More Infomation On The November 17 Lockouts From The Bank Buliding

A knowledgeable party has supplemented my speculation on the possible reasons for the squatters changing the locks on the bank building on November 17. Before I heard it, I had almost concluded that the Bush group had acted rationally, recognizing that utility expenses would be too great if the community groups continued to meet there, and in addition perhaps recognizing that, with insurance quite possibly no longer in place, it would be reckless to allow entry by the public.

Silly me. To start with, the issues are more complex than I imagined. The Los Feliz Ledger reported that one of the groups locked out was the Los Feliz Neighborhood Council, which is an arm of the Los Angeles municipal government, and municipal property had been in the community room. The city functionaries are no longer able to access this city property. (This is simply a pattern the squatters have already followed in the church building next door.)

Second, my understanding is that the interior of the bank building had been trashed, something observed by the city functionaries when they first entered the building on the afternoon of November 17. The locks, as reported in the Ledger, were changed after this first entry, in which I'm now told the trashing was observed. The information I've been given is that the trashing must have taken place subsequent to the end of the bank's tenancy (and a major institution like Citibank has good reason to leave such property in good condition). It is not entirely clear whether city property was also damaged.

There's a lot apparently going on behind the scenes that is as yet confidential, and I know as little as you do. However, what I know here is enough to convince me that imputing rational, adult, or perhaps even lawful motives to the squatter group is a mistake.

As of this morning, their Christmas Midnight Mass is still scheduled for August 16.

The Squatters Have Updated Their Calendar

for the first time since September. If you look carefully, you can see that the Christmas Midnight Mass is scheduled for August 16.

It's definitely the C team that's running things there. I'm still wondering how long they can keep the lights on.

Regarding the November 17 lockout of community groups reported in the Los Feliz Ledger, I've heard two theories. One is that the creditor for the $575,000 financing may have foreclosed on the bank building, and thus changed the locks. My wife, on the other hand, has me convinced that the squatters, perhaps reading my November 16 post, suddenly realized that the community groups with access to the building would turn on the lights and air conditioning when they came in for meetings, something that now looms as a potentially big expense. So they called a locksmith and locked them out.

What puzzles me, though, is that Mrs Bush has been a member of all these community groups herself for many years. She must have all her colleagues' phone numbers and e-mails handy, yet she apparently didn't give any of them a heads-up. It's hard not to imagine that a few strategic calls might have eased any surprises, but they weren't made. I suspect Mrs Bush is unwilling to acknowledge that things are collapsing around her and the dozen or so other squatters.

Liturgy And The Market For Anglicanorum Coetibus

A regular visitor raised a challenging question about my remarks of this past Friday:

you wrote:

"Why not a reverent adaptation of 1979 Rite Two that doesn't take two hours?

A service with a sense of beauty and reverence that uses something like the 1940 PECUSA Hymnal and loses the guitar and tambourine, but without all the extra agony, ought to be a selling point."

I take your point with regard to the OCSP, or at least its United States section, but of what possible relevance or appeal would such a thing be to the Australians of the OSC, the English/British of the OLW, or even to Canadians? And since few Episcopalians are, as you yourself wrote, are likely to join the Ordinariate under any circumstances (and those Episcopalians fully at home with the 1979 BCP would seem to have no reasons not to join an Ordinary Form Catholic parish, when they can find one without liturgical abuses or without an "aesthetic" which they may find repugnant), it doesn't seem mistaken to me to pitch its appeal to those whose preferences are "traditionalist" or simply "old-fashioned."

We do agree on the OCSP. Regarding the UK Ordinariate, its perceived preferences (a Viennese professor was involved) appear to have been the basis for selecting the 1905 English Missal for all three Ordinariates -- but this liturgy has in fact been disastrous for even the UK, since the dwindling faction of Anglican Papalists that used it before Vatican II abandoned it wholesale in favor of the Ordinary Form mass, where they can now find it whenever and wherever they choose. Indeed, the English Missal mass was never more than tolerated by UK laity.

