ULC Legal Claims Documents

May 27th, 2012 Post by

ULC during construction in 1949.
The entire MN District Convention took a recess to be part of it.

 

Some new documents have put out by ULC in their cause to save their facility from being destroyed by the MNS District’s stewardship and ministry decision to sell the property to a developer.  From ULC:

A new document is available related to our legal claims. This one shows from the MN District Convention proceedings just what the donors and the District intended when they built ULC’s chapel.

Purpose of ULC-Convention Actions

 

A second document related to our legal claims has just been posted. This one shows from Official MN District Reports and Promotional Items what the District intended when ULC was built.

Purpose of ULC-Official District Reports

 

A third document related to our claims has been posted today. This one shows the expectation of the students and of the campus pastor at the time the Chapel was built.

Purpose of ULC-Gamma Delta

 

Here is another key document involving the correspondence of previous pastors of ULC.  It is a large document but is also very comprehensive.

Correspondence of ULC’s Pastors

Here’s an older document posted May 14th:

Where did the money come from to build ULC? We just posted a new document, using MNS District records, that shows just where the money came from and where it was spent to purchase land and construct ULC.

Who Paid for ULC

 

Now for those who have the authority to vote in the MNS Convention this June I would ask you to read these documents and think on whether the action of the MNS Board of Directors and District President is a good one, in keeping with the original intent of those who put the building up.  If you look into this on BJS, you will see that I have been very passionate about this, and you may feel more moderate in your response, but it is important to consider the actions of the MNS Board of Directors and District President in light of reason.  You know from even the political material being sent to you that there are definitely two sides involved in LCMS affairs, and this is indeed sad whenever it happens.  However, just by using your good old Minnesota common sense (I am a native of MN too) can you see how divisive this whole sale issue has become?  If this division creating decision making is the kind of leadership which is represented by certain people who are up for election or re-election, are those the folks you want making decisions in the future?  How much more division do you want to see?  How much more division can your district take?

For all who are not involved in the MNS Convention, please keep it in your prayers, ULC, Pr. Kind, alumni of ULC, and especially the District Board of Directors and District President Sietz, that there may be a change of heart and decisions made to help heal the great divisions that have been deepened by this whole sad affair.

 






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Nathan Raddatz
    May 27th, 2012 at 23:52 | #1

    Joshua,

    Thanks for posting this. The documents ought to be in the hands of every convention goer, needless to say the proper authorities considering this case that it may go to trial. The information speaks for itself. Those who assembled the documents ought to be commended. The information carries little commentary, but actual factual information.

    I pray that the courts will rule in favor or ULC and the delegates to the convention make a statement by how they vote.

  2. May 27th, 2012 at 23:56 | #2

    I just added the Correspondence of ULC Pastors document links as well. They could also be very helpful.

    @Nathan Raddatz #1
    You are welcome. I too hope that Caesar can render a verdict in favor of ULC and that the good folks of MNS can also vote according to sound reason and just plain common sense.

  3. Rahn Hasbargen
    May 28th, 2012 at 07:05 | #3

    The parallels between the “Kingdom of the Right” versus the “Kingdom of the Left” are striking. Both seem to have a debate between those who look at “Original Intent” versus those who consider themselves “Modernists”. with other interpretations falling somewhere in between.

    For a look at the basic ideas of US Constitution intrepretation, see the following, and ask yourself if you can see parallels betwen that and what is going on in the church:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

  4. Albert Hughes
    May 28th, 2012 at 07:24 | #4

    All who depart from Lutheran Doctrine and Practice, as the true faith of the true church, founded upon the true foundation of the apostles and prophets, also let administration and discipline fall by the wayside.

    As a corollary to departing from the faith, discipline and administration are then used to support the new paradigm of theology.

    If the church in convention, (for congregations do not cease being church when they gather and are represented by their representatives in convention), does not reverse this decision of the MN South Dist Pres and its Board of Directors, then it is a further corollary of the new theological paradigm whether enacted in ignorance by a set of convention delegates or no.

    The true church will thrive and overcome the gates of Hades to the glory of the God-man Jesus Christ and His enemies will know the result of impenitence.

  5. David Hartung
    May 28th, 2012 at 10:57 | #5

    I may have asked this question before, but suppose the district leadership does not wish the ULC issue to be discussed on the floor of the convention. Can the delegates force a discussion and vote?

