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

[TheCosmicGospel]

Who is more surprised, you or Kieshnick, that he is involved in a lawsuit? Even your ignorance only lasts so long. The biggest error you made is to assume SPK was telling the truth all the while he was involved in a lawsuit. You have stayed in the Bunny suit too long. Who is in charge of the Board of Directors? One of their agendas is to note what lawsuits LCMS may be involved in, especially any of their Districts. Why act so clueless?

 

[DaRev]

Who is more surprised, you or Kieshnick, that he is involved in a lawsuit? Even your ignorance only lasts so long. The biggest error you made is to assume SPK was telling the truth all the while he was involved in a lawsuit. You have stayed in the Bunny suit too long. Who is in charge of the Board of Directors? One of their agendas is to note what lawsuits LCMS may be involved in, especially any of their Districts. Why act so clueless?

Let's take a look at a couple of actual facts in this case...

First, there's the claim by Otten and Cascione that Keischnick claimed to know nothing about the suit. Reclaim News printed a quote by Keischnick where he said that he wasn't aware that the suit had been filed. Now any good Lutheran would ask 'What does this mean?' According to Cascione it means "Lawsuit? What lawsuit?", which is a libelous misquote of Keischnick's actual words. What he actually said was that he wasn't aware it had been filed. That does not mean that he knew nothing at all about it, just that he wasn't aware that it had been filed at that time. But Reclaim has purposely twisted the truth to support their agenda.

Then there's Reclaim's recent newsletter where he states that the lawsuit was filed by Sherri Strand. But if one were to actually read the original complaint, they would read this on the very first page, "Sherri Strand (pro hac vice application pending)". Again, any good Lutheran would ask 'What does this mean?' It means that Sherri Strand, in order to represent the district, needed to apply for a pro hac vice status in order to be a part of the suit in the state of California for this one case. The term 'application pending' means that the pro hac vice status had not yet been granted, thus she was not able to bring anything to suit in California at that time, thus she was not able to file the suit. If one actually reads the original complaint, it states who filed the suit and who the attornies are in the case. When Reclaim stated that the suit was filed by Strand, that, too, is twisting the truth to support their agenda.

Now, as I have repeatedly stated in this forum, I am not a Keischnick supporter. And if it's found that there was any nonsense involved on the part of the district or the synod in this specific case, I will be just as furious about it as anyone else. But, to date, other than the original complaint that was filed (I admit that I haven't taken the time to read the other motions filed) I have seen no credible evidence to suggest that anything non-kosher has occured on the part of the plaintiffs in this case. I most certainly will not take the word of people who have been shown to twist the truth and misrepresent the facts. I will wait until the court renders it's decision. Until then, I will pray that this situation does not destroy the integrity of the synod, which it has the possibility of doing.

 

[RadMan]

