The first paragraph in a 19-page response to Bishop Jon Bruno's (VI Los Angeles) desire to drop all Title IV charges against him, says it all.

"The Church Attorney opposes the Motion of the Respondent Bishop J. Jon Bruno to dismiss or stay this case. This is a disciplinary proceeding -- only Bishop Bruno's conduct as stated in the Statement of Charges is relevant," writes Episcopal Church Attorney Raymond "Jerry" Coughlan. "The Bishop's entire motion is based on claims of misconduct by others, namely after-the-fact conduct by the Complainants, investigators, and the intake officer. Such conduct does not bear on the proof of his conduct. For this reason alone, the entire motion must be denied."

The church attorney in this case is Raymond J. "Jerry" Coughlin, Jr., who has been an assistant United States attorney based in Washington, DC; a trial attorney for the Department of Justice in Washington, DC; and an assistant United States attorney based in San Diego, California. He has passed the bar in California, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC. After his public service, he entered private practice and, for nearly 30 years, he was a partner in his own law firm. In 2016, he branched out into legal conflict mediation. According to his website, he is a "California certified specialist in legal malpractice."

This experienced former federal prosecutor is no stranger to open litigation. His blistering retort to Bishop Bruno's Aug. 29 motion to drop his case, is methodically countered point for point.

First, Coughlin points out some of the evidence which supports the claims of more than 140 canonical charges Save St. James the Great (SSJG) members filed against their bishop.

The church attorney points out that:
A) Bishop Bruno did not have valid Standing Committee consent to sell St. James in violation of Canon II.6.2; Canon II.6.3.; and Canon IV.4.1(g).
B) Bishop Bruno misrepresented his plans for the future of St. James in violation of Canon IV.4.1(h)(6);
C) Bishop Bruno misrepresented the financial status of St. James also in violation of Canon IV.4.1.(h)(6);
D) Bishop Bruno misrepresented that the Rev. Voorhees resigned also in violation of Canon IV.4.1(h)(6);
E) Bishop Bruno misrepresented leaseback arrangements also in violation of Canon IV.4.1(h)(6); and
F) Bishop Bruno has acted in a manner unbecoming a clergy member in violation of Canon IV.2.

Canon II.6.2 states: It shall not be lawful for any Vestry, Trustees, or other body authorized by laws of any State or Territory to hold property for any Diocese, Parish or Congregation, to encumber or alienate any dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel, or any Church or Chapel which has been used solely for Divine Service, belonging to the Parish or Congregation which they represent, without the previous consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese;

Canon II.6.3 states: No dedicated and consecrated Church or Chapel shall be removed, taken down, or otherwise disposed of for any worldly or common use, without the previous consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese;

In part Canon IV. 2 states: Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy shall mean any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church, and Member of the Clergy shall mean Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Church.

Canon IV.4.1(h)(6) states: In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall refrain from conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;

Canon IV.4.1(g) states: In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall exercise his or her ministry in accordance with applicable provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church and of the Diocese, ecclesiastical licensure or commission and Community rule or bylaws; and

In part Canon IV. 2 states: Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy shall mean any disorder or neglect that prejudices the reputation, good order and discipline of the Church, or any conduct of a nature to bring material discredit upon the Church or the Holy Orders conferred by the Church, and Member of the Clergy shall mean Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Church.

"This opposition ... outline the conduct of Bishop Bruno that has prejudiced the reputation and brought discredit upon the Church," Coughlin writes in his opposition to dismiss Bishop Bruno's motion to dismiss his charges. "The unseemliness of his conduct is all too obvious and all too public."

However, the Los Angeles bishop, in an attempt to deflect close scrutiny upon himself, claims that the canon violations are not his. Bishop Bruno's motion to dismiss the presentment against him states that the Save St. James the Greater group is in violation of Canon IV 19.2, for brining a case #30-2015-00794789 to the Orange County, California Superior Court.

He also charges that the SSJG group is misusing Title IV.

"Complaints seek improperly to misuse the Title IV process to achieve claimed relief for which the Title IV processes were never intended and thereby undermine the basic polity of the Church and of EDLA [the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles]", Bishop Bruno writes in his plea.

He also claims that SSJG violated the confidentially of Bishop Dorsey Henderson, who is the president of the Title IV Conference Panel, by disseminating a July 17, 2016, e-mail and disclosing Conference Panel proceedings by posting them online thereby violating Canon IV.12.8.

Bishop Bruno also has Bishop Clayton Matthews in his sights. Bishop Bruno charges that Bishop Matthews, who is the Title IV intake officer, disclosed his interview notes to SSJG in violation of Canon IV.6.10; Canon IV.11.5; and Canon IV.19.26.