  6. May 28th, 2012 at 11:19 | #6

    @David Hartung #5
    I think there were some resolutions that have to do with it, and they will allow for discussion if they are going to be considered.

  7. austen wilson
    May 28th, 2012 at 12:32 | #7

    @Rahn Hasbargen #3
    I fail to see the parallels. The “original intent” of the Constitution did not view African Americans as people and did not give women the right to vote. Surely you are not in favor of those two aspects of original intent?

    Thank you Pastor Scheer for blogging so extensively about the ULC case.

  8. Rahn Hasbargen
    May 28th, 2012 at 13:44 | #8

    @austen wilson #7
    I could discuss the secular US Constitution and how it is more open to change in my mind due to the fact that it IS a SECULAR document, but I will refrain on that.

    The intent of my original comment was to point out how, like secular government discussions, the discussions on church matters always seems to come around to “what was the original intent of the document” (whether that document is the bible, the catechism, or a convention resolution) versus an argument along the lines of “the document is outdated, we have to use modern interpretive ideas to things.” That kind of thinking in the “Kingdom of the Right”gives us the XXXA and other flimsy theology. This site is called “Steadfast Lutherans” for a reason.

    By your thinking, surely the district resolutions of the 1940′s and 1950′s did not take into account the changing role of women, the growth of “Mega Churches” in the MNSD, and other issues (such as relations with other churches) in the church that the “Mission Vision” supporters advocate. To “modernists”, the past intent is irrelevant, and EVERYTHING is subject to change as the mood of the people dictates.

    The “Mission Vision” people always talk about how the people who oppose them want to take the church “back to the 50′s”. One of the examples is the attached:
    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=16299

    No, I want to move forward, but I want to move forward in the CORRECT direction of strong theology that is NEVER afraid of being LUTHERAN in EVERY sense of the word, including the part of Lutheran doctrine that isn’t afraid to proclaim the acknowledged creeds, confessions, and sacraments of the church. This Sunday is Trinity Sunday. I just wonder how many of the churches led by the “Mission Vision” advocates wiill recite the Athenasian Creed in their services? Or even the Nicene Creed, at the very least? Or maybe (to use your analogy) they are not in favor of those parts of the “original intent” of Lutheranism……

  9. Mrs. Hume
    May 28th, 2012 at 15:19 | #9

    The “original intent” of the Constitution did not view African Americans as people

    The slave states considered them people because they wanted them counted for purposes of representation. The north felt that since slaves couldn’t vote, they shouldn’t be fully counted because that would give the slave states too much power. The argument that they weren’t people doesn’t even make sense and no one was claiming that. They were just claiming they weren’t voters, which they weren’t. Later the US Constitution was amended to make them citizens and voters. When you want to change the document from its original intent, you have to go through the democratic process and let everyone vote on it, which they did. Those who don’t like original intent wish to change things without using the democratic process. They figure they can’t get agreement, so they will use a show of right to get their way. If they explained their position and the opposition explained theirs, the innovators figure they would lose, so they use executive power and reinterpretation of what was originally said or explicitly written.

    If both sides of the ULC situation had originally presented their views at a district convention, the delegates would likely have voted to keep ULC property rather than sell it and spend money on consultants and have no facility to use on campus. The university doesn’t have to allow/rent them any space, but if they own their own, they can continue to use it.

  10. Jeff Samelson
    May 28th, 2012 at 19:27 | #10

    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #6
    I don’t want to presume anything here, but in our conventions pretty much the #1 item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. That’s usually a just a pro forma vote, but it seems to me — assuming that’s how things will be done with MNS — that if there’s concern that the issue won’t be considered (or perhaps won’t even be brought before the convention at all) that a delegate could speak prior to the approval of the agenda and move that a/the ULC discussion be added to the agenda, made a separate part of the agenda, etc. — or even be discussed at the very beginning of the convention, before the elections. A well-made argument for it might even sway the delegates (and give an early “victory”).
    Just a thought.

  11. May 28th, 2012 at 21:49 | #11

    @Jeff Samelson #10
    I think your caution is correct. There are some resolutions in the workbook, but that does not mean that the Floor Committees will bring them forward for consideration. The Agenda could be switched, but you do run the risk of being viewed as “up to something” when you do that.