But there's another assumption here: my visitor notes, "few Episcopalians are, as you yourself wrote, [likely] to join the Ordinariate under any circumstances". It's not much more of a step to say, just as accurately as far as I know, that the great majority of the potential Anglican market for Ordinariates has already made its move. Neither "continuers" nor ACNA members are any more likely than Episcopalians to come over now.

But this leaves another untapped market, and possibly not the only one, if some of Bishop-Elect Lopes's remarks are to be taken seriously. Pope Francis (presumably with input from the CDF, and this means potentially from Lopes) extended eligibility for full Ordinariate membership to cradle Catholics who haven't completed the sacraments of initiation. A priest at our diocesan parish remarked just the other week that only a third of registered members there had in fact completed the sacraments of initiation.

If Bp Barron is an indicator of mainstream Catholic opinion, Vatican II continues to be seen as a Very Good Thing. A major outcome of the Council was mass in a dignified but contemporary vernacular; revisions continue, and if Fr Z's opinion is any indicator, so do stylistic improvements. Vatican II was clearly also the inspiration for 1979 Rite Two. In that context, the English Missal version of the Ordinariate mass, with precious contrived archaisms, is beside the point and adventitious.

I think Catholics are beginning to understand that if you tell people the Catechism and the Sacraments aren't important, they'll believe you. A good part of the New Evangelization, as far as I can see, is to say that when we said those things weren't important, we didn't mean they actually weren't important -- the New Evangelization is talking to Catholics primarily, as far as I can see. In our diocesan parish, the suggestion is being made that perhaps people should reconsider coming to mass in flip flops and tank tops that show off tattoos. Who knows where that may lead?

A service with a sense of beauty and reverence could be a part of a larger movement aimed at Catholics. Bishop-Elect Lopes, by all indications, is not a stupid man and probably sees this and other potential.

New Los Feliz Ledger Article

The December Los Feliz Ledger is out, decorating our front lawns with the latest update on the saga from their viewpoint. (Ms Cohen promised to opt our neighborhood out of the litter distribution, but so far the promise is feckless.)

Before I make more general observations, two passages strike me. The first:

The Los Feliz Neighborhood Council (LFNC) found itself suddenly denied access [to the now-vacant bank building with its community room] for its regular monthly meeting November 17th when their keys—which they had used to gain entry a few hours earlier that day—no longer worked.

The Los Feliz Improvement Assoc. also found itself locked out of a meeting November 19th.

This can only be characterized as erratic and somewhat bizarre conduct on the squatters' part. What on earth changed to make it necessary to lock them out with no notice? I can only guess that, with their hold on the property slipping away, they feel the need to assert whatever arbitrary authority is left to them.

The second passage:

Bush, meanwhile, has indicated the church’s finances are in such dire straits, she, as the church’s most senior laity leader, can no longer countenance providing the 2nd floor community space for free and will lease it out, saying they have currently amassed about $2 million in legal fees defending their ousting of Kelley.

So does Mrs Bush now want money to let the neighborhood groups back in the building, or what? We don't know. But the $2 million figure is a puzzle. Earlier this month, I estimated that income to the parish from all sources during the time the Bush group had possession of the bank accounts could not have been more than $800,000. Beyond that, they had to meet ordinary expenses, making money available for legal fees from regular income considerably less. We have fairly reliable information that the Bush group obtained $575,000 financing in November 2014.

This leaves somewhere in the order of $1 million, at least based on Mrs Bush's statement, that had to have come from someplace else. One explanation, which I can't rule out, is that Mrs Bush is simply exaggerating the amount to inflate her own importance. But clearly there's going to need to be a forensic audit -- and this will take place no matter what, since even if the Bush group is somehow able to retain control, the corporation will soon enough wind up in bankruptcy court, where a judge will want his own set of answers.

