations are mostly to blame for everything?

 

[Studeclunker]

Well Boc, the New Testament demonstrates that what you've put your finger on has been a problem from the beginning with the church. As time has progressed however, things keep getting worse. First the Roman Catholics and the Orthidox came up with veneration of 'Saints' and the Papacy. Now the Confessional and Protestant churches are erring in the way of Anti-Nomianism and Biblical error. Where this all will stop, or even if, is the scary part.

 

[DaRev]

I've perused through old posts on this board and found many of them by you on your congregational problems over the years. From what I've read it seems that some of your congregations have been less than Christian in attitude and deplorable in some cases. There seems to be a theme running through this that many of the problems in synod and problems in congregations come from these problem members or groups. I havn't seen many posts that have mentioned than the synod has their own major concerns. Do you really think that the congregations are the ones to be straightened out and not the synod and that congregations are mostly to blame for everything?

You've misread me. I certainly do believe that there needs to be a massive change in the Synod. Many of the problems that lie within congregations is the result of synodical apathy and indifference. Congregational membership in the LCMS is voluntary, with the assumption that the congregations agree to operate within the Biblical and Confessional guidelines of Synod. As we see in the Synod today, that simply is not the case. More and more we see congregations embracing protestantism, in many cases to the exclusion of Confessionalism. The result is that now, instead of a gathering of congregations "walking together" in doctrinal and practical unity, we have a collection of autonomous churches whose teaching and practice bear little resemblance to what the founders of the Synod envisioned.

 

[BoC]

You've misread me. I certainly do believe that there needs to be a massive change in the Synod. Many of the problems that lie within congregations is the result of synodical apathy and indifference. Congregational membership in the LCMS is voluntary, with the assumption that the congregations agree to operate within the Biblical and Confessional guidelines of Synod. As we see in the Synod today, that simply is not the case. More and more we see congregations embracing protestantism, in many cases to the exclusion of Confessionalism. The result is that now, instead of a gathering of congregations "walking together" in doctrinal and practical unity, we have a collection of autonomous churches whose teaching and practice bear little resemblance to what the founders of the Synod envisioned.

I guess I should have tried to find more of your posts. I must have missed many of them. It's not easy since your comments only go back to 8 of 09. The rest have to be "searched"

 

[BoC]