    I think every effort should be made to get the matter on the floor. I also think that delegates need to be forward thinking and “wise as serpents” on this one. The amount of secrecy and so forth in this whole matter will most likely continue, even on the convention floor.

    I think that this issue is so important to any harmony in the future of the MNS District that it deserves a lot of time for discussion on the floor, and that efforts to Call the Question (aka. shut down conversation) should be voted down. Let the matter be discussed fully in the open – that is what most of us have waited for for over a year.

  12. mbw
    May 28th, 2012 at 22:24 | #12

    Deuteronomy 19:14.

    The original intent and that of many supporters, volunteers and donors over the years was also not for KFUO-FM to be sold for non-Lutheran uses for money.

  13. mbw
    May 28th, 2012 at 22:32 | #13

    @austen wilson #7

    The constitution was amended to correct for its tacit allowance of slavery. I could argue that this only corrected a practice that was inconsistent with the obvious grounding and original intent of the Declaration and the Constitution, where temporal rights are granted to humans from God.

    There were and are very valid reasons for acknowledging male headship in society, not to mention the church. Women voters are responsible for swaying elections every time a socialist is elected. Have a look at the male-female split regarding Clinton and Obama.

  14. mbw
    May 28th, 2012 at 22:34 | #14

    @Rahn Hasbargen #8

    > “back to the 50?s”

    I would dearly love to crawl back into the 50s.

  15. boaz
    May 29th, 2012 at 01:06 | #15

    Interpretation of texts is about how words are generally understood. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about religious texts or legal texts. Both contexts assume and depend on the idea that there is a common meaning for words. Liberalism in both contexts seeks to undermine this idea by inserting new definitions or just ignoring the old, while still preserving the authority of the document. It can’t be done.

  16. Oliver Young
    May 29th, 2012 at 08:36 | #16

    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #11

    Pastor Scheer -

    All MNS Convention delegates recently received a “Miscellaneous Convention Items” mailing from the MNS District (Memo from Lane Seitz, dated May 15th, 2012).

    Included with this mailing were:

    1. Cover memo
    2. Two Convention Workbook replacement items a) A Primer for Parliamentary Procedure (p 8-10), and b) Convention Committees (p 16-18)
    3. A set of the Resolutions which were prepared by the convention floor committees on May 5th in response to the reports and overtures contained in the Convention Workbook.

    Of interest are…

    Resolution 2-03 (Overture B-9) – To thank God for the ministry of Dr. Lane Seitz
    Resolution 2-06 (BoD Report) – To accept the report of the Board of Directors
    Resolution 3-04 (Overtures C-1 & C-6) – To affirm and expand Campus Ministry in MNS District
    Resolution 3-05 (Mission Committee Report) – To accept the report of the Mission Committee

    *** Resolution 5-01 (Overtures E-2 through E 11) – To support and expand Campus Ministry in the Minnesota South District – This resolution is 4 pages long and is essentially identical (minor changes to the Whereas 15, 16, & 29) to the original Overture E-2 “To support ULC in relocating to a new location” submitted by the MNS BoD.

    ALL other overtures (E-3 through E-11) submitted in support of ULC, have been removed.

  17. May 29th, 2012 at 09:15 | #17

    ALL other overtures (E-3 through E-11) submitted in support of ULC, have been removed.

    This is the power of a DP and his hand-picked floor committees to rewrite history. TW

  18. John Rixe
    May 29th, 2012 at 09:31 | #18

    “There were and are very valid reasons for acknowledging male headship in society, not to mention the church. Women voters are responsible for swaying elections every time a socialist is elected. Have a look at the male-female split regarding Clinton and Obama.”

    Mrs Hume, Helen:

    Are you in favor of repealing the 19th amendment?     :-)

  19. Eric Ramer
    May 29th, 2012 at 10:04 | #19

    Pastor Scheer:

    These documents are interesting, however, the document I’m most interested in at this point is the current Deed for the ULC property. Maybe this has been asked and answered already, but in the last year or so I’ve been following this story, I’ve been watching for someone to addresss this question and haven’t seen it yet.