Otherwise, I'm seeing some movement toward greater neutrality by Ms Cohen, although if the writing is any indication, the whole set of circumstances surrounding the parish is more than a little beyond her cognitive powers. She went as far as interviewing John Hepworth, although whatever explanation he gave of the Patrimony of the Primate didn't take -- she refers in her account to the Primate, not the Patrimony!

The overall foggy impression in the story, I have a feeling, comes in large part from her reliance on Mrs Bush for the bulk of the account. I'm increasingly convinced that Mrs Bush has been in well over her head. Yet once more, I urge her family to get involved, as this isn't going to end well for her.

A Couple More Reactions To The New Bishop

One visitor e-mails:

Msgr Lopes is evidently very familiar with the elements of the Anglican liturgy which were considered in the preparation of Divine Worship:The Missal. I doubt that he knows much about Anglican hymns, simnel cake, embroidered kneelers, vestry meetings, or all the other trappings of parish life in the Church of England or its former colonies. I think his appointment signals that the Vatican sees the Ordinariate Use of the Latin Rite as the focus of the Ordinariates' identity, a message which must be discouraging to the OOLW for obvious reasons. While the OCSP should be fine with the liturgical agenda as far as it goes, I am not sure that will be enough to offset the sense that the promise of "united, not absorbed" just got a little less realistic. I am sure the OCSP will be better, more professionally run under soon-to-be Bishop Lopes. Whether it will be more attractive to current Episcopalians/Anglicans is another matter.

Bishop-Elect Lopes has already appeared in this blog as Msgr Lopes, quoted in The Portal in 2013 remarks on Anglican patrimony.

. . . these expressions from the Anglican prayer books and how they are interpreted through the years - I’m thinking of the Comfortable Words, the Summary of the Law, the Collect for Purity, the Prayer of Humble Access - these are not museum pieces.

So I think the English Missal version of the mass will continue in the US-Canadian Ordinariate. Another visitor writes,

. . . I see no Anglican "chops." He's a young man of 40. And his mission simply mentions "nurturing beauty in liturgy." Maybe he will cast out the overbearing mass and get things moving.

My own view is that the idea of 250,000 Episcopalians chomping at the bit to cross the Tiber was always a complete misappraisal. The New Evangelization is going to take work -- Bp Barron, for instance, sees himself as an instrument of New Evangelization, and his is clearly a non-trivial effort. Something along that line is going to be needed to attract any significant numbers of new converts to the Ordinariates.

I still think the choice in liturgy between the 1905 English Missal mass and the Ordinary Form is unfortunate. It's either chapel veils, threefold Lord I Am Not Worthies, or the same product you get down the street. Why not a reverent adaptation of 1979 Rite Two that doesn't take two hours?

A service with a sense of beauty and reverence that uses something like the 1940 PECUSA Hymnal and loses the guitar and tambourine, but without all the extra agony, ought to be a selling point.

A Few Reflections A Day Later

The comments at Virtue Online are virulently anti-Catholic. The comments at Fr Z's blog tend toward "Ordinariate? Wha?", which is probably the most appropriate Catholic response (speaking for myself as a Catholic former Anglican). Of all the comments on both sites, I agree with the one on VOL that Steenson's retirement sure was early, and I agree with the one on Fr Z that His Holiness is full of surprises.

Actually, I tend to think that having a real Catholic Ordinary in Bishop-Elect Lopes is probably the best possible move the Vatican could make. At minimum, this should begin to dissipate the influence of the Houston-Nashotah House-Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth in-group that seemed to have settled into almost instantaneous complacency. Certainly I've heard the comment that the Ordinariate had attracted retired Episcopal clergy who mostly wished undemanding part-time work compatible with relocation to the Sun Belt.

By all appearances that was Jeffrey Steenson. I don't think, frankly, that his remark that he hadn't had enough time for his hobby was all that much of a joke.

I hope and pray that things will change for the better and that this may involve the St Mary of the Angels parish.

Welcome, Bishop-Elect Lopes!