The Los Angeles bishop also charged Episcopal Church Chancellor David Beers with the same canonical violations for participating in a telephone call between Bishop Bruno, Bishop Matthews and then Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori.

"Mr. Beers made inquiries of Bishop Bruno as though conduct in an investigation of presentment," Bishop Bruno complains. "Mr. Beer's conduct involving himself in the proceedings of this presentment is not authorized under any provision of the Constitution and Canons of the Church, and affects and denigrated the integrity of the process."

Bishop Bruno is claiming that under Canon IV.13.5, Canon IV.13.9(a); and Canon IV13.11 that the Hearing Panel can dismiss a complainant in this case SSJG; and he is also claiming the mantel of innocence under Canon IV 19.16.

"All of the foregoing irregularities and canonical violations in the process warrant dismissal ... in and of themselves" Bishop Bruno pleads. "These irregularities and canonical violations further have resulted in an environment and atmosphere inconsistent with and prejudicial to the presumption of innocence established under Title IV.19.16."

Canon IV.6:10 states: All communications and deliberations during the intake and referral stages shall be confidential except as the Bishop Diocesan deems to be pastorally appropriate or as required by law;

Canon IV.11.5 states: All investigations shall be confidential until such time as information obtained may be utilized by the Church Attorney, the Bishop Diocesan or the Panels. All persons, prior to being interviewed by the investigator, shall be advised of the confidential nature of the investigation and when such information may be shared during the course of the proceedings;

Canon IV.12.8 states: No witnesses shall be called to testify at the proceedings before the Conference Panel. No record of the proceedings of the Conference Panel shall be made. The conference shall be closed to all except the members of the Conference Panel and invited participants. Proceedings before the Conference Panel shall be confidential except as may be provided in an Order or Accord or as provided elsewhere in this Title. No statements made by any participant in such proceeding may be used as evidence before the Hearing Panel;

In part Canon IV.13.5 states: All pre-hearing motions and challenges shall be filed with the Hearing Panel within the time limits prescribed in the Scheduling Order ... Upon receipt of a motion or challenge, the Hearing Panel will promptly set the matter for hearing. The hearing may be conducted by conference call. After consideration of the argument of the parties, the Hearing Panel shall
render a decision within three days of the hearing ...;

In part Canon IV.13.9(a) states: The Hearing Panel shall have the authority, upon reasonable notice, to impose sanctions on the Respondent, the
Respondent's counsel, or the Church Attorney, for conduct that the Hearing Panel deems to be disruptive, dilatory, or otherwise contrary to the integrity of the proceedings ...;

In part, Canon IV.13.11 states: If the determination is to dismiss the matter, the Hearing Panel shall issue an Order which shall include the reasons for dismissal and which may contain findings exonerating the Respondent ...;

Canon IV.19.2 states: No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title;

Canon IV.19.16 states: There shall be a presumption that the Respondent did not commit the Offense. The standard of proof required for a Hearing Panel to find an Offense by a Respondent shall be that of clear and convincing evidence; and

Canon IV.19.26 states: Wherever in this Title it is provided that any communication, deliberation, investigation or proceeding shall be confidential, no person having knowledge or possession of confidential information derived from any such communication, deliberation, investigation or proceeding shall disclose the same except as provided in this Title.

Coughlin is interested only in Bishop Bruno's acts of omission and commission and is not letting Bishop Bruno's litany of others supposed canonical missteps deter him. Point by point, the church attorney knocks down the bishop's arguments.

He points out that: A) There is substantial evidence of canonical violations by Bishop Bruno -- and highlighting Bishop Bruno's alleged violations of various Title IV canons; and B) There is no reason to stay or dismiss this Title IV case based upon the facts that 1) a civil law case is not a reason to stay or dismiss a canon law case; 2) the alleged improper July 17, 2016 e-mail is not a reason to dismiss the case; and 3) the alleged improper action of others is not a reason to dismiss the case. The church attorney also points out that Canon IV.13.9(a) zeros in on the imposing sanctions on the Respondent (Bishop Bruno), not the claimants (St. James the Great) for conduct that seems "to be disruptive, dilatory, or otherwise contrary to the integrity of the proceedings."

However, Coughlin points out that Bishop Bruno has regularly used the secular courts to his advantage when litigating realigning Episcopal congregations, including using California civil courts to get St. James property back into diocesan hands from the departing Anglicans.

"Bishop Bruno, of all people, should not be heard to complain about using the civil courts to litigate questions about church canon," Coughlin writes. "In 2004, when Bishop Bruno filed suit against the Anglicans, seeking to recover St. James property for The Episcopal Church, his complaint was filled with references to the Constitution and the Canons of The Episcopal Church."

Coughlin writes that it was only after a bruising battle in the secular court, that Bishop Bruno prevailed.

