The court cases have already established (for the third time) that the parish both owns and controls its property irrespective of affiliation, and the elected vestry is its board of directors. Some ecclesiastical issues, like hiring a rector, would require a bishop's approval, but if (for instance) the elected vestry decides to retain Fr Kelley in his position (and he's been in that position since his hiring in 2007), there isn't much an ACA bishop can do about it, other than stand on the sidewalk and remonstrate.
If an ACA bishop demands a parish tithe, the elected vestry can simply itemize damages from the ACA's seizure of the parish and suggest he charge the tithe against the parish's account. And for that matter, nothing would prevent the elected vestry from calling a new parish election revising the bylaws again.
Nor would staying in the ACA prevent the elected vestry from suing the ACA and individuals for damages resulting from the seizure.
The problem for the ACA is that both Judge Linfield and the California appeals court have made findings of fact that the elected vestry is the vestry, period. My wife expects some type of motion during the April trial for the judge to issue an order restoring occupancy of the building to the elected vestry,
While that's the worst possible outcome, I've also got to rely on the adage that handsome is as handsome does: it's dangerous to underestimate any opponent, but in my view, Lancaster & Anastasia aren't set up to do new hard work at this stage of the case. Their response to the unemployment appeals decision was to use the same old argument, that it's an ecclesiastical issue, which isn't going to fly. I don't know what they'll do about the August 6, 2012 election, but given their record, I don't expect great things.