Numerous parish churches have challenged the validity of the trust provision without success. The South Carolina Supreme Court, however, categorically rejected the trust theory, holding that a party cannot unilaterally declare a trust over property to which it did not hold legal title. As such the TEC property canon, in South Carolina at least, is unenforceable as a matter of law. And so All Saints – and any other parish in the Diocese of South Carolina that wants to leave – is free.

There has been much buzz on the internet – at least in some of the arcane quarters that I frequent – as to what the impact of this decision will be. Specifically, folks are wondering whether the dozen or so parishes involved in litigation in other states now have a better chance of defeating TEC’s claims to their property, and whether the US Supreme Court is now more likely to hear the appeal of St. James Church in Newport Beach, California, which saw a trial court decision in its favor on the question of property ownership overturned by the California appellate courts. Happy as I am for the members of All Saints, I must regrettably conclude that the hope of its supporters that this court decision will have a wide and dramatic impact on future church property litigation are misplaced. I’ll explain why after the jump.As to the first issue, whether this decision will have an impact on cases pending in other states, its important to bear in mind (and I am astonished at how many people commenting on this case have failed to grasp this fact) that this decision was issued by a South Carolina court, applying South Carolina law to a particular set of facts. No court outside of South Carolina is bound by this decision. Courts in other states may – or maynot – find the opinion persuasive. But those courts are bound to decide the cases before them based upon the law of their own states and the facts of the particular case before them. Much as I wish it were otherwise, the South Carolina decision does not necessarily suggest that there will be a sudden wave of decisions favorable to parish churches and unfavorable to TEC any more than TEC’s heretofore perfect record in church property litigation was a harbinger of a pro-TEC ruling in South Carolina.

As for whether the US Supreme Court is now more likely to take up the California case or some other case because there is a split of authority between South Carolina and all of the states in which the appellate courts have upheld TEC’s property canon. The answer to that question, in my view, is even clearer, and is also no. The Supreme Court has no interest in seeing that there is uniformity in state trust or property law. Indeed, there are many areas in which the law varies from state to state, and where the answer to a legal question will depend solely upon which state’s law applies. This is an unavoidable byproduct of our federalist system and, so long as there are no questions of federal law involved, of no interest to the US Supreme Court. The likelihood that the SCOTUS will take one of these cases is, in my view, extremely limited, unless some First Amendment issue is implicated, which to me seems unlikely.

The man on the right is Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He was Osama bin Laden’s driver. He was convicted of materially aiding terrorists. He was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison. The man on the left is Jamie Olis. He was an accountant for Dynergy Corp., and was convicted of materially aiding activities that were later determined to be “fraudulent tax planning.” He was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison (reduced to 6 years – still 6 months more than bin Laden’s driver – after appeal). Tell me, who is more dangerous. And what do these two sentences tell us about the priorities of our justice system and our political classes. Free Jamie Olis!

In another blow to State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, a computer technician who prosecutors said carried out an electronic cover-up for Fumo has agreed to plead guilty and is expected to testify against his former boss.

Leonard P. Luchko, 51, who worked in Fumo’s South Philadelphia office, is scheduled to plead guilty on Monday before a federal judge, according to a document filed yesterday in U.S. District Court.

Luchko and another computer technician are charged with systematically deleting e-mails and other potential evidence from computers used by Fumo and Fumo aides as well as by staffers at a key nonprofit organization that figured in the federal investigation.

The cleansing of the computers was allegedly done at Fumo’s behest and for the sole purpose of thwarting the federal investigation into Fumo’s activities.

Fumo, 65, a Philadelphia Democrat who has been a political powerhouse for decades in Harrisburg, is to stand trial in a sweeping corruption case starting next month.

He is accused of defrauding the state Senate and two nonprofit groups, misusing their employees and money for personal and political advantage. He is also charged with staging a cover-up to obstruct the FBI and IRS investigations.

Luchko is the second new prosecution witness to emerge in the months leading up to the trial before U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr.

In June, political consultant Howard J. Cain, for years one of Fumo’s closest confidants, pleaded guilty to tax evasion and agreed to testify against Fumo.

Another computer aide in Fumo’s office, Donald Wilson, has been cooperating with federal prosecutors since before the indictment. He, too, is on the prosecution’s witness list.

James C. Schwartzman, a longtime friend of Fumo’s who is representing Luchko, did not respond to e-mail or phone messages. Fumo’s lead defense attorney, Dennis J. Cogan, would not comment about Luchko’s decision to plead guilty.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Pease and Robert Zauzmer also declined to comment about the scheduled guilty plea.

Luchko and a second computer technician, Mark C. Eister, were charged with leading an effort to cleanse computers used by Fumo, his staff, and workers at Citizens’ Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, a civic nonprofit organization funded with millions of dollars through Fumo’s efforts. Eister is awaiting trial with Fumo. His lawyer, Brian P. McMonagle, could not be reached for comment.

According to the federal indictment, the effort began in earnest Jan. 25, 2004, after The Inquirer reported that the FBI was investigating Fumo.

“The FBI probe into the Senator has really set him off. . . . He wants all the Blackberries wiped,” Luchko wrote in an e-mail to Eister that evening.

Even as Luchko and Eister worked assiduously to clean others’ computers, they failed to cleanse their own, an oversight exploited by the FBI to obtain copies of hundreds of e-mails.

In those messages to other staffers and Senate contractors, Luchko repeatedly cited demands from “the Boss” that potentially damaging e-mails be deleted.

“Mail from the Boss needs to be deleted!” Luchko wrote to one Senate contractor. “. . . You really have to clean your mailbox up this is the kind of s- that can get us in trouble.”

In another, Luchko boasted about his ability to outwit the FBI, saying investigators could never extract data from a particular Citizens’ Alliance computer.

“Good Luck to them because they are going to need it,” Luchko wrote. “They aren’t getting s- off that PC.”

In the e-mails, Luchko portrayed Fumo as absolutely determined to have the staff’s computer cleansed.

“The Boss is driving us ALL nuts with this FBI madness. . . . Life just got so complicated it isn’t even funny and the killer is I can’t tell anyone about it.”

Now, it appears, Luchko is talking about it, to prosecutors.

Might not look good for Fumo, but I still wouldn’t bet against him. Dude has more than nine lives.

Source: Philly.com