"The bishop's argument ultimately prevailed in the California Supreme Court," the church attorney notes, "but only after an extended civil courts, one in which there were serious questions about whether it was proper for the civil courts to resolve these canon law questions."

Coughlin surmises that Bishop Bruno is his own worst enemy.

"Bishop Bruno's fourth point is that these alleged 'canonical violations and irregularities' have denied him 'presumption of innocence'," Coughlin writes. "But it is Bishop Bruno, not the Church Attorney, who has brought these various points to the attention of the Hearing Panel, so whatever harm he suffers is self-inflicted."

Episcopal Church attorney emphatically concludes: "The Hearing Panel should deny Bishop Bruno's motion to stay or dismiss this Title IV case."

Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline

*****

Episcopal Church attorney joins bid to reopen St. James the Great
The Newport Beach church sits empty and unused

By Mary Ann Mueller
VOL Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
Sept. 19, 2016

Bishop Jon Bruno (VI Los Angeles) has found a formidable foe in Episcopal Church Attorney Raymond "Jerry" Coughlan, who is joining the Save St. James the Great (SSJG) petition to allow the displaced Episcopal congregation to use St. James the Great's church edifice until the Title IV case against the Los Angeles bishop is decided.

The opening paragraph of the 17-page initial motion by Save St. James the Great reads: "The Complainants in this Title IV case against Bishop J. Jon Bruno request that the Hearing Panel hold a preliminary hearing and issue an interim order, requiring Bishop Bruno to allow the congregation and community to return to St. James the Great during this Title IV case."

"By this pleading in my roles as the 'Church Attorney', I join in, and adopt as my own motion to the extent necessary, Complainants' Motion for an Interim Order requiring Bishop Bruno to allow the congregation and community to return to St. James the Great during the pendency of this Title IV case," Coughlin writes in his opening paragraph thereby openly joining St. James the Great congregation in its bid to reoccupy its own church building.

The St. James the Great's pleading continues to explain that after Bishop Bruno locked the growing Episcopal congregation out on June 29, 2015, that the church has remained shuttered. Since then, church doors have been opened for use only twice, once for a for funeral and once for a wedding.

"St. James the Great sits empty and unused," the SSJG motion reads. "There is no reason for the continued lockout."

Goughlan fully agrees. "The continued lockout of over 100 loyal parishioners and clergy of the St. James Church building makes no sense," he writes in his joiner.

"There is a vibrant Episcopal congregation in exile because Bishop Bruno has locked them out of their Episcopal church," the SSJG motion explains.

Since June, 2014, when Bishop Bruno locked St. James the Great parishioners out of their own parish, the determined group of Episcopalians, led by a feisty vicar, the Rev. Canon Cindy Voorhees, have celebrated the Service of Holy Communion out in the open air at Lido Park, and then, when the weather turned colder, they sought shelter at the Gray Matter Museum in Costa Mesa. Now the exiled congregation is meeting at in the community room at Newport Beach City Hall, while patiently praying and waiting for their Title IV cast against their bishop to be determined by an ecclesiastical court.

In the meantime, they would like to be able to worship in familiar space -- their own church, yet, as of Sunday (Sept. 18), the church remained locked tight and the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles website states that: "The last Sunday service in St. James' Church occurred, as scheduled by the vicar, on June 28, 2015. Inquiries related to physical plant operations should be addressed to the Coordinator of Mission Congregations of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles."

The Diocese suggests that those seeking Episcopal Church services explore the four neighboring Episcopal parishes, including: St. Michael & All Angels Episcopal Church in the Corona del Mar neighborhood of Newport Beach; St. John the Divine Episcopal Church in Costa Mesa; St. Wilfrid of York Episcopal Church in Huntington Beach; and St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Laguna Beach.

There is no mention that St. James the Great is still alive and thriving, albeit displaced. Currently the congregation is meeting weekly at the Newport City Hall community room. The parishioners are doing the best they can under the circumstances. But, even though under those difficulties, Canon Voorhees continues to shepherd her flock.

In the 18 months before the lock out, she grew her flock from none to more than 160 worshippers on a Sunday, with a budget of more than a half a million dollars. There was an effective Sunday school program in place and more than 80 souls joined the congregation through confirmation, being received or through a reaffirmation of faith. Even now, there are seven children awaiting baptism and several members have died and there was no traditional worship space to hold their funerals.

Bishop Bruno's very public dispute with St. James the Great comes as a result of his desire to sell the midcentury Spanish-style edifice to developers so that the church could be destroyed to make way for high scale condominiums.

Legacy Partners, home based in Foster City, California, bills itself as "a privately held real estate firm that owns, develops and manages multifamily communities throughout the United States." The group dangled $15 million in front of Bishop Bruno's nose and he was more than willing to sell St. James the Great church out from under its own congregation.