In order to subscribe send a blank email to the following address:
reclaimnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
You are invited to discuss this issue on
www.Lutherquest.org
May 25, 2010
LCMS Litigation Blitz Targets 4 California Ladies
By Rev. Jack Cascione reclaimnews@earthlink.net
Someone must have told the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the LCMS (CNHD-LCMS) that it has a weak case in its lawsuit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA. Between April 1 and May 20, 2010, attorney Sherri Strand (Legal Counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors) has made 40 filings for a total of 909 pages.
With two law firms and two teams of lawyers working for CNHD-LCMS on the suit (one in St. Louis and the other in California) at an average expense of $1,000 per page, the CNHD-LCMS is running up a serious tab. Strand filed the original suit for the CNHD-LCMS on December 28, 2007.
True to its history, if the LCMS can’t beat you in court it will outspend you. With an endless supply of tax-exempt mission funds, the CNHD-LCMS litigation blitz has a lot more money to burn.
No reason was given by the judge to postpone the Hearing from May 7th to June 1st but the flood of CNHD-LCMS filings may be the reason. They have put out enough documents to wallpaper the defendants’ homes. After the judge postponed the Hearing from May 7th to June 1st Strand made 19 more filings for an additional 188 pages. There were 12 documents filed on May 17th and 5 more on May 18th as listed on the Alameda County Superior Court Register of Actions.
What sin did these four ladies commit that makes them the focus of the most ferocious litigation in LCMS history? As officers of their congregation they dared to vote themselves out of the LCMS.
It all started when the Californian-Nevada-Hawaii District refused to supply Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Oakland CA with a call list in 2002 and told them to close their church. The members were so disgusted they voted themselves out of the Synod in 2007. This is the same Synod that didn’t have enough calls for 32 of its Seminary graduates this past April.
Rather than give them a list of pastoral candidates, the CNHD-LCMS is suing the congregation for leaving the LCMS. The District is paying all the legal fees for the plaintiffs. The District President declared a group of four people “the congregation” according to the authority given to LCMS District Presidents in CCM 267-2004.
The four people whom the District has labeled “the congregation” (which is not supported by California law, hence the lawsuit) were never asked to leave the congregation. Our Redeemer continues to use LW and sometimes TLH and is being served three times a month by former LCMS Pastor, Rev. Lawrence Richmond (St. Louis Class of ‘85). Richmond was driven out of the LCMS clergy roster because he refuses to serve open communion.
During his deposition, President Kieschnick claimed the LCMS was not involved with the suit and the Districts are not a geographical part of the LCMS. He also refused to answer if he had discussed the suit with the LCMS Board of Directors. To the defense attorney’s surprise, Kieschnick could not name the Bible passages over which the suit is supposedly filed.
In her April 23rd Opposition, Sherri Strand wrote to the court:
“The CNH District has standing [to sue the four women] because in this declaratory judgment action its future rights in real property at issue will be determined by the present controversy. CNH’s future interest is established by Our Redeemer’s Constitution, Article VIII, which provides that if Our Redeemer is totally disbanded, the church’s property transfers to the CNH District”
Yes, the LCMS Handbook reads: Article VII.2. “Membership of a congregation in the Synod gives the Synod no equity in the property of the congregation.” However, the Handbook doesn’t forbid the 35 LCMS Districts from claiming equity in the property of congregations.
It is amazing that both Kieschnick and District President Robert Newton testified under oath that the LCMS doesn’t own church property, yet their attorney tells the court the exact opposite. What applies to Our Redeemer, Oakland CA in this suit will necessarily apply to all LCMS churches.
The 2010 LCMS Convention delegates will never see a detailed report on the funds spent on this lawsuit nor learn their source. The LCMS Board of Directors discusses all litigation in Executive Session and will not tell the delegates how much money was spent in this lawsuit; who gave authority to spend the money; and from where the money to conduct the lawsuit is coming.
Let’s hope the delegates vote to turn over all their duties to the LCMS Board of Directors and the Council of District Presidents because the delegates really serve no purpose and are a useless expense to the Synod. Of course the other solution is to fire the BOD and the Council of District Presidents. This is the only way the delegates will be able to stop the LCMS from launching vicious litigation on laypeople for their church property.
If the June 1st Hearing can be postponed again, the delegates will not receive a report about what the judge decided in their July 2010 Convention.
If you want to view all the documents filed in the lawsuit that President Kieschnick says he doesn’t know about, follow these instructions:
Click on this link:
DomainWeb
When you arrive at the court’s website, click on “CASE SUMMARY.” When you pull up the next webpage, put the case number in the box. The case number is: RG07363452 (that is a zero after the G). Then hit enter. It will bring up the case and a menu of options to select on the left margin of the page. Click on, “Register of Actions.” That lists the documents and filings in the case. Then select the document image on the right to view the item. Select it by clicking on “IMAGE (JAVA).” Java software installation software is free on the internet.

 

[DaRev]

After reading the original complaint, it seems clear that the defendants in this really have no leg to stand on. Their actions have been illegal, disruptive and deceptive. Being that there remains a membership of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, a member congregation of the LCMS, the defendants are illegally occupying and controlling the coporate entity of Our Redeemer.

We need to pray for a just and right resolution of this matter. There is a danger that an improper outcome will set a dangerous precedent that could be destructive to the synod.

 

[BoC]

Simply put the LCMS has tried to disband an LCMS congregation that now has an LCMS minister and steal the real estate of the congregation who has 4 board members trying to keep this from happening. The CNHD DP has set the congregation up for takeover by the LCMS by refusing to supply Our Redeemer, in the past, with a rostered LCMS minister because the district says that they didn't have enough members to support a pastor. In other words the district and the LCMS has pulled a scam on Our Redeemer and redirected mission funds from the synod for the litigation and takeover of the property.





.

 

[DaRev]

Simply put the LCMS has tried to disband an LCMS congregation that now has an LCMS minister and steal the real estate of the congregation who has 4 board members trying to keep this from happening. The CNHD DP has set the congregation up for takeover by the LCMS by refusing to supply Our Redeemer, in the past, with a rostered LCMS minister because the district says that they didn't have enough members to support a pastor. In other words the district and the LCMS has pulled a scam on Our Redeemer and redirected mission funds from the synod for the litigation and takeover of the property.