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
July 29, 2010
LCMS Mission Funds Used to Sue 4 CA Women, Says Board Minutes
In his Ash Wednesday 2010 deposition LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick swore under oath that mission funds were not being used to pay for the lawsuit filed by the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA (case number RG07363452). Their sin is that they voted their church out of the Synod because the District has refused to give them a pastor since 2002.
However, minutes from the June 12, 2010 California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod show a recent transfer of mission funds to pay for litigation, as follows:
“16. Release of Funds ‐‐ (Letter attached for the record) Denise Lo from District Administrative Services requested that the Board release $306,780.00 from designated Mission funds to provide cash flow for District expenses. This request comes as a result of low congregational remittance and legal expenses. it was ‘Moved to release $306,780.00 from designated Mission funds.’ The motion was seconded and approved.”
http://i.b5z.net/i/u/696577/f/Baord of Directors/Dist_BOD_Meeting_Minutes_06-12-10.pdf
There have also been a number of similarly large withdrawals from this fund for unstated purposes. Thus far, the CA ladies have spent $569,000 defending themselves. With two legal firms involved and four lawyers, the LCMS is spending at least double this amount suing these ladies.
Legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors Sherri Strand filed the suit against the four CA women on December 28, 2007. Strand also serves as attorney representing LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick. During the deposition Strand objected to any questions from Attorney for the Defendants Paul Nelson. It is now clear that she was also objecting to any questions that would reveal that she is being paid out of mission funds. The following are questions from Nelson to Kieschnick at the deposition about the expenditure of LCMS mission funds for legal fees:
Nelson: Do you have any knowledge of whether the district is in fact funding as a plaintiff a lawsuit against the defendants in that case?
Kieschnick: I have no knowledge of anything about funding of any lawsuit.
Nelson: Would it be appropriate in your mind for the district to be using funds dedicated to missions to be funding a lawsuit in Our Redeemer case in Oakland?
Strand: I'm going to object to the question. It assumes facts not in evidence. It's a hypothetical. And it's misleading because it states facts that are not on the record.
Nelson: They were admitted in the last depositions we took.
Strand: No, they weren't. No mission funds were used and you know that Paul you're being misleading.
Nelson: I'm not going to debate you.
Strand: I'm not going to debate you either, so just ask your question subject to the objection would you like the reporter to read it back.
Kieschnick: Yes, please repeat the question.
Kieschnick: I have no information, knowledge, suspicion, awareness whatsoever that dollars dedicated to missions are being used to fund any lawsuit by any district including this one.
Nelson: Okay. That would have been a good answer if I'd ask asked you whether you were aware of that. The question though was whether that would be in your mind an appropriate use of mission dedicated funds to fund litigation against congregants of the church in Oakland?
Strand: I'm going to object to the question as being argumentative and phone shaly [sic] being repetitive and misleading.
Kieschnick: Well, I would hope that no dollars contributed by faithful people of God in our congregations would ever be used for anything that has to do with litigation and I have no idea where dollars are coming from to pay the fees or the expenses involved with this lawsuit.
--------------------
Kieschnick released a statement in September 2009 denying his knowledge of the suit in response to hard questions from Christian News, questions the Council of District Presidents will never ask.
If the President of the LCMS doesn’t know what is happening to LCMS mission funds, and doesn’t bother to find out what is happening to mission funds, how are laypeople supposed to know where their money is going? It just becomes one big mission farce and an abuse of the Lord’s treasury.
This kind of abuse gives credence to questions about mission fraud taking place throughout the LCMS. LCMS districts collect $120 million a year from congregational collection plates but don’t report how ALL the money is being spent. The layman who asks too many questions is labeled an impediment to evangelism.
How many millions of dollars are being misappropriated under the broad definition of “missions” is anyone’s guess. The district offices are the mission; the lawsuits are the mission; the facilitators’ salaries, pension funds, travel and personal expenses, etc. are all the mission. It’s all missions, including suing four CA ladies.
The Judge will rule on the motion for summary judgment in August 2010.
--------------------------------

 

[DaRev]

In his Ash Wednesday 2010 deposition LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick swore under oath that mission funds were not being used to pay for the lawsuit filed by the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA (case number RG07363452). Their sin is that they voted their church out of the Synod because the District has refused to give them a pastor since 2002.
However, minutes from the June 12, 2010 California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod show a recent transfer of mission funds to pay for litigation...

On my calendar, Ash Wednesday came before June 12th.

Legal counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors Sherri Strand filed the suit against the four CA women on December 28, 2007.

This statement is completely false, as has been shown before.

I really wish this guy would get his facts straight before "reporting" on them. He makes himself look more and more ridiculous every time he publishes something.

 

[RadMan]

