Law.com - 9th Circuit Considers Christian Student Group's Challenge to Law School's No-Bias Policy
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428988644 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
Why would being an unincorporated association have any effect on tax status of a church? In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not -Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). Two additional notes- 1.Many of the cases in this area have courts straining to find a property interest and thereby granting jurisdiction to a secular court .. See PARK SLOPE JEWISH CENTER, ,v.CONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB, 90 NY2d 517, 686 N.E.2d 1330 (1997) . (fascinating procedural history) 2. Retaining unincorporated status may result in making the benefits of IRC Section 501 (c) (3) unavailable to the congregation. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-2900 Fax: (212) 363-2999 - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law So that's the escape route. Makes sense that there had to be one. Quoting Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org: In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and
RE: NY Religious Corporations Law
Probably the earliest development of the corporate form in Roman law and English law was the corporation sole that permitted property to pass from one bishop to the next when the bishop died. This avoided the inheritance problems that would be present if title were held in the personal name of the bishop. Some of the same issues would likely arise if religious entities today tried to operate in non-corporate form. Beyond this, do we really want clergy holding property, often purchased with funds from their congregants, in their own names with the potential for abuse that this could pose? Also, to the extent that religious corporation statutes impose greater restrictions on incorporated churches than are imposed on other incorporated non-profits and charities, isn't there an equal protection problem? Howard Friedman From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 3:57 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law The question here is whether you can satisfy the rule against judicial oversight of ecclesiology and permit the states to serve their legitimate interest in overseeing those that obtain corporation status. Religious entities need and/or want to be able to operate with the benefits of a corporation, including property ownership by an entity that surpasses the lives of any particular individuals and limited liability. Incorporation is voluntary, so why isn't there an argument that if they choose incorporation and its benefits, they have to agree to certain state oversight? While it is relatively easy to point to potential constituitonal difficulties in the laws as written, there are difficult issues getting the balance correct. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
I recognize that by black letter law, a church is exempt. However for a church to secure an actual letter of recognition of exemption from the IRS , I have always believed there was a requirement to submit a Certificate of Incorporation (and By Laws), Trust agreement , Constitution or similar document- Additionally, the document must contain certain required clause, - no private innurment, disposition of assets upon dissolution. These documents are not necessarily utilized by Unincorporated Associations . In the absence of an IRS recognition letter, the burden in an audit is on the taxpayer to prove the entity is exempt See Generally IRS Publication 557. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 - Original Message - From: Lawyer2974 To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:22 AM Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law Why would being an unincorporated association have any effect on tax status of a church? In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not -Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). Two additional notes- 1.Many of the cases in this area have courts straining to find a property interest and thereby granting jurisdiction to a secular court ... See PARK SLOPE JEWISH CENTER, ,v.CONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB, 90 NY2d 517, 686 N.E.2d 1330 (1997) . (fascinating procedural history) 2. Retaining unincorporated status may result in making the benefits of IRC Section 501 (c) (3) unavailable to the congregation. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-2900 Fax: (212) 363-2999 - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: NY Religious Corporations Law So that's the escape route. Makes sense that there had to be one. Quoting Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org: In New York, a religious institution is generally permitted to register under the secular not for profit corporation law. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:54 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Connecticut bill To the extent that the entire NY Religious Corporations Law is mandatory, as opposed to merely default provisions that apply in the absence of contrary rules in the organization's charter or bylaws, I think there are serious constitutional issues with very many of the internal governance provisions. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of SAMUEL M. KRIEGER Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:11 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Connecticut bill Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
Having statutes with apparently mandatory organizational provisions directed at religious organizations is problematic for the reasons Doug and the other signatories of the Connecticut letter mention. There are subtler but none the less troubling issues if a state says that a religious organization can, if it wishes to incorporate, use the generic nonprofit corporation law, without providing ample opt-out provisions for those aspects of the normal corporate structure that conflict with the religion's tenets. By and large, this isn't an issue when the statute allows the charter or bylaws to override statutory defaults, since an individual church can implement any changes in organization later mandated by the church's denomination without resort to any public body. Where such opt-out is lacking, though, there might be a problem of unconstitutional conditions, since the benefits of limited liability and perpetual existence have long since ceased to be discretionary with the state just by virtue of its issuing a corporate charter. When Madison vetoed the Arlington church's charter, that wasn't the case--corporations had to be chartered by special act of the legislature. It seems to me that income tax exemption, whether federal or state, is a different issue entirely. Exemptions, at least at the federal level (many states simply rubber-stamp the federal exemption), are not entirely ministerial for the general run of nonprofit organizations (and there's no requirement that the organization be incorporated). It seems that the only mandatory provisions noted on Form 1023 regarding organizational structure require a statement of exempt purpose and a commitment to using the organization's assets solely for exempt purposes on dissolution. I'm not aware of cases where these requirements have been challenged by anyone on religious grounds. I'm also not sure whether the organization would have to satisfy the same non-inurement tests that, say, an educational or civic organization would; if so, these might provide grounds for religious objection. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Friedman, Howard M. hfri...@utnet.utoledo.edu wrote: Probably the earliest development of the corporate form in Roman law and English law was the corporation sole that permitted property to pass from one bishop to the next when the bishop died. This avoided the inheritance problems that would be present if title were held in the personal name of the bishop. Some of the same issues would likely arise if religious entities today tried to operate in non-corporate form. Beyond this, do we really want clergy holding property, often purchased with funds from their congregants, in their own names with the potential for abuse that this could pose? Also, to the extent that religious corporation statutes impose greater restrictions on incorporated churches than are imposed on other incorporated non-profits and charities, isn't there an equal protection problem? Howard Friedman -- *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of hamilto...@aol.com *Sent:* Wed 3/11/2009 3:57 PM *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu *Subject:* Re: NY Religious Corporations Law The question here is whether you can satisfy the rule against judicial oversight of ecclesiology and permit the states to serve their legitimate interest in overseeing those that obtain corporation status. Religious entities need and/or want to be able to operate with the benefits of a corporation, including property ownership by an entity that surpasses the lives of any particular individuals and limited liability. Incorporation is voluntary, so why isn't there an argument that if they choose incorporation and its benefits, they have to agree to certain state oversight? While it is relatively easy to point to potential constituitonal difficulties in the laws as written, there are difficult issues getting the balance correct. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
Generally the not for profit corporation leaves so much room to create a corporate form amenable to one's needs that this should not be a problem Marc stern - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu Mar 12 11:55:39 2009 Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law Having statutes with apparently mandatory organizational provisions directed at religious organizations is problematic for the reasons Doug and the other signatories of the Connecticut letter mention. There are subtler but none the less troubling issues if a state says that a religious organization can, if it wishes to incorporate, use the generic nonprofit corporation law, without providing ample opt-out provisions for those aspects of the normal corporate structure that conflict with the religion's tenets. By and large, this isn't an issue when the statute allows the charter or bylaws to override statutory defaults, since an individual church can implement any changes in organization later mandated by the church's denomination without resort to any public body. Where such opt-out is lacking, though, there might be a problem of unconstitutional conditions, since the benefits of limited liability and perpetual existence have long since ceased to be discretionary with the state just by virtue of its issuing a corporate charter. When Madison vetoed the Arlington church's charter, that wasn't the case--corporations had to be chartered by special act of the legislature. It seems to me that income tax exemption, whether federal or state, is a different issue entirely. Exemptions, at least at the federal level (many states simply rubber-stamp the federal exemption), are not entirely ministerial for the general run of nonprofit organizations (and there's no requirement that the organization be incorporated). It seems that the only mandatory provisions noted on Form 1023 regarding organizational structure require a statement of exempt purpose and a commitment to using the organization's assets solely for exempt purposes on dissolution. I'm not aware of cases where these requirements have been challenged by anyone on religious grounds. I'm also not sure whether the organization would have to satisfy the same non-inurement tests that, say, an educational or civic organization would; if so, these might provide grounds for religious objection. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Friedman, Howard M. hfri...@utnet.utoledo.edu wrote: Probably the earliest development of the corporate form in Roman law and English law was the corporation sole that permitted property to pass from one bishop to the next when the bishop died. This avoided the inheritance problems that would be present if title were held in the personal name of the bishop. Some of the same issues would likely arise if religious entities today tried to operate in non-corporate form. Beyond this, do we really want clergy holding property, often purchased with funds from their congregants, in their own names with the potential for abuse that this could pose? Also, to the extent that religious corporation statutes impose greater restrictions on incorporated churches than are imposed on other incorporated non-profits and charities, isn't there an equal protection problem? Howard Friedman From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 3:57 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law The question here is whether you can satisfy the rule against judicial oversight of ecclesiology and permit the states to serve their legitimate interest in overseeing those that obtain corporation status. Religious entities need and/or want to be able to operate with the benefits of a corporation, including property ownership by an entity that surpasses the lives of any particular individuals and limited liability. Incorporation is voluntary, so why isn't there an argument that if they choose incorporation and its benefits, they have to agree to certain state oversight? While it is relatively easy to point to potential constituitonal difficulties in the laws as written, there are difficult issues getting the balance correct. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to Conn legis. I am wondering if it was formally or informally commissioned by the bishops. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