No, the LCMS has not tried to disband Our Redeemer. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church is one of the plaintiffs in the case, not the defendant. It is primarily a suit between Our Redeemer LC and a group of people who have voluntarily left synod membership and have basically taken control of Our Redeemers property and assets. By disassociating themselves from synod membership, these individuals have also disassociated themselves from membership in Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, according to the congregations own constitution. These individuals really have no right to the property and assest of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church. The suit was filed so that Our Redeemer can get it's property and assets back.

Also, the district is under no obligation to send a call list to a congregation that is not financially stable enough to support a full-time pastor. In order for a congregation to get a call list, it must first prove that it has the resources in place to guarantee a full-time pastor's salary and benefits for a minimum of two years. If they don't, the district is under no obligation to supply them with a list. Why would the district allow a pastor to be called by a church that can't afford him? Why would a congregation want to call a pastor that they can't pay and support? That's just common sense.

 

[BoC]

No, the LCMS has not tried to disband Our Redeemer. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church is one of the plaintiffs in the case, not the defendant. It is primarily a suit between Our Redeemer LC and a group of people who have voluntarily left synod membership and have basically taken control of Our Redeemers property and assets. By disassociating themselves from synod membership, these individuals have also disassociated themselves from membership in Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, according to the congregations own constitution. These individuals really have no right to the property and assest of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church. The suit was filed so that Our Redeemer can get it's property and assets back.

No the two factions are the 4 women and a past officer in the congregation that wants the congregation and has used the synod to get it for him. But the synod is scaming both of them so they can confiscate the real estate for themselves. The synod wouldn't spend millions to settle a private dispute that could be settled between the two plaintiffs in a civil suit.

Also, the district is under no obligation to send a call list to a congregation that is not financially stable enough to support a full-time pastor. In order for a congregation to get a call list, it must first prove that it has the resources in place to guarantee a full-time pastor's salary and benefits for a minimum of two years. If they don't, the district is under no obligation to supply them with a list. Why would the district allow a pastor to be called by a church that can't afford him? Why would a congregation want to call a pastor that they can't pay and support? That's just common sense.

Our Redeemer has managed to hire and pay a Lutheran pastor since they removed the Methodist priestist. So why would LCMS think that the congregation couldn't afford a minister? They only hired the prisetist because synod wouldn't let them call a minister. The pastor refused to serve "open" comunion which is against synods own practice of closed communion. Synod violtated their own constitution.r

We are going to have to agree to dissagree on this issue and let the courts settle it.





.

 

[Studeclunker]

No, the LCMS has not tried to disband Our Redeemer. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church is one of the plaintiffs in the case, not the defendant. It is primarily a suit between Our Redeemer LC and a group of people who have voluntarily left synod membership and have basically taken control of Our Redeemers property and assets. By disassociating themselves from synod membership, these individuals have also disassociated themselves from membership in Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, according to the congregations own constitution. These individuals really have no right to the property and assest of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church. The suit was filed so that Our Redeemer can get it's property and assets back.

Also, the district is under no obligation to send a call list to a congregation that is not financially stable enough to support a full-time pastor. In order for a congregation to get a call list, it must first prove that it has the resources in place to guarantee a full-time pastor's salary and benefits for a minimum of two years. If they don't, the district is under no obligation to supply them with a list. Why would the district allow a pastor to be called by a church that can't afford him? Why would a congregation want to call a pastor that they can't pay and support? That's just common sense.

Revrand, you have a few points a bit confused. First, the problem here is with a DP who has become far too involved where he doesn't belong. Second, the "member congregation (two men and thier families)" voluntarily left the congregation at the DPs direction. In fact these same men were involved with the vote to leave the synod. The ex-congregational president also arranged the situation so that the women involved on the other side would be vulnerable to this attack. He did so by cancelling one portion of the congregational insurance that would have financially protected them. Thirdly, the congregational Constitution does not require membership with the Missouri Synod. It only requires the following of the precepts of the Lutheran Faith. A semantic differance, to be sure, but important nonetheless. Also, the DP recommended that the congregation disband when it had a hundred-fifty regularly attending members. The fight has whittled this down to fifteen. Yes, the current situation with Our Redeemer has become dire. Both halves of the congregation have been led down the garden path and now neither wishes to cooperate with the other. Indeed, neither can now do so even if they had a change of heart. By the original charter precept of "Congregational Polity" the DP and the Synod have grossly overstepped their authority and are in grave error. Further, because of this trespass on Congregational Polity, they have caused irrepairable harm to the congregation of Our Redeemer.

The question remains: Are the congregations of the LCMS "Voluntary Members" or part of an involuntary episcopal heirarchy? If the former, then the LCMS has no right to be actively involved (including their attorney) in any aspect of this dispute in the courts. The synod, in the former, may only take an advisory role. If the latter (which the Synodical President's comments suggest) then the whole case is Fait Accompli, and the current tennants of Our Redeemer will be evicted. The Judge involved will be the one, sadly, to give us the answer to these questions.

 

[DaRev]

Revrand, you have a few points a bit confused. First, the problem here is with a DP who has become far too involved where he doesn't belong. Second, the "member congregation (two men and thier families)" voluntarily left the congregation at the DPs direction. In fact these same men were involved with the vote to leave the synod. The ex-congregational president also arranged the situation so that the women involved on the other side would be vulnerable to this attack. He did so by cancelling one portion of the congregational insurance that would have financially protected them. Thirdly, the congregational Constitution does not require membership with the Missouri Synod. It only requires the following of the precepts of the Lutheran Faith. A semantic differance, to be sure, but important nonetheless. Also, the DP recommended that the congregation disband when it had a hundred-fifty regularly attending members. The fight has whittled this down to fifteen. Yes, the current situation with Our Redeemer has become dire. Both halves of the congregation have been led down the garden path and now neither wishes to cooperate with the other. Indeed, neither can now do so even if they had a change of heart. By the original charter precept of "Congregational Polity" the DP and the Synod have grossly overstepped their authority and are in grave error. Further, because of this trespass on Congregational Polity, they have caused irrepairable harm to the congregation of Our Redeemer.

The question remains: Are the congregations of the LCMS "Voluntary Members" or part of an involuntary episcopal heirarchy? If the former, then the LCMS has no right to be actively involved (including their attorney) in any aspect of this dispute in the courts. The synod, in the former, may only take an advisory role. If the latter (which the Synodical President's comments suggest) then the whole case is Fait Accompli, and the current tennants of Our Redeemer will be evicted. The Judge involved will be the one, sadly, to give us the answer to these questions.

My comments are based primarily on reading the actual complaint filed. Much of what you have posted here has come from the rantings I have heard from Otten and Cascione. If you have any credible sources for your opinions here, I'd like to see them.

 

[BoC]

http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/201...-support-of-defendants-summary-judgment-3.pdf

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA​

FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Case No.: RG07363452

Excerpt:
"This is a Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication brought by Defendants Sharon

Bowles, Portia Ridgeway, Mary Anne Hill and Celia Moyer (“Defendants&#8221 against all Plaintiffs as
to all causes of action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which Complaint seeks equitable remedies of
ejection and declaratory relief against Defendants. The suit ostensibly seeks to “eject” Defendants
from Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland (“Our Redeemer&#8221 because they personally
(along with the church’s other voting members) voted by substantial majority to disaffiliate Our
Redeemer from the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (“LCMS&#8221, so that the four individual
plaintiffs can “take control of the church” and return it to LCMS membership.
But the suit is not as it appears: The four individual Plaintiffs, who have not attended
services at Our Redeemer in at least three years, obviously could not function prospectively as a
viable church. The suit actually is the culmination of a seven-year effort by the California-Nevada-
Hawaii District (“the District&#8221 of the LCMS to force Our Redeemer to close as a church by
denying it any pastor, so that the District then could take and sell its valuable property under a
residual clause of Our Redeemer’s Constitution, which would be triggered only by complete
dissolution, as the District has done in other instances.
The Plaintiffs consist of the District, as well as four individuals who were former members
of Our Redeemer, Ronald Lee, Naomi Gatzke, Joseph Thompson, Jr., and Naomi Gatzke. They
also purport to bring the suit in the name of Our Redeemer itself. This motion is brought because
none of the Plaintiffs has standing to sue these Defendants, or adjudicate the issues raised in their​

Complaint, and even if they did, their claim has no factual or legal merit as a matter of law:"