Let's repeat: legal strategies are confidential. I'm a non-attorney observer of these cases. Fr Kelley and the elected vestry share such information on their cases as they feel is appropriate with their friends and supporters. I have met Ms Greer, Fr Kelley's new counsel, only very briefly and have not discussed the cases with her. My remarks below reflect surmise from a friendly lay observer of the cases, and may not reflect the actual strategies or understanding of the facts motivating the parties or their counsel.
First, TroyGould PC, a highly competent prestige law firm, represented Fr Kelley and the elected vestry pro bono in the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases. With the successful appeal, they have withdrawn from the cases. Fr Kelley is now represented pro bono by Greer & Rineer LLP, which specializes in part in employment law. It's worth a quick comparison of the Greer & Rineer web site with that of Lancaster & Anastasia LLP. Mr Lancaster, I fear, strikes me as an old, lumbering whale, while Ms Greer, a petite lady, is nevertheless a hungry shark.
I said above that the California appeals court opened an entirely new door to the cases, the question of the Bush vestry's standing. As the judge in the post-remittitur conference observed on Friday, there are actually two issues: the jurisdiction issue, of whether the August 6, 2012 vote to leave the ACA was valid, but also the issue of whether the Bush vestry, whose members were appointed by the ACA, has any authority to act as the corporate board of directors. Whether or not the 2012 vote was valid, there is a separate question of whether any expenditures, contractual obligations, or representations to courts or other bodies like the unemployment insurance board, were valid. This problem exists irrespective of affiliation with the ACA, and is quite possibly worse for the ACA if the court finds it's still in charge.
My best guess is that Ms Greer is going to move for summary judgment on the question of standing in both the civil theft case, scheduled for trial in April, and the unemployment benefit case, scheduled for some type of hearing in February. In both cases, she will cite the California appeals court decision noting that the Bush vestry is not the valid corporate board and does not have authority to act on behalf of the corporation. The elected vestry, she will argue, is the valid vestry, since it was constituted following the procedures in the corporate bylaws, and nobody has ever challenged the validity of the election.
So the Bush vestry not only lacks standing to sue, but isn't even the employer, and this opens a whole new can of worms for Mrs Bush. Fr Kelley was employed by the valid parish vestry under a contract. The Bush group, claiming to have terminated Fr Kelley but without authority to do so, is a third party interfering with a valid employment contract, and it has the additional problem that they've been claiming to the unemployment board that they're the employer, when they aren't. Not only that, but while falsely claiming to be Fr Kelley's employer, they've made false allegations of misconduct against Fr Kelley.
So right off the top of my head, I can see several issues as a non-attorney observer of the case. One is tortious interference with an employment contract, which carries with it the potential for punitive damages in addition to consequential damages. Another is defamation, especially since, as she isn't the actual employer, any adverse statements Mrs Bush made against Fr Kelley are not privileged. Plus, since they aren't the valid vestry, you've got a major question of whether the parish's insurance would cover her acts, or those of any appointed vestry member.
An additional problem is that neither Anthony Morello nor his successor as "Rector and Priest in Charge" (whatever) Frederick Rivers was properly hired by the Bush vestry (and never hired at all by the elected vestry), meaning that none of their actions in those positions was valid, irrespective of affiliation with the ACA. I have the impression as well that it may have been Ms Greer who discovered that Anthony Morello's duties as "Vicar General" aren't covered by the ACA-DOW constitution and canons, which means that neither he nor Rivers may have been acting within the scope of their authority, and that raises interesting issues for the ACA's insurer. Bishop Marsh, where are your chancellors?
We're looking at a whole new abyss of catastrophe here for Mrs Bush and her heirs, not to mention the ACA.