    Of specific interest to me is whether or not the ownership is still in the name of the Minnesota District, or if it was ever tranfered to the Minnesota South District. While I’m not very familiar with the workings of the court system in Minnesopta, I have to wonder that the original intent of both the founders of the ULC and the Minnesota District, as well as the Minnesota Distict in convention in the division of the District’s assets when the District was divided SHOULD be the PRIMARY consideration of the civil courts. Typically the Deed itself is THE primary source for determining that intent, but the courts can, and often do, accept other sources as evidence if the Deed in is ambiguous or if there is a reasonable claim that it doesn’t properly reflect the intent of the parties.

    Since Minnesota uses a Torrens System of ownership (as opposed to title, per Brown’s Boundary Control and Legal Pronciples, 5th Edition, edited by Robillard and Wilson) transfer, if the current Deed holder remains the Minnesota District, then the Courts should be forced to interpret what that means befor the State of Minnesota certifies the ownership transfer to any future buyer, at which point the documents of intent would be of extreme importance. I’m not an attorney, nor do I have any real understading of the land law system in Minnesota, but I’d sure like to know what the underlying legal documents have to say on the matter. Thanks.

    Eric Ramer,
    Professional Land Surveyor & LCMS Layman

  20. May 29th, 2012 at 10:16 | #20

    @Oliver Young #16
    Thank you Oliver for that information. Can everyone see how one-sided the District is being here? Is that even fair? How does that exhibit any care or concern for those of “the other side”? This divisive behavior seems to be the standard operating procedure for the MNS BOD, DP, and his selected floor committees.

    Again, those who are voting in MNS – consider this stubborn divisive behavior, removing resolutions in favor of ULC even before they make it to the floor. Vote for three years of healing or three years of division, your choice – if this continues, I wonder if there will be much of any anything resembling a “walking together” in the Minnesota South District after this convention.

  21. Rahn Hasbargen
    May 29th, 2012 at 10:38 | #21

    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #20
    To quote a line from a “Star Trek” series of a few years ago, “We (the MNSD Leadership) are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile……”

  22. Former Anglican
    May 29th, 2012 at 10:50 | #22

    @Eric Ramer #19

    Mr. Ramer::

    Do the following links help?

    Property records for 1101 University Ave SE, Minneapolis, MN (the location of the ULC property):

    Hennepin County Property Records (Minneapolis is in Hennepin County):

    http://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2402924310005

    City of Minneapolis Property Info:

    http://apps.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/PiApp/GeneralInfoRpt.aspx?PIN=15192

    You will note that on both sites the owner name and taxpayer name are NOT listed as the Minnesota South District, but are as follows:

    Owner Name:
    MINN DIST EVAN LUTH SYNOD

    Taxpayer Name & Address:
    MINN DIST LUTH CH MO SYNOD

    14301 GRAND AVE
    BURNSVILLE MN 55306

  23. Eric Ramer
    May 29th, 2012 at 11:49 | #23

    @Former Anglican #22
    Thanks, but only sorta. These tax records indicate that the Minnespta District (not the Minnesota South District) owns the property, but only the actual current deed document can show for sure.

    What I have yet to see demonstrated is by what legal claim the Minnesota South District can claim ownership or the legal right to transfer ownership, since they don’t appear to be named on the record documents as the owners, and from my understanding, have never been granted or siezed of the ownweship rights to the property. Based on my very meager understanding of the Torrens System of land ownership, the State has to certify any ownership transfer, and the chain of ownership has to be consistant. If the ULC could demonstrate that the South District not only DOESN’T own the property, but were SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from any rights of ownership (which is what I thought the converntion rtecords indicate) then I can’t see how the State could certify the transfer.

    I hate to be too technical, but I’ve been waiting to see something that addresses this simple legal point, and I haven’t seen it yet. BTW, I asked this last year, and I was told that there was no question that the South District could do it, but no one had a specific answer. I remain curious.

    Thanks again,

  24. mbw
    May 29th, 2012 at 13:14 | #24

    John Rixe :
    “There were and are very valid reasons for acknowledging male headship in society, not to mention the church. Women voters are responsible for swaying elections every time a socialist is elected. Have a look at the male-female split regarding Clinton and Obama.”
    Mrs Hume, Helen:
    Are you in favor of repealing the 19th amendment?    

    Hi John Rixe – I don’t think they need you to assist in stirring it up!

    Poor old slavery. Everybody’s social gripes get put on its back.

    Equating forced servitude, taking and selling children and splitting families, and legalized dehumanization to male-only suffrage is wrong.

