Bp. Bruno then filed this lawsuit against the clergy and vestry of St. James. One member of the congregation joined him in filing the suit.

Bp. Bruno hired lawyers from Morrison & Foerster, which calls itself “one of the world’s largest law firms with 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices worldwide.”

According to the July 2004 American Lawyer magazine, the firm earned $740,000 per partner last year and paid its partners an average of $665,000.

Here I will offer a brief, much-simplified summary of the lawsuit. (Readers interested in more detail can refer to the numbered paragraphs of the bishop ’s 29-page complaint. Incidentally, the bishop declares under penalty of perjury that everything in the complaint is true.)

[b]What Does Bp. Bruno Want?[/b]

Bp. Bruno asks the court to take various actions against the clergy and vestry of St. James:

First, to declare:

• that St. James holds its property in trust for ECUSA and the diocese, and can use that property only in accordance with ECUSA and diocesan rules;

• that the parish acted illegally in deleting references to those rules from its governing documents; and

• that the bishop has validly ousted the clergy and vestry, so that they no longer have any right to use or control the parish’s property.

Second, to order the clergy and vestry to stop acting for the parish and to give the diocese all of the parish’s property and records.

Third, to order the clergy and vestry to pay the diocese money for all harm caused by their conduct.

Fourth, to punish the clergy and vestry by making them pay “punitive damages” — money over and above any actual harm—in order to make an example of them and deter others from similar conduct. 132-34.

[b]What Are Bp. Bruno’s Key Arguments?[/b]

Bp. Bruno argues:

• The founders of St. James agreed that the bishop’s authority—and the rules of ECUSA and the diocese—would “forever” bind the parish. 50.

• The parish’s own articles of incorporation state that: o the parish shall form part of ECUSA and the Diocese of Los Angeles; and o ECUSA and diocesan rules shall (unless contrary to state law) override anything in the parish’s governing documents. 55.

• During ts early years the parish received support from other parishes and the diocese. It bought its property from the diocese for less than $100. 48, 51.

• The parish created “a legally binding and irrevocable trust” for the benefit of the diocese. 8.

• Under an ECUSA rule known as the “Dennis Canon,” the parish held all of its property in trust for the benefit of ECUSA and the diocese. 37.

• Under diocesan rules, “all parish property is irrevocably dedicated to” ECUSA and the diocese. 45-46.

• The clergy and vestry of St. James had a legally enforceable duty to “act in the best interests” of ECUSA and the diocese. 91. They breached that duty by attempting to leave the diocese and take their property. 67, 94.

• The clergy and vestry now trespass on the parish’s property and wrongfully prevent the diocese from using and controlling that property. 99, 106.

• The clergy and vestry intentionally interfered with the parish’s contractual and “economic relationship” with ECUSA and the diocese, and thereby deprived ECUSA and the diocese of an “economic benefit” they would otherwise have received. 110-12.

[b]What’s Noteworthy About the Lawsuit?[/b]

Bp. Bruno:

• sues for unfair business practices, false advertising, and trade-name infringement (not traditional topics for ecclesiastical controversy);

• seeks punitive damages;

• uses much melodramatic rhetoric; and

• makes some outlandish claims.

[b]What Does Bp. Bruno Mean by Unfair Business Practices and False Advertising?[/b]

Bp. Bruno accuses the clergy and vestry of unfair business practices and false advertising. 127. He evidently objects to the clergy and vestry continuing to call themselves “Anglicans.” 20, 128. He argues that St. James offers unauthorized imitations of ECUSA’s “rites, practices, programs, and activities.” 74. He implies that the parish infringes on trade names belonging to ECUSA. 128. He also regards the clergy and vestry’s alleged disloyalty to ECUSA and the diocese as an unfair business practice. 128.

[b]What Are Punitive Damages? Why Does Bp. Bruno Seek Them?[/b]

Bp. Bruno asks the court to punish the clergy and vestry of St. James by making them pay “punitive damages”—money over and above any actual harm to ECUSA and the diocese. Courts can award punitive damages against persons “guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice”—and thereby seek to deter others from wrongdoing. Bp. Bruno brands the clergy and vestry’s actions as oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious. 131.

[b]What Are Examples of the Bishop’s Melodramatic Rhetoric?[/b]

Bp. Bruno alleges that the clergy and vestry of St. James “conspired, plotted and schemed against the Episcopal Church.” 66; see also 94. They even “conspired . . . to steal” the parish’s property. 67.

The bishop depicts the parish’s affiliation with a Ugandan diocese as an egregious misuse of the parish’s “altars, chalices, organs, bibles, prayer books and hymnals.” He voices indignation that these items, “all donated or purchased by or for Episcopalians, are being used to conduct rites of a foreign, non-Episcopal church.” 9. Thus property that should serve only Episcopalians is now serving “a non-Episcopal denomination in a foreign land”—a “foreign, non-Episcopal entity.” 5, 85.

Bp. Bruno claims that members of the congregation who remained loyal to him “are in exile” and “have been denied a place to worship as Episcopalians” 10; see also 85.

[b]What Are Examples of the Bishop’s Outlandish Claims?[/b]

Bp. Bruno asserts:

• The clergy and vestry of St. James acted solely “because they are displeased by the consecration of an openly gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire.” 3; see also 1, 4, 65-66.

• ECUSA “is the sole successor of the Church of England in the United States and the sole inheritor in the United States of that body of doctrine, discipline and ecclesiology called “Anglicanism.” 20.

• ECUSA’s “sacred rituals, practices, and ceremonies . . . are highly distinctive and well-recognized throughout Los Angeles, California, the United States and the world.” 69.

He even refers to “the Episcopal faith.” 54.

The Anglican Communion Network Think Tank