Amid all the other news this morning, I got to my computer to find a new face on the US-Canadian Ordinariate web site. Interesting that the appointment should come in anticipation of Advent I.

Msgr Steenson has retired with immediate effect. For a Catholic ordinary to retire prior to age 75 is quite remarkable.

Frankly, as I've suggested here from time to time, I haven't been sure if the St Mary of the Angels parish would choose to enter the US-Canadian Ordinariate if its legal situation were resolved to allow it, and I'm not sure if the US-Canadian Ordinariate would have accepted the parish if it had renewed its application. Now, though, there might be some hope for change in that situation, although I speak only for myself and not for the vestry or Fr Kelley (and certainly not for anyone else).

Why is Brian Marsh Suddenly Answering Questions?

After what he acknowledges is months of silence, "Bishop" Marsh of the ACA is suddenly answering questions. On one hand, as I've said before, the ACA doesn't have many options whether he answers questions or flips them the bird -- he has no credible successor. But he seems to be getting nervous nonetheless.

He first notes that he welcomes the chance to answer when "someone will ask me about something they have read on a blog" (clearly the blog he refers to is this one). But in September's Northeast Anglican, he also notes

"Often, your bishop is asked about the possibility of merger with other orthodox Anglican jurisdictions. We currently hold friendly relations with several such jurisdictions and an intercommunion relationship with the Anglican Province of America. If merger appears elusive at this time, it is important to remind ourselves that such occurrences happen in God's good time."

What? Merger with the APA "appears elusive at this time"? Er, didn't "Bishops" Marsh and Langberg (he now conveniently retired even as a rector) take a Mediterranean cruise with APA Bishops Loiselle and Grundorf as far back as 2012 for, as Marsh put it, "discussing and getting to know each other in preparation for our anticipated unity"? More than three years later, why are things now stalled, which Marsh acknowledges here?

The elephant in the room, the source of both questions, is St Mary of the Angels. The St Mary's vestry has estimated multimillion-dollar damages resulting from the ACA's incitement and supervision of a squatter group occupying the property. But now other issues are coming to light -- the squatter group operating under the ACA's direct authority, supervised by Frederick Rivers and Owen Rhys Williams representing themselves as "rector" and "episcopal visitor", appears to have obtained half a million dollars in financing, offering as security a property they do not own or control.

Brian Marsh is one of the first people the lenders will presumably approach, assuming these circumstances are borne out in further investigation. The liability for the ACA is potentially cataclysmic. The damage to its reputation will probably be terminal

If you were Walter Grundorf, how eager would you be to have the APA assume a share in this liability?

Hinky

I had a chance to chat about recent developments with members of the vestry yesterday afternoon. I asked them in particular what their theory was on the non-occurrence of the choral evensong and requiem with full orchestra that had been scheduled for Sunday of last week, which got as far as having tables set up in the courtyard the night before, but then simply went poof. Their reaction was animated to say the least.

I will summarize the consensus with the caveat that this is pure speculation based on incomplete information. However, it does seem to be a good fit with the information we have.

• We don't know when the event was initially planned and scheduled by the squatter group. It could well have been at a time when they either assumed the parish income would remain steady, or they assumed they would have some resumption of income to pay the musicians.
• However, by October and November, very little money was coming in. The vestry members actually feel my own estimate of the income to the squatters, for instance assuming $1000 monthly rental for the parking lot, may be too large. I will defer to their judgment.
• Nevertheless, in the vestry's speculative view, the squatter group continued planning for the event, taking out the ad in the Los Feliz Ledger and presumably holding rehearsals with the paid professional (and quite possibly unionized) musicians in the orchestra and choir.
• The vestry speculates that the orchestra and choir were promised payment for both rehearsals and performance after the choral evensong and requiem performance.
• However, despite promises and sweet-talk from the squatter group, the vestry speculates that the musicians began to feel something was hinky and demanded some concrete evidence that they would be paid. In my view and the view of the vestry, there wasn't money to pay the electric bill, much less the musicians.
• The musicians, in this speculative scenario, told the squatter group to forget it at the last minute, convinced they were about to be stiffed (and probably already had been stiffed for the rehearsal time).