  25. John Rixe
    May 29th, 2012 at 13:34 | #25

    Sorry, mbw, I don’t understand.   How does slavery relate to the 19th amendment?    Thanks.

  26. helen
    May 29th, 2012 at 15:27 | #26

    @John Rixe #25
    Sorry, mbw, I don’t understand. How does slavery relate to the 19th amendment? Thanks.

    This topic was legal title to the ULC property.

    Will those interested please fight the “War of Northern Aggression” elsewhere? ;)

  27. mbw
    May 29th, 2012 at 21:10 | #27

    @John Rixe #25

    > Sorry, mbw, I don’t understand. How does slavery relate to the 19th amendment?

    It doesn’t. More than one putative civil rights group incorrectly draws parallels though.

    austen wilson :
    @Rahn Hasbargen #3
    I fail to see the parallels. The “original intent” of the Constitution did not view African Americans as people and did not give women the right to vote. Surely you are not in favor of those two aspects of original intent?
    Thank you Pastor Scheer for blogging so extensively about the ULC case.

  28. Rich Vannett
    May 29th, 2012 at 21:31 | #28

    Pastor Kind has posted a letter to MNS delegates and a critique of MNS Convention Resolution 5-01. Please pray for a favorable outcome for ULC in the MNS Convention.

    http://ulcmn.org/Files/Save%20ULC%20Files/Delegate%20Letter%20-%20Pentecost%202012.pdf
    http://ulcmn.org/Files/Save%20ULC%20Files/Resolution%205-01.pdf

  29. Pastor Ted Crandall
    May 30th, 2012 at 04:42 | #29

    @helen #26
    “Will those interested please fight the “War of Northern Aggression” elsewhere?”

    I was at a ceremony Monday and they called it the Recent Rebellion! ;)

    Now, let’s get back on topic…

  30. Pastor Ted Crandall
    May 30th, 2012 at 04:43 | #30

    @mbw #24
    “Hi John Rixe – I don’t think they need you to assist in stirring it up!”

    That hasn’t stopped him yet!

  31. Mrs. Hume
    May 30th, 2012 at 13:34 | #31

    @Pastor Ted Crandall #30

    @mbw #24

    Austen Wilson and John Rixe were stirring it up.

    Helen and I were not.

  32. John Rixe
    May 30th, 2012 at 15:04 | #32

    Mrs Hume, Helen

    One thing I would never do is stir things up even though your gender is responsible for swaying elections every time a socialist president is elected.     :-)

  33. Mrs. Hume
    May 30th, 2012 at 20:41 | #33

    John, is that supposed to make me feel defensive or some such? What is the point? If women are voting for certain types of policies, shouldn’t it be openly discussed and shouldn’t people try to understand the pattern or cause? My point was simply that I didn’t bring up these off topic issues. The guilt by association tactic of insinuating that there were bad motives behind the original intent of the US Constitution was a pretty straightforward logic error, and we shouldn’t allow (misinformed) people to perpetuate falsehoods. It is better to clarify.

    As to my gender swaying elections, isn’t it more accurate to attribute certain female voting patterns to single women rather than to all women?

    I feel like you are baiting Helen and me.

  34. Pastor Ted Crandall
    May 31st, 2012 at 04:48 | #34

    @Mrs. Hume #31
    “Austen Wilson and John Rixe were stirring it up. Helen and I were not.”

    Of course. (There’s a pattern.) I was trying to inject humor in order to lower the stress level, but apparently it backfired. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer in saying precisely what you said, Mrs. Hume.

  35. mbw
    May 31st, 2012 at 08:21 | #35

    Mrs. Hume :
    @Pastor Ted Crandall #30
    @mbw #24
    Austen Wilson and John Rixe were stirring it up.
    Helen and I were not.

    Right. I did not actually mean to infer that. I see how it would be taken that way, though.

  36. mbw
    May 31st, 2012 at 08:26 | #36

    @Mrs. Hume #33

    > As to my gender swaying elections, isn’t it more accurate to attribute certain female voting patterns to single women rather than to all women?

    Yes. And it has to be said that the only way women end up with inappropriate roles is when the men in authority abdicate them. Those men are responsible.

  37. John Rixe
    May 31st, 2012 at 08:53 | #37

    @John Rixe #32

    Sorry – the point was making a little joke. It’s not easy to communicate on blogs even with smileys.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.