Legacy Partners was apparently financially partnering with AIG Global Real Estate, which allegedly backed out of the deal because of Bishop Bruno's lawsuit against the Griffith Company, which challenged the bishop's right to change the property's use.

In 1945, Griffith Company, the original developers of the land in the Lido Isle area of Newport Beach, had attached a religious use clause to the property deed.

Last year Bishop Bruno went to court to try break that limited use clause. This year, the Orange County (California) Superior Court ruled that the prior deed restriction on the Lido Isle property at 3209 Via Lido ceased because Griffith's restriction was not renewed.

"The Episcopal Church should not be in the position of suing a donor, namely, the Griffith Company, which gave the land for Church purposes in 1945," the church attorney explains in his short four-page joiner. "The damage to the Episcopal Church from such conduct could be catastrophic."

However, The Daily Pilot points out that AIG Real Estate "decided not to proceed, citing the volatile position of the property and Griffith's claim to still hold a revisionary interest in one of the lots."

Once the silent partner, AIG Real Estate, backed out of the deal with Legacy Partners, then Legacy Partners was forced to cancel the deal with Bishop Bruno because it no longer has a financial partner in its corner.

"The controversial agreement by Bishop Jon Bruno to sell St. James the Great Episcopal Church to condo developer Legacy Partners was terminated last year," The Newport Beach Indy reported in May. " A document filed in court last month (June 2016) shows that the sale was cancelled nearly a year ago, probably prior to Bruno locking out church worshippers and forcing them to find another location to hold services."

Legacy Partners was seeking to add it to its stable of luxury apartment communities in the Los Angeles area. They have already developed upscale properties in Anaheim, Burbank, Cerritos, Costa Mesa, Hollywood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Marina Del Ray, Monrovia, North Hollywood, Ontario, Playa Vista, Rialto, Rowland Heights, Santa Ana, and West Covina. Building high end condominiums in Newport Beach would have been a nice fit.

Meanwhile, a year later, St. James' the Great parishioners are still homeless. But they have not given up, as their motion to the Title IV Hearing Panel to allow them back into their church until the Title IV proceedings are over shows.

Win, lose or draw, St. James parishioners want to return home for the duration and the Episcopal church attorney agrees.

"The Episcopal Church can only gain by giving these loyal Episcopalians the opportunity, at no cost to the diocese, to continue to grow the parish and its ministries and the use of the Church," Goughlan writes in his joiner. "In the meantime, the closed, locked up building and the attendant adverse publicity, combined with the actually functioning of the parishioners and the church activities, is an awful disconnect and inconsistent with Episcopal Church values."

"We recognize that under the Dennis Canon, Title I, Canon 7, Section 4, the St. James the Great property does not belong to the St. James the Great congregation. Nor does the property belong to Bishop Bruno; it is 'held in trust for this Church and the Diocese'," A footnote to the SSJG motion reads. "The congregation views St. James the Great, however, as 'their church,' just as most Episcopal congregations view their buildings. Indeed, if anything, the congregation is more passionate about the buildings today than it was before Bishop Bruno locked the doors."

St. James petition goes on to explain: " The church buildings and grounds sit locked and unused, with an ironic banner behind the closed gate: 'All Welcome.'"

Apparently the sale of St. James the Great was slated for July 10, 2015. But even though the initial sale fell through and there are apparently no other offers in the wings yet, the church doors remain locked.

Since becoming the church attorney in Bishop Bruno's Title IV proceeding, Goughlan has had an opportunity to research the history of St. James, and he is impressed with what he found.

"Although I have viewed the Church campus only from the exterior, its beauty, functionality and relative youth are obvious," Goughlan writes in his joiner. "The phenomenal growth from nothing in 2013 to over 100 parishioners that was virtually financially self-sufficient and conducted several important ministries was incredible."

The most recent bar graphs that The Episcopal Church released this month, shows that St. James the Great's baptized membership climbed from zero in 2012; to 33 in 2013; to 67 in 2014; then to 135 in 2015 before Bishop Bruno pulled the plug. The ASAs were even higher.

"It was exactly the kind of growth the Episcopal Church should welcome and encourage," the church attorney writes in his joiner. "To lock these people out after the work they put in and the money they donated to achieve these results send exactly the wrong message to any observer of the Episcopal Church."

In his conclusion, Goughlan surmises: "The Episcopal Church should not be in the position of rejecting and locking out loyal Episcopalians from their church building. The Episcopal Church is a welcoming inclusive church. The lockout is the opposite."

The church attorney also decries the wastefulness of the empty church.

"The Episcopal Church should not support wasted. Keeping a beautiful consecrated church unused for no reason is waste," he writes. "The intentional refusal to provide pastoral care to the loyal group of parishioners is inconsistent with Episcopal principles.

Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline