[T]he Los Angeles Superior Court was informed at the State Mandated Case Settlement Conference by Marilyn Bush (and Fred Rivers and Lancaster & Anastasia) that Marilyn Bush (and Fred Rivers) appear to now enjoy full decision making authority over ALL the assets and liabilities of both the Oregon Diocese of the West Corporation and the Florida Anglican Church in America Corporation. (This is as well as authority over all the liabilities claimed from the actions taken against the Saint Mary of the Angels California Corporation, as the projected deep pockets for the rump TAC.)I checked with another party who was at the conference, and his assumption, apparently shared by others who were there (including, apparently, the judge) was simply that Mrs Bush and Frederick Rivers were swearing falsely -- they did not actually have any authority over ACA assets, because they had been instructed not to negotiate. Mrs Bush is a useful idiot here, while Frederick Rivers is a dangerous incompetent. Brian Marsh would have put a chimpanzee in that conference if it had been able to raise its right hand -- no settlement was intended, and neither had the authority to do anything but tell a few lies on Marsh's behalf.As always (except when I’m consulting in Paris) the ArmChair Detective often finds out the most by examining a money trail. Clearly, here is control of assets and money.
But the Armchair Detective raises a worthwhile point: who controls the assets of the ACA and DOW, such as they are? The first question is what are the assets, and they aren't much. The Florida Anglican Church in America Corporation, insofar as I can see, owns no property, because, as the ACA is constituted, parishes own their individual properties through local corporations as the rector, wardens, and vestry of such-and-such. This was set up deliberately at the formation of the ACA to avoid the potential for situations like The Episcopal Church seizing the properties of breakaway parishes.
The ACA's predecessor Anglican Catholic Church, and the ACA itself, like The Episcopal Church before them, have nevertheless tried to seize St Mary's property. TEC and the ACC have already lost that one, and it isn't looking good for the ACA, which has learned that this is a long and expensive fight. The ACA would have just as hard a time trying to seize the assets of any other parish -- but as far as I can tell, St Mary of the Angels is by far the most valuable asset the ACA has ever had, even though legally it's never quite had it, as it doesn't quite have any other property. So basically, the assets that Bush and Rivers would control, even if they were not lying under oath, would be the corporate seals and some bank accounts for payroll and expenses. And that's about it.
Why does this matter? Remember that a very rough handicap puts the ACA's chances of keeping control of the St Mary's property at no better than 50-50. Throughout this fight, Mr Lancaster's strategy, in both the seizure of the parish and the civil action against Fr Kelley, has been to keep the facts of the case out of court. If a judge or jury rules on the facts, it's very bad for the ACA.
If the dice come up in the ACA's favor, well and good, the ACA plunders the parish, Marsh and the bishops go off on more "ecclesiastical" cruises to the Mediterranean, and life is good. If the dice go the other way and the St Mary's elected vestry prevails, you have a different situation. Either the elected vestry sues the ACA for assets that were plundered while the court cases were under way, including any legal fees paid to Lancaster, or Lancaster's legal factor goes after the ACA for the million dollars or more the ACA would now owe for the losing battle.
The ACA does not have a million dollars if it loses St Mary of the Angels as an ATM. As a last ditch effort, it may try to seize other parishes -- remember that the guy who originated this strategy is Stephen Strawn, and he tried it in Texas before he tried it at St Mary's. There is no reason to think he and the ACA would not try this again. Take a parish, foster dissent, gain control of a vestry, have the vestry declare itself a mission, and the parish's assets are controlled by the bishop. Bishop decides to close the mission and takes the remaining assets for the public good and the survival of the ACA. Real simple, but you'd have to do it a bunch of times to pay what you owe.
The ACA's parishes are set up, though, to allow them to leave the denomination. If you leave don't go to the APA, since that merger is under way.
Another question: how Lancaster is paid here is purely speculative. He may or may not have sold his ability to collect on legal fees to a legal factor, and we don't know the terms of any such agreement, if it exists. But let's wonder if Lancaster collateralized his future payments via an assurance that the ACA, if it lost, would have the deep pockets to pay the factor back. If that were the case, it would be fraud.
There is major, major downside for Lancaster, Marsh, and the rest of the ACA here.