The more interesting question is why anyone would have proposed such a patently unconstitutional law. For an apparently well sourced explanation debunking the claim, already made, that the proposed legislation was either retribution for the Church's stand on Prop 8, or part of a larger culture war, see http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1724 Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) masin...@nova.edu954.262.3835 (fax) Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)305.284.3626 (voice) University of Miami Law School mmasin...@law.miami.edu 1311 Miller Drive Coral Gables, FL 33146 Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to Conn legis. I am wondering if it was formally or informally commissioned by the bishops. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Connecticut bill
The bishops have their own lawyers. They did not commission the law professor's letter, and no one but the signers had any input into its content. Marci, even you agree that this bill was plainly unconstitutional, so it did not take a conspiracy of bishops to get me to say so. If the real question is whether anyone was paid to write that letter, the answer is no. Not a penny. I had no client that I could have billed, and even if I did, I do not bill commercial rates to clients on public interest matters. Usually, I do not bill public interest clients at all. Many people who saw the bill thought it was obviously unconstitutional, and they began turning for help in all directions. I heard about it from Catholic lawyers, Protestant lawyers, two different list serves, and a Professor at at the Yale Law School. No doubt the Connecticut bishops were encouraging their representatives to spread the word and seek help, and there may well be a chain of communications that leads back to the bishops. But I cannot reconstruct that chain, they did not contact me directly, and no one in Connecticut answered my e-mail when I tried to ask a question about one of the details in the bill. As far as I know, they had never heard of me and had other communications that seemed more important to attend to. The idea to circulate a draft for additional signatures was my own. Many of the people I sent it to already knew about it; some heard about it from me. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to Conn legis. I am wondering if it was formally or informally commissioned by the bishops. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[2] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: -- [1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Connecticut bill
The american jewish congress also filed a statement opposing the bill. Unfortunately we were not paid for our efforts either_and we could use the money Marc stern - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu Mar 12 14:51:09 2009 Subject: Connecticut bill The bishops have their own lawyers. They did not commission the law professor's letter, and no one but the signers had any input into its content. Marci, even you agree that this bill was plainly unconstitutional, so it did not take a conspiracy of bishops to get me to say so. If the real question is whether anyone was paid to write that letter, the answer is no. Not a penny. I had no client that I could have billed, and even if I did, I do not bill commercial rates to clients on public interest matters. Usually, I do not bill public interest clients at all. Many people who saw the bill thought it was obviously unconstitutional, and they began turning for help in all directions. I heard about it from Catholic lawyers, Protestant lawyers, two different list serves, and a Professor at at the Yale Law School. No doubt the Connecticut bishops were encouraging their representatives to spread the word and seek help, and there may well be a chain of communications that leads back to the bishops. But I cannot reconstruct that chain, they did not contact me directly, and no one in Connecticut answered my e-mail when I tried to ask a question about one of the details in the bill. As far as I know, they had never heard of me and had other communications that seemed more important to attend to. The idea to circulate a draft for additional signatures was my own. Many of the people I sent it to already knew about it; some heard about it from me. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: I would like to ask a point of information on the law profs letter to Conn legis. I am wondering if it was formally or informally commissioned by the bishops. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:21:28 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Connecticut bill
Thanks, Doug. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock layco...@umich.edu Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:51:09 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Connecticut bill ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Connecticut bill
For the record I was not asking about money. I was just struck by the bishops full page newspaper ad and wondered what else they might have done in response to a clearly unconstl law.. No offense at all intended. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:16 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Connecticut bill ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Connecticut bill
Fair enough. I did not take offense. I haven't seen the full page ad. Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: For the record I was not asking about money. I was just struck by the bishops full page newspaper ad and wondered what else they might have done in response to a clearly unconstl law.. No offense at all intended. Marci Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Marc Stern mst...@ajcongress.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:16 To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Connecticut bill ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[2] Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: -- [1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw [2] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not - Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). And in any case, the rabbi is a spiritual officer. Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