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
August 23, 2010
Judge to Rule on CNHD-LCMS vs. 4 CA Women on Sept. 10, 2010
The Judge is scheduled to rule on the motion for summary judgment in California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (CNHD-LCMS) vs. four Oakland CA women on September 10, 2010.
The CNHD-LCMS filed suit against Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the church property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA (case number RG07363452).
The suit was originally filed by Legal Counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors, Attorney Sherri Strand, on December 28, 2007.
September 10, 2010 is coincidentally the last day of LCMS President Kieschnick’s term in office. No matter how the Judge rules, Kieschnick will not be able to manage information about the suit in the LCMS. Responsibility for the suit will then belong to newly-elected LCMS President Matthew Harrison.
On September 10, 2009, President Kieschnick wrote: “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is not a party to this lawsuit and is not involved in the property dispute which is the subject of the lawsuit….Further, the LCMS has not paid any legal fees in connection with this lawsuit, which was filed neither at my direction nor with my awareness.”
However, during his deposition on Ash Wednesday, February 17, 2010, Kieschnick admitted that he had not been forthright in his letter because it was Christian News (a paper he testified twists the truth) that had asked the question. Kieschnick admitted he actually did have knowledge of the suit.
Kieschnick wants members of the LCMS to believe that Attorney Sherri Strand isn’t charging the Synod any legal fees for representing him before, during, and after the deposition.
In a letter from the President of the Council of District Presidents, President of the Pacific Southwest District, Dr. Larry A. Stoterau, quoted Kieschnick’s September 10, 2009 letter as the official position of the COP, a letter that Kieschnick and the COP knew was a deception written to Christian News.
Four months later, on January 19, 2010, Chief Administrative Officer of the LCMS Ronald P. Schultz issued a letter stating, “The LCMS is not a party to the lawsuit involving Our Redeemer Lutheran Church; the LCMS has not provided any funds for the lawsuit….”
Schultz, Kieschnick, and Strand, who all sit on the LCMS Board of Directors, want members of the Synod to believe they didn’t discuss the lawsuit in the previous four months and that the Synod is not paying Strand for representing Kieschnick.
Schultz wrote, “…we cannot respond to them [your questions] because the LCMS is not involved in the dispute, and it is the general policy and practice of the LCMS not to comment on pending litigation or others’ speculation on such litigation.”
However, in the same letter Schultz also wrote, “the plaintiffs request the Court to find the individuals named as plaintiffs, together with other members of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, have the exclusive right to possess and control the property of Our Redeemer, and to find that the defendants’ actions in asserting control over the property are interfering with the plaintiffs’ rights.” For a Synod that doesn’t comment on litigation, Schultz had no difficulty giving the plaintiff’s side of the suit and leading the Synod to believe the defendants are guilty.
Schultz also wrote: “One of the plaintiffs is Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, a member congregation of the LCMS for more than 80 years, and one is the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the District in which Our Redeemer Lutheran Church is located.”
During the hearing on June 1, 2010, Attorney for the defendants Paul Nelson told the court that Our Redeemer could not be a legitimate plaintiff in the suit because Our Redeemer never voted to sue anyone. In other words, Schultz deceived the LCMS into believing the fraudulent claims of the plaintiffs.
One never knows how a judge will rule until he gives his ruling. On September 10, 2010, we may learn if the Judge decides the CNHD-LCMS has the right to claim ownership of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland CA.
We will learn if the Judge agrees with Attorney Sherri Strand’s claim in court that these four ladies should be sued for violating the Synodical Handbook, which Strand held up above her head as she spoke to the Judge.
Those familiar with LCMS polity know it is impossible for laypeople to be sued for violating the LCMS Handbook because laypeople do not belong to the LCMS.
We will also learn if a District of the LCMS can sue four ladies for attempting to vote their church out of the LCMS.
How is it possible for a corporation in California to file suit against lay people in California for violating the Handbook of a corporation in Missouri, while the Missouri Corporation claims it is not a party to the suit?
The suit includes a six-page history of the LCMS in St. Louis, uses the acronym LCMS more than 30 times, and has LCMS on the front page, yet the Synod says it is not a party to the suit. The question is, “If you were sued by Chevrolet, can General Motors say they are not a party to the suit?” In the case of Chevrolet every Judge knows General Motors is a party to the suit.
We will also learn if the LCMS is guilty of bringing false suit, libel, slander, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Even though Kieschnick responded to Herman Otten’s questions about the lawsuit in writing in September of 2009, Kieschnick refused Otten’s request to put a stop to the lawsuit.
If it is indeed true that Kieschnick, the COP, and the LCMS Board of Directors didn’t know about the lawsuit until they read about it in Christian News (a year and half after it was filed by Sherri Strand), the LCMS must be on the verge of financial and administrative collapse.
This also means that Christian News is the only reliable source of information about what is really taking place in the Synod for the LCMS BOD. Neither The Lutheran Witness, The Reporter, Affirm, Jesus First, nor any district papers have informed readers that the suit even exists. They wouldn’t even report that Kieschnick was compelled to give a five-hour deposition in St. Louis.
It is little wonder why Christian News is condemned in every District across the Synod, ridiculed by the LCMS clergy, and Herman Otten is barred for life from the LCMS clergy roster. Only Christian News has reported that more than an estimated one million dollars in mission funds has been spent to sue these four ladies, and that they have spent $569,000 defending themselves.
The 2007 LCMS Convention voted that it is a sin to sue your Christian brother. However, there is no acknowledgement of the pain, suffering, and anguish this fraudulent suit filed by a hypocritical Synod has caused these elderly women. The COP has forgotten who the God of orphans and widows is.
Despite Kieschnick’s hopes that mission funds not be used to pay for the suit, the June 2010 minutes of the CNHD-LCMS reported another payment of $306,780 from designated mission funds to be used for legal expenses.
It will be interesting to see what the Judge rules on September 10, 2010.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[jonathan1971]

"CNHD-LCMS reported another payment of $306,780 from designated mission funds to be used for legal expenses."

