decision that we really have to defer to though that's not correct your honor that there were there are a number of decisions first before the guys can see voted to withdraw in november two thousand and eight there were two decisions by the highest body in the has looked at this question including a court in the supreme court of texas which does not take the same view about deference but nevertheless has said that this church is a hierarchical church every court in the country that has looked at this church has called it a hierarchical church so why is it a hierarchical church it's a hierarchical church because the fundamental defining characteristics of this religious body are decided by the top or beside the general convention level so what are they the general convention is the only body that adopts and immense the fundamental faith document of this church is the book of common prayer so that every diocese every parish that is part of this church uses that fundamental faith document second who gets to ultimately pass on the selection of bishops who are the leaders of the individual diocese the individual devices kind of elect their bishops but they can't become bishops of their diocese without the consent of the larger church what body prescribes the standards of conduct for bishops and can decide to remove bishops even against the will of the diocese and that  convention diocese can't change their borders they can't divide without the consent of the general mentioned this is not a church where independently autonomous bodies come together once every three years and make some flimsy decisions this is a body where the top legislative entity the general convention sets the most important decisions nothing in the constitution or canon that that this it designates a general convention as the supreme authority so unlike our federal constitution but he did he does say that the church is hierarchical because there is so  much authority that is exercised by the general benton understand that the history of this church was appalling at the same time as this country was coming together because this church was being formed at the point of revolution there there was it was the  three week trial your honor because we moved for summary judgment and we moved on the basis that we move on the ground that the documents were clear and the courts had to fight decide the case the documents and the court issued a decision saying he could draw in ences from these documents and be reasonable to further the church's hierarchal these documents but he had further questions and it was clear that he wanted to hear testimony now it was our view that the only truly relevant testimony that you could have in this kind of case where we're trying to discern what's the deal when in eight hundred seventy seven when quincy became a diocese in the compact was formed the only if it's not clear from the documents you look at other evidence to to discern the intent of the parties the most probative witness testimony would be from someone alive in eight hundred seventy seven there wasn't anybody so we had testimony from witnesses who were drawing inferences from historical documents because that's the best we could do we put on two witnesses we put on professor mullen who is a historian has been studying the episcopal church for thirty years we put on professor fish if you can the bishop of the diocese the other side put on nine witnesses largely purported experts on a variety of topics and so i would posit that it's not surprising given that amount of testimony that the court found there was some confusion on the issue our view has always been that there there was a he didn't need to go there because there wasn't confusion in the first place it's a very different case from the greats case greats and grace the the governing documents of the it also had provisions that said that the synod could expel people while the so the court in grace understandably brought in experts and people or by experts to testify about whether neither the governing documents nor all of the documents historical documents were put into evidence from which all of these witnesses testified and drew their conclusions so none of those documents this works fine spee it and we would posit that the first here is absolutely dispositive they're not the second tier is to and then yes yes but we think it was a mistake to get to that level yes and by the way we think the testimony under the manifest weight when you take because you don't take testimony alone under manifest weight you look at the whole spectrum so so the documents themselves the governing documents themselves plus the historical documents by the way including including commentators from the one nine hundred centuries this was i'm contradicted and and there was there were no no contrary evidence missionary diocese is a diocese that exists outside of the geographic territory of the united states and that can only be accomplished under this canon with by the consent of the general convention and so it's our view that that's further evidence that the general convention the think the idea of a geographic territory seceding from the church it is not even it's not even found of all it's not the way the church works the church  church it's a it's a geographic if it's a national church it has geographic subdivisions geographic subdivision does not see the idea of the anglican idea is that you get a people in your geographic subdivision no matter how hard it is you don't succeed because you begin to disagree on issues that's the way this church work concept in the same way in our our case as more like the st mark coptic orthodox church where the serbian easter eastern orthodox church where in the st mark church the question was which of two sets of bylaws govern there was a care purported to have adopted which gave the parish a lot more autonomy and there were a lot of facts in the record about the adoption of either of these and the court in that case refused to decide the question it said the question of which bylaws has delegated its authority for this task it decided that two bishops in two other guises had wrongly taught that there diocese could leave the church because that was against the policy of the church so the church had made the quality association law does apply that body of law governs the relationship between entities and between and here we have a question about a relationship between a diocese which incorporated by the way only in two thousand and five call church a larger principle church and i imagine a secular entity where you have a national organization its regional body decides to divide into two but it doesn't until it gets the consent of the national body it gives half of its local units over to this new organization which promises to obey the national bodies rules and it operates for over one hundred years as polling itself out of this national body and using all of its materials and training country and it's and we have freedom of religion but you can't dismantle the organization the national organization that was clearly hierarchical when you came in and in closing i'd like to say that if the trial court is affirmed in this case general shirt and in doing so we're going to look at all of these documents in purefoy secular terms and we're going to employ concepts that are no you're from judges and lawyers throughout the country now there's a two it's sample it favors no particular structure of church organization and what children's first of all pointed out very very clearly it lets the in most of them council simply conceded that the church was hierarchical it was never let a gated issue also they're mistaken in south carolina it was specifically determined  what is also noteworthy about that stack of cases is those cases are examining the relationship between a parish and the diocese this case is fundamental to a different it is looking at the relationship between none of those constitutions to my knowledge are the same each one of those constitutions is written open by and the optical will now with regard to neutral princ paper of the person church i think what we really have to remember is what we are talking about in this case is two pieces of property a house that's been converted to an office and a banking as a practical matter in spite of what as well as i a city is formed themselves and after they are form they ask to join this church these acts indicate that there is not anything that falls under the definition of watson again shannen role an ultimate power of control more or less what we have  consideration of the general convention go on with determinations of general convention but going along with is are far different from being mandated to foggo we have an organism the general convention which can speak that doesn't mean that it has any power in force it has no power to this one and without those powers not all within the definition of the true it could it has not it has it could it has not and you see that happening in their documents that make any diocese contribute back to them not force that does not force it but what it does do is it requires that it's a it's our view that the general convention because of the kind of body it is could adopt any kind of provision like that yes yes and it's and it's you know in one thousand i think sixty four seventy four i don't the standards it requires how the courts are set up it lays it all out and that can be appealed to larger regional bodies and the general convention are also prescribed the standards of conduct for all bishops and sets of the tribunals and  decided on the face on the documents another point so so wrong it was hierarchy conceded in all those other cases because it's obvious one thousand and eighteen seventy one and when it was talking about  hierarchical churches just trots out a couple of examples one of which is the protestant this whole church and it wasn't just well the thing the name of the church protestant if the school means the whole church it's not a diocese the watson court says that you the only opinion apply neutral principles if these other issues don't apply the supreme court of a project here recently said we don't apply the law that way we don't look at churches as though they're dealing with each other as  their arms third parties and operating at arm's length these these local entities take their identity from the larger church and we have to take that into account even when we're applying