Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?

[Newsom Michael]

I will be the first to admit that I may have misread Jones v. Wolf, but
"neutral principles of law" is a rather capacious concept, and don't
forget Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and the
insistence there of the right of the Court to provide a remedy where
there was "fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness" in the proceedings before
the religious tribunal.

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
Lawyer2974 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:31 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?

 

In a message dated 1/26/2007 1:11:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:

	I will defer to those who know this area of the law better than
I do,
	but, isn't it the case that secular courts will impose secular
notions
	of procedural due process on adjudications by religious bodies?
No, indeed quite to the contrary and appropriately so

 

	If that
	is so, then this case may be but so important, if it turns out
that the
	Episcopal Bishop transgressed those secular due process norms.
And if
	that be the case, then isn't the appropriate judicial remedy a
judgment
	directing the Episcopal Bishop to give Moyer a "fair" trial?
	One more thought that may be even more important:  if the
Episcopal
	Church's own rules contain due process protections and the
Episcopal
	Bishop has failed to follow them, then isn't it appropriate for
a
	secular court at least to order the religious organization to
follow its
	own rules, quite apart from any notions of constitutional (i.e.
secular)
	due process?  No, the state has no constitutionally permissible
role in ensuring that ecclesiastical process either meets secular
notions of due process or in enforcing what it interprets to be the
process selected at any given point in time by an ecclesiastical body

 

While I have not read any opinion that may have accompanied this judge's
order, the press report, if accurate, suggests that this judge has
strayed beyond both federal and state constitutional boundaries...I have
obtained the exact opposite outcome in a case raising similar issues
from another judge in Montgomery County

 

Donald C. Clark, Jr.
2333 Waukegan Road
Suite 160
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
847-236-0900
847-236-0909 (fax)

This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all
attachments
are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential
or
protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
information contained in or attached to this message is strictly
prohibited.  Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying
to
this message, and then delete it from your system.  Thank you.


************************************************************************
********************************

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:  To comply with requirements imposed by the
IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein
(including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is
not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of
(i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
herein.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070126/c05e9400/attachment.html