If the money has been designated as mission funds isn't it then against the law to use that money for other purposes?

 

[DaRev]

"CNHD-LCMS reported another payment of $306,780 from designated mission funds to be used for legal expenses."

If the money has been designated as mission funds isn't it then against the law to use that money for other purposes?

This is yet another deceptive statement made by Rev Cascione. If you look up the minutes of the CNH BoD for June 2010, it reads "Denise Lo from District Administrative Services requested that the Board release $306,780.00 from designated Mission funds to provide cash flow for District expenses. This request comes as a result of low congregational remittance and legal expenses." Rev Cascione would make it sound like this money is intended solely to fund the lawsuit, but no such determination can be made from that statement. It does not say that the money is to be used for legal expenses, but to bolster cash flow due to low congregational offerings and "legal expenses". (Besides, there are other "legal expenses" other than paying lawyers for a litigation.)
There is nothing that indicates how much was spent on "legal expenses" or even if any of that money being reallocated is to be used for "legal expenses" at all.

It is always wise to check up on what you read from this source.

 

[jonathan1971]

That doesn't answer my question.

If money has been designated for a specific purpose (mission fund) then isn't it illegal to use that money in a different way (and "legal expenses")?

 

[DaRev]

That doesn't answer my question.

If money has been designated for a specific purpose (mission fund) then isn't it illegal to use that money in a different way (and "legal expenses")?

Not necessarily. It would depend on whether or not it was designated for a specific mission purpose. If it is for general mission of the Church, then it could be allocated for any number of things related to the overall mission of the Church. If it's allocated for a specific "mission" then it would not be proper to use it for other things. If the money is being "borrowed" from a fund with the intent of being replaced at some point, that may be OK. However, the minutes didn't indicate what specific use the mission fund is for, nor did they indicate whether or not those funds would be returned. It would be pure speculation at this point.

 

[RadMan]

Yea the specific misson here is to sue some little ol ladies. Just the idea of even sueing a congregation for any reason just turns your stomach. How can anyone be so brutal and unChristian!

 

[jonathan1971]

Wow.......I don't know what to say to that.

Thanks for the answer Rev.

 

[DaRev]

Wow.......I don't know what to say to that.

The unChristian aspect is that 4 "little old ladies" allegedly illegally gained control of a congregation's building and bank accounts, according to the complaint filed. The truth will be known soon enough.

 

[RadMan]

.

 

[RadMan]

