- Non-payment of taxes;
- Misuse of funds, transferred general funds to his discretionary account without an accounting.
- Appointed non-members to the Vestry.
- Forced resignation of the treasurer.
- Used discretionary funds for purposes of withholding taxes,
- Paid a dental bill from the general fund,
- Received a letter of no-confidence from a majority of the Vestry, but ignored it and constituted a new Vestry.
- When concerns of fraud were brought to his attention, he forced individuals to resign, and
- Refused to allow the auditor to discuss any issue with the vestry.
The list of particulars in the letter of inhibition was developed, as far as I can surmise, over the course of 2011, by a group of six to eight parish dissidents. David Moyer, when he was TAC Bishop of the Patrimony and ordinary for the parish, made at least two trips to Hollywood during 2011 to investigate inchoate versions of this list and concluded that they were vague and unsubstantiated. Consequently, the group went shopping for a more sympathetic ear and found ACA Bishop of the Missouri Valley Strawn in late 2011 with their finalized list, notwithstanding Strawn had no jurisdiction.
Those familiar with the circumstances (and I am, with some of them) recognize that the allegations are either wildly counterfactual and easily disputed, or are simply impossible. Among other things, allegations like transferring general funds to a discretionary account simply can't happen in a parish in nearly any denomination unless at least three people collaborate. There is no evidence that any such thing ever took place.
That Stephen Strawn, who represents himself as a "bishop", would give credence to many of these charges suggests he's completely ignorant of how ordinary parish finances operate. As a sometime parish volunteer in both Episcopal and Anglican parishes, I seem to have acquired a better understanding of parish finances than Strawn, which is disturbing.
The rules for civil discovery in California make it impractical to move for discovery of the ACA's evidence until just before trial; at any earlier time, the plaintiff can simply say he doesn't have anything, and the defense's one shot at discovery is wasted. Every indication, however, is that the ACA and the elected vestry have not just weak or ambiguous evidence, but no evidence at all to support the allegations in their complaint.
However, there is an additional problem with the ACA-appointed vestry's case. The California appeals court's opinion says,
Members of the Vestry can only be elected – by the Parish members at an annual meeting, or by the Vestry itself if there is a vacancy between annual meetings. (St. Mary’s Bylaws, Art. VI, §§ 2, 4.) There is no provision in the bylaws, or in the ACA Constitution and Canons that allows the Rector to appoint members to the Vestry. Thus, to the extent Canon Morello purported to appoint anyone to the Vestry, that appointment was invalid. Accordingly, at the time of the vote to amend the articles and bylaws, the remaining members of the Vestry were Hawkins, Jones, Pouncey, Levin, Yeager, and Bush, and possibly MerrillIn other words, those are the valid vestry and constitute that part of the "Rector, Wardens, and Vestry" of the parish. There is a serious question as to whether the APA-appointed group representing itself as rector, wardens, and vestry has standing to bring its suit. It appears that, even without going to the question of evidence, the elected vestry's counsel is going to move for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue. My impression of Judge Strobel's remarks in the January 16 post-remittitur conference suggests that she was inviting such a motion.
I don't believe the ACA has much of a chance in the "initial action". We'll have to see what happens in April.
