In addition, according to the timeline, Louis Falk testified in a deposition
At a subsequent meeting in Tucson, Arizona, held on April 26, 2011 each and every ACA Bishop both agreed to, and signed, a Solemn Agreement which established the guarantee of the jurisdictional independence and integrity of the Patrimony in the United States. This established an “amicable agreement” for the coming separation, whereby the Bishops choosing to remain in the ACA, who did not intend to accept Pope Benedict’s gracious offer, pledged not to interfere with those Bishops, Clergy and Parishes choosing to proceed to join the Roman Catholic Church, and vice versa.We know that by late 2011, Stephen Strawn had had informal contacts with Patrick Omeirs, by Omeirs's own statements to me. In itself, this is a violation of the April pledge. Omeirs strongly implied that others among the dissident group were involved in those contacts. We simply don't know how far back in 2011 (or even into 2010) those contacts extended. However, it's hard not to think that Brian Marsh was also aware of those contacts.
The timeline reflects that as of January 2011, the then-parish treasurer had stopped making tax withholding payments to the IRS, and the then-clerk of the vestry had failed to file the parish's revised bylaws reflecting the vote to enter the Patrimony with the California Corporation Commission. Both the then-clerk and the then-treasurer were on the fringes of the hidden agenda and were probably being manipulated by the in-group. It's hard to think that Strawn was not at least being kept abreast of these steps, if he was in contact with the dissident group later in the year.
What we have here morally is several major issues: it appears that Strawn, at the very least, swore falsely in the April 2011 Tucson meeting and had no intent of leaving St Mary of the Angels alone. The then-treasurer was basically stealing from the IRS -- the Catholic Catechism makes it clear that non-payment of taxes is a sin. She was also bearing false witness, in the sense that she was setting up an appearance of financial impropriety on Fr Kelley's part. The then-clerk was leaving something undone, a clear sin covered in both Anglican and Catholic general confessions. If Strawn was aware of, encouraging, or endorsing these actions, his sin was basically using his prestige as a bishop to encourage others to sin-- as would be Marsh's.
It appears that both the then-treasurer and the then-clerk eventually found themselves unable to continue with this agenda, which is understandable and reflects well on them. If struggles with their conscience were involved, that would only be natural. However, Marsh and Strawn appear to have had no such difficulty with conscience.
This is troubling to see.