71 Blackburn Road RR6
Renfrew, Ontario
K7V 3Z9
613-433-8227
rev@magma.ca
August 17, 2009

Nora Sanders
General Secretary
The United Church of Canada
3250 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M8X 2Y4

Nora

re http://www.axz.ca/vesting.htm

The General Council by refusing status to appeal has exhausted the procedural means available to me within the church to address "the vesting of property should not be used as an instrument of power in relating with the congregations", including
. informal dialogue since 1998;
. a friendly abstract petition in 2003;
. a non-abstract proposal requesting apology in 2006;
. request for alternative means to ruling in 2006;
. request for ruling followed with definitive legal appeal and request for review in 2006; and
. offer to withdraw my appeal in 2007 if without reference to who owns property the United Church of Canada either apologized to Dover Centre or alternatively disavowed and repudiated the use of property to intimidate.

So while there is basis for

Ruling 06-009-R
i. estoppel
"... a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself"; precludes the only Manual authorized person from interpreting United Church of Canada v. Anderson as authority per "...based on my interpretation of church polity as set out in The Manual" and "...matters of civil law are beyond my role as General Secretary";
Review
ii. estoppel
"... a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself"; properties of former congregations of the Presbyterian Church in Canada were held "for the sole use and benefit of the said congregation" at the time of union [Rules AND Forms of Procedure IN THE CHURCH COURTS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, Toronto, The Westminister Co., Limited 1909, pp. 128, 130, 132, 138] and may thereafter be held under the provisions of section 5.4 of the basis without dispute by the United Church of Canada which is not directly affected simply by reason of the static disposition of property; and
iii. the deficiencies of bylaw section 266(a), formerly 261(b), 112(b), 77(a), 78(a), 34(a), recited from an early date so as to be constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church were not dismissed;

preferred is recognition "that important issues are raised by the appeal" as expressed by the Judicial Committee Executive, though not within my rights to initiate.

Where do we go from here?

--
Don Anderson
rev@magma.ca
http://www.axz.ca/