The Gospel According To John Egan

Count 1-     Violation of the United States Constitution. Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clauses: First and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. §1983)

Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to free exercise of religion - as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment - by discriminating against the RCB because of its religious character and by inhibiting its right to freely exercise its religious faith.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, have violated the establishment clause of the - as secured by First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment - in that the subject single-parcel ordinance does not have a secular purpose, its principal or primary effect inhibits freedom of religion, and it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 2-     Violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. Freedom of Religion and Conscience, and Establishment Clauses: Art. 46, §1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Defendants, under color of law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to freedom of religion and conscience - as secured by Part the First, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Amendment Article 46, §1, by discriminating against the RCB due to its religious characer and by inhibiting its right to freely exercise its religious faith and conscience.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, have violated the establishment clause of the Massachusetts Constitution in that the subject single-parcel ordinance does not have a secular purpose, its principal or primary effect inhibits freedom of religion, and it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. G.L. Const. Amend. Art. 46, §1.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 3-     Violation of the United States Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Expression and Assembly: First and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. §1983)

Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to speak, express and assemble on matters of religion - as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment - by discriminating against the RCB based on the religious nature of its speech and expression, by inhibiting its right to freely speak, express its faith to its congregants and to the community, and inhibiting its freedom of assembly, and by applying a vague and unlawful single-parcel ordinance against them.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 4-     Violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Expression and Assembly: Art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as amended by Art. 77 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to Freedom of Speech - to speak and communicate to others on matters of religion - as secured by the Massachusetts Constitution - by discriminating against the RCB based on the religious nature of its expression, and by inhibiting its right to freely speak and express its faith to its congregation and to the community, and inhibiting its freedom of assembly, and by applying a vague single-parcel ordinance against them.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 5-     Violation of the United States Constitution. Equal Protection: Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. §1983)

Defendants, acting under color of law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to equal protection of the laws - as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - by discriminating against the RCB in the adoption, enforcement and application of its ordinances.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 6-     Violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. Equal Protection: Arts. 1 and 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to equal protection of the laws - as secured by the Massachusetts Constitution - by discriminating against the RCB in the application of its Code of Ordinances.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 7-     Violation of the United States Constitution. Due Process: The Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. §1983)

Defendants,  under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of due process of law - as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - by denying the RCB use of its property based on an irrational and discriminatory motivation.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 8-     Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000. Discrimination on the Basis of Religion (42 U.S.C. §2000cc et seq.)

Defendants, under color of law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to be free from religious discrimination - as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act - by treating them on less than equal terms as a nonreligious assembly or institution, by imposing and implementing a land use regulation that discriminates against them on the basis of religion, and by unreasonably limiting RCB's religious assemblies, institutions, and structures.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 9-     Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000. Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise (42 U.S.C. §2000cc et seq.)

Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to the free exercise of religion - as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act - by imposing and implementing a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on the RCB's religious exercise.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 10-     Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000. Unreasonable Limitation (42 U.S.C. §2000cc et seq.)

Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and continue to deprive the RCB of its right to the free exercise of religion - as secured by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act - by imposing and implementing a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious expression within a jurisdiction. 
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 11-     Violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L.c. 12, §11I

By their actions, the defendants have, by its coercive and intimidating actions in interfering with and regulating the internal religious affairs and resources of the RCB, violated the RCB's rights to freedom of religion, conscience, assembly, speech and expression, and the unlawful establishment of religion, under the Constitutions of the United States and Massachusetts.
Defendants' actions were purposely taken with deliberate indifference to the RCB's constitutional and legal rights.

Count 12-     Declaratory Judgment G.L.c.231A

The RCB, for the reasons alleged, submits that the court should declare the defendant's actions in approving, enacting and enforcing the Our Lady of Hope Historic District Ordinance are unlawful and contrary to the Constitutions of the United States and Massachusetts, and other provisions of federal and state law.
==================================================================


This post is about the charges (detailed above) that Bishop McDonnell is leveling at the City of Springfield, as drawn up by Diocesan Attorney Jack Egan. The case is being argued for the Bishop by Egan,  Edward McDonough Jr. and Kevin Withers.

A link below goes to a pdf. of the original civil action filed in Hampden Superior Court on Jan. 21, 2010:
Roman-Catholic-Diocese-lawsuit-vs-City-of-Springfield-re-Our-Lady-of-Hope-Historic-District

The case was removed a few weeks later to the U.S. District court because of the federal implications.

For providing a summary of the cogent arguments,  the Bishop's complaint is compressed a little and divided into non-RLUIPA claims (7), and the RLUIPA claims (3).

The Violation of Due Process charge together is put together with the Violation of the Equal Protection of the Law charges because they are so close in meaning.

This leaves us with 4 sections.  It is this set of 4 sections which is referred to and fleshed out in the large post titled Summary of "City Opposition" Paper 25.


_____
non-RLUIPA claims

Section 1 - Violation Of Free Exercise Of Religion And Establishment Clause, counts 1 (federal) and 2 (state)

Section 2 - Violation Of Freedom Of Speech, Expression And Assembly 
counts 3 (federal) and 4 (state)

Section 3 - Violation Of Equal Protection Of The Laws By Discrimination, counts 5 (federal) and 6 (state) plus count 7, Violation Of Due Process 

RLUIPA claims

Section 4
a- Discrimination on the Basis of Religion under RLUIPA, count 8
b- Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise under RLUIPA, count 9
c- Unreasonably Limitation Of Religious Expression Under RLUIPA, count 10

N. B. - count 11 Violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act,  is apparently no longer being contested, see Paper 32.