A Couple Of Other Observations

on the post-remittitur conference. The judge in her preliminary remarks appeared to signal that she would look favorably on a motion for summary judgment over the civil theft charges against Fr Kelley, on the basis that the ACA-appointed "Rector, Wardens, and Vestry" are not valid, and thus don't have standing to sue. This is for the judge to decide at the appropriate time, but she seemed inclined to take the appeals court's interpretation, that in fact the dissident "vestry" is not valid. My wife noted that Ms Greer, the counsel for Fr Kelley and the elected vestry, was persistent in getting the judge to set the date when she would hear such a motion.

This would be the first set of wheels to start coming off the case. It appears that the judge is looking at the validity of the ACA-appointed vestry as a separate issue, but my wife thinks a finding that the ACA vestry is not valid would be significant in questions arising from the August 6, 2012 parish vote to leave the ACA. After all, if the ACA vestry isn't valid, who is this group occupying the building, and why are they entitled to stay there?

My wife observed that Mr Lancaster is doing the best he can with a very bad case. The appeals court, after all, decided to look at the facts, and the facts are not very good for the ACA. The judge made it plain yesterday that the upcoming trial would also be a trial of fact, and the judge clearly thought this was an interesting case. (We sat through a couple of other cases on the calendar before the St Mary's cases came up, mainly people representing themselves on vaguely formulated complaints against former employers. This is not that sort of case, and the judge seems to have found it worth her time.)

The problem with the ACA's case has always been the facts. Mr Lancaster's strategy has had to be to do whatever he can to make the facts irrelevant -- first, to assert that this is an ecclesiastical issue, and when that failed, to insist that the only relevant question is a particular parish election, where he will quibble, years after the fact, with the status of each and every voter. If someone tries to point out the several other elections that went the same way, he'll say they're irrelevant. That will be a very, very tough sell to this judge.