You are here
July 21, 2005
Alan Robert Baker, Esq.
Baker O'Sullivan & Bliss PC
Putnam Park, Suite 100
100 Great Meadow Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109-2371
Dear Mr. Baker:
Your letter to Attorney Reeve, under date of July 19, 2005, has received careful consideration and review. We expressly deny the many factual generalizations therein. We are responding to your implied suggestions for an immediate resolution of the St. John's dispute.
We are prepared to respond as permitted by Canon IV.10.2. We assume upon receipt of Father Hansen's declaration denying abandonment of the communion, that the inhibition will be withdrawn, promptly, with an appropriate public announcement.
Father Hansen and the Bishop need not meet for that purpose, of course, but if a meeting is desired by the Bishop, then Father Hansen must be provided with a Consultant, at the expense of the Diocese, as required by canon law in such cases. Hopefully, that meeting will lead to a resolution of the sabbatical leave issue, as well, with Attorney Reeve's assistance.
The Senior Warden is providing for St. John's altar and the day-to-day needs of the parishioners, as he did before the unlawful seizure of the church. Note that the Wardens and Vestry will discharge the duties of their offices as they have in the past.
You can only assist the parishioners of St. John's at this point by causing all Diocesan personnel, including the guards installed at the church, and the priest in charge, to withdraw at once. In the course of doing so, those involved must restore the status quo as completely as possible to the satisfaction of the Wardens and Vestry.
Meanwhile, your clients, and those who have aided and abetted them, in this unlawful seizure, remain fully responsible for the church building and grounds and for the care of the records they have unlawfully seized, as well all consequences of violations of privacy laws.
Entry to the premises was gained by misrepresentation and the actions that followed and may follow hereafter are the unauthorized acts of those individuals and those acting in concert with them. St.
St. John's and its Wardens and Vestry deny all responsibility for the conduct of such persons.
Unless an understanding is reached with the Wardens and Vestry for the withdrawal of such persons as you represent from the premises, within the next two days, appropriate civil actions will be commenced and the necessary canonical responses implemented, without further notice.
Once the parish has been restored to normal operations, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference can best accomplish the lowering of "the volume of rhetoric" you seek. It is again urged that all in this Diocese join in seeking immediate assistance from the Panel of Reference, as six parishes and their priests, wardens, vestries and congregations have already done, in spite of the Bishop's refusal to join them.
Very truly yours,
Ralph Dupont, Esq.