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
September 15, 2010
See reclaimnews : Reclaim News for previous articles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desperate LCMS Asks Judge to Reconsider in Suit against 4 CA Women
In a desperate attempt to reverse Judge Marshall Whitley’s Order against the LCMS in a hearing that was originally set for September 10, 2010, Attorney to the LCMS Board of Directors Sherri Strand filed a Motion to Reconsider on the afternoon before the Hearing. Strand presented Whitley with a surprise 5 page ruling from the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) issued on the morning of September 9, 2010. In response to Strand’s motion, Whitley moved the hearing to January 14, 2011. The trial is scheduled for April 18, 2011.
The CCM ruling was issued in response to District President Newton’s submission to the CCM five days earlier. Strand’s lengthy motion was filed, oddly enough, on the same day that the CCM Opinion was issued. This suggests that she may have known what the CCM ruling would be beforehand, or that it may have been planned by her as a tactic to avoid the Court’s ruling.
LCMS Involved in Suit
The CCM consists of 5 appointees by former LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick.
Kieschnick, Dr. Larry Stoterau, the President of the Council of District Presidents (COP), and Ronald P. Schultz, Chief Administrative Officer LCMS Board of Directors, all issued statements that the LCMS was not involved in the suit. During the hearing on June 1, 2010 in Alameda County Superior Court, Strand represented to Judge Whitely that the LCMS California-Nevada-Hawaii District—and not the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod—was suing Sharon Bowles, Mary-Ann Hill, Portia Ridgeway, and Celia Moyer for the church property of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church of Oakland, CA (case number RG07363452).
Kieschnick, Stoterau, the COP, and Schultz can hardly say the Synod isn’t a plaintiff now that the CCM has issued a ruling in response to the suit and the Secretary of the Synod, Dr. Raymond Hartwig, issued a 9-point signed “Declaration…in Support of Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration.” CCM Opinions are binding on all LCMS Congregations.
Hartwig & Strand Misinform Court
Hartwig’s Declaration misinforms the court when he writes, “Further the 1983 CCM Opinion referred to in, and attached to Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the CCM Opinion maintained by me as Secretary of the LCMS CCM.” There is no “1983 CCM Opinion” on this subject. Hartwig sent a copy of the 1983 Convention Resolution 5-10A “To Reaffirm Essential Congregational Polity of the Synod.” In behalf of the CCM, Hartwig also sent a five page “Statement by Legal Counsel Phil Draheim on Res. 5-10A” and “Remarks by Dr. Herbert Mueller on Res. 5-10A” that were never voted on by the LCMS Convention but read into the Convention minutes. In other words, Draheim’s and Mueller’s comments were never part of any LCMS Resolution, By-Law, or CCM Ruling and therefore cannot represent the LCMS as a legal document of the Synod to the Court.
At the June 1, 2010 Hearing, Strand misinformed the court that the four defendants were being sued because they violated the LCMS Handbook, which Strand held over her head while she was speaking to the Judge. It is not possible for a layperson to be sued for violating the LCMS Handbook because laypeople are not members of the Synod.
It should also be noted that Convention Resolutions are not binding on LCMS congregations as CCM Rulings are. Therefore, nothing in Resolution 5-10A or Draheim’s and Mueller’s statements has any validity in the Court.
If LCMS Resolutions do have authority in the Synod why didn’t Strand, Hartwig, and the CCM quote from Convention Resolution 8-02A-2007 “To Affirm Christian Resolution of Disputes,” which says it is a sin to sue a fellow Christian in court?
LCMS Makes Up New Law after the Fact
The CCM is trying to convince the court that they didn’t make up new law in the Synod by their Opinion with the charade that the 1983 Convention Resolution 5-10A and statements of Draheim and Mueller are legally binding on the Synod. One example of new law in their Opinion binding on all LCMS Congregations is that at no place in the LCMS Constitution, By-laws, or any CCM Opinion is the LCMS referred to as “hierarchical” except in the new CCM 10-2581. This Opinion is in apparent response to the Court’s correct observation that the LCMS is not a hierarchical church in which a District President can dictate local church decisions. At no place does the 1983 Convention Resolution 5-10A reference the Office of District President.
While CCM 10-2581 repeatedly references the autonomy of LCMS Congregations, it invents new law when it writes: “a district president must be able to determine who, on behalf of the congregation, properly speaks for the congregation in the congregation’s relationship to the Synod.” A District President has no authority to determine that anyone but the Voters’ Assembly speaks for the congregation, as CCM 10-2581 then acknowledges in prohibiting the DP from interfering in local church processes or membership issues. This is just one of many desperate additions to Synodical “Law” invented by the CCM in response to losing this suit—in order to try to nevertheless beat these 4 women in court.
CCM Promotes Dispute Resolution Charade to Court
CCM 10-2581 says that if the congregation doesn’t agree with how the District President runs their congregation they can always appeal to Synodical Dispute Resolution. “…his [the District President’s] actions are subject to appeal by the congregation pursuant to the Bylaw section 1.10 processes.” In other words, the Synod can sue laypeople but laypeople have to use Dispute Resolution or they sin.
This writer has a signed letter from Secretary Hartwig dated in December of 2005 promising to resolve a dispute filed against this writer on a case after numerous meetings between 2002 and 2005. Hartwig’s letter promises that the case will be resolved in January of 2006. That was the last letter on the subject and the case is still awaiting resolution. This is the “processes” the CCM wants all LCMS congregations to submit to if they don’t agree with how the District President dictates to their congregation.
New Synodical President Powerless to Stop Suit
Newly-elected LCMS President Matthew Harrison is powerless in this entire process. After the defendants have already spent $569,000, the LCMS continues to throw mission money at financing the suit. At this point the LCMS has spent approximately $1,100,000 suing these four ladies.
The CCM meeting, the new CCM Opinion for the Synod in the suit against 4 Oakland CA ladies, Hartwig’s sworn Declaration, and the Synodical Attorney’s new motion for Judge Whitley to reconsider all took place within the first 9 days of Harrison’s term in office.
Opinions by Kieschnick’s 5 appointees on the CCM have total authority over every member of the Synod including the Synodical President. A shadow group of unnamed district presidents, retired district presidents, and unnamed key present and former officials are the real power that influences CCM Opinions. Because it is a shadow government, it operates by crisis management, such as producing emergency CCM rulings in response to Judge Whitley’s Order. This shadow government directs the flow of mission funds to support its own bureaucracy.
No One Knows Where the Mission Money Is Going
The layman and church that sends their mission money to Synod have no proof of how it was spent. The COP’s own preservation is the highest mission of the LCMS. In his deposition President Kieschnick testified that he had no idea where the funds are coming from to finance the suit. Members of the LCMS Board of Directors say they don’t know where the funds are coming from and they didn’t know about the suit until they read about it Christian News. If the President and the BOD don’t know what is happening to the mission money how is a layman supposed to know?
--------------------------------

 

[DaRev]

I’m not sure about the process of appointing members of the CCM, but it will be interesting to see if a CCM appointed by President Harrison will have a different take on this matter. When I read the CCM opinion there were a couple things that I scratched my head about, especially the “hierarchial” aspect. I’m not sure it accurately represents our polity. It will be interesting to follow.

But it must be noted that the CCM opinion does not directly involve the synod in this dispute as Rev. Cascione insinuates. The opinion was made in response to the CNH District president’s request to clarification of his role in congregational affairs, and not in direct response to the judge’s rulings.

It also must be noted that when the judge denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment he actually ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on one issue, that being the illegal vote to disaffiliate with the LCMS. He ruled that since the defendants did not follow the proper procedure as expressed in the constitution and by-laws of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, their vote to leave the synod was “ineffective” meaning that the vote was not legal and thus not binding since it would require an amendment to the constitution. While the judge did not directly address the issue of Ron Lee’s removal from the office of congregational president (because it was not a matter related to the plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment) it would appear that his removal from office was also ineffective since that vote was also done at the same time as the vote to leave the synod, although I must note that I’m not sure of their particular procedure for removing elected officers from office since that varies from congregation to congregation. In my church here it requires a 2/3 majority ballot vote of the Voter’s Assembly to remove an elected officer from office only after Matthew 18 has been applied to the matter.

One thing that the judge’s ruling did state is that the district has no say over who are and are not members of a congregation. As we say in the Lutheran Church, “this is most certainly true.” It is a congregational matter and needs to be handled “in-house”.

I was happy to see that the judge’s ruling did uphold the congregational constitution as a legally binding document. This case had the potential of having a devastating impact on congregational integrity within the synod.

 

[RadMan]

I don't remember that Ron Lee was removed from the presidency. He, and others, left the church because he didn't get his way and therefore forfeited his position after it was vacated for some time. Although he wasn't probably taken off of the church roles his office position would only be valid for a certain amount of time and I'm sure that his office tenure had lapsed.

CCM resolutions are not valid untill they have been passed, or resloved, and are not retroactive in this case.

 

[DaRev]

I don't remember that Ron Lee was removed from the presidency. He, and others, left the church because he didn't get his way and therefore forfeited his position after it was vacated for some time. Although he wasn't probably taken off of the church roles his office position would only be valid for a certain amount of time and I'm sure that his office tenure had lapsed.

According to the initial complaint filed, Ron Lee was "removed" from the presidency by a so-called "emergency" council meeting which was deemed improper. The defendents then held the illegal "voter's" meeting on April 29, 2007, where they voted both to remove Ron Lee as president and to leave the synod. The judge ruled in his Summary Judgement that the meeting of April 29 was illegal and thus the vote was not binding. Apparently Ron Lee is still the legal president of that congregation. He is recognized as such by the district anyway. And since the congregation is still an LCMS member, he is still the legal president until a proper legal voter's assembly meeting votes otherwise, which apparently hasn't happened yet.

 

[RadMan]

According to the initial complaint filed, Ron Lee was "removed" from the presidency by a so-called "emergency" council meeting which was deemed improper. The defendents then held the illegal "voter's" meeting on April 29, 2007, where they voted both to remove Ron Lee as president and to leave the synod. The judge ruled in his Summary Judgement that the meeting of April 29 was illegal and thus the vote was not binding. Apparently Ron Lee is still the legal president of that congregation. He is recognized as such by the district anyway. And since the congregation is still an LCMS member, he is still the legal president until a proper legal voter's assembly meeting votes otherwise, which apparently hasn't happened yet.

I knew Lee wasn't President but I didn't remember why so I should have re-read it

 

[DaRev]

I knew Lee wasn't President but I didn't remember why so I should have re-read it

He was president, and apparently still is.