I can't avoid thinking that in recent weeks, more than the musicians are being stiffed, in some cases for large amounts.

The ACA Now Has An Official Position On This Blog!

If you wanted any better confirmation that this blog has an impact, you should check this out. Thanks to an Ordinariate source for the heads-up. "Bishop" Marsh concludes,

St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood, California has been captive of the blogosphere for some time. In this particular case, the blogosphere has made the art of distortion into a masterpiece. You cannot believe everything you read and I do pray that the truth will out in the end.

I think I do a pretty good job here, too, and I appreciate the implicit praise! However, I would say that for "Bishop" Marsh to address the issue of St Mary's now at all is a reflection of his concern that developments are not going the ACA's way, and the place where people will get an accurate and up-to-date account of them is here. Knowing that this is already the case (my readership is up 40%-50% in recent months), he seems to feel the need to minimize it.

Good luck with that.

So Where's The Rest Of The Money? -- III

It took me longer to figure this out than it took my wife. OK: the Bush group takes out a $575,000 mortgage on the parish property.We don't know where that money went, it's true -- but we do know that the Bush group now has a monthly mortgage payment, presumably well into four figures.

Given that earlier this year, Mrs Bush elected to rent the now-vacant bank building on the property to BevMo! rather than Walgreen's because Walgreen's wanted free rent while they modified the building, we must assume that the $575,000 mortgage proceeds are spent, and the squatters needed the rental income to keep coming in without interruption.

But now as far as we know, with no tenant in the bank building since October, the Bush group isn't even getting in enough to pay utilities. My wife thinks they're already missing mortgage payments. Except that the Bush squatters didn't have the property to mortgage.

I still haven't thought through all the implications. Mrs Bush's family, I say again, needs to hire an attorney and get Mrs Bush out of this situation. I'm sorry to say that I'm seeing more and more suggestions that an argument based on mental incapacity would be credible.

More Puzzles

The ad shown here appeared on page 9 of the November 2015 Los Feliz Ledger. There are several puzzles in connection with it. One is that, as I've already noted, there was no announcement of this on the parish web page, which contained no new entries after September of this year. I'm told that at least one group saw this ad, arrived at the specified date and time, but the gates were locked. Nothing ever happened. No cancellation note was to be seen. They all left, disappointed.

Observers saw tables set up in the courtyard late the night before, certainly in anticipation of something, but as my informant puts it, "then it all went away." The cost of a "full choir and orchestra", including rehearsal time, would be substantial; a knowledgeable party puts it somewhere in the four figures, as well as the cost of the ad. (The ad, of course, is one indication that Ms Cohen's favorable treatment of Mrs Bush does not go unrewarded.)

This for a group that had lost its tenant and had no income -- but wait, there's more! It appears that the squatter group took out a mortgage for $575,000, I gather in late 2014, after the appeals court had already ruled in favor of the rector, wardens, and vestry. And this when they still had an income over $20,000 a month. Where was this money going?

The aborted choral evensong must have cost money, too. If tables had been set up in anticipation of the event just the night before, it's hard to avoid thinking some money had been spent before the thing went poof. Where did this money come from?

It sounds as if the vestry's legal team is aware of these issues. As I've already said, Mrs Bush's family really needs to get involved, as this is not likely to end well for her.

New Schedule

There are two pending legal events in resolving the vestry's case. The first is Judge Strobel signing the final version of her decision, which will order the squatters evicted from the property. It was expected that she woud do this by November 17, since the hearing on the disposition of the "related cases" had been scheduled for November 18. However, with Lancaster & Anastasia claiming the USPS had taken five days to deliver their copy of Judge Strobel's decision, these dates have been rolled forward.

Judge Alan Goodman, who now has charge of Judge Strobel's former Department 32, has continued the November 18 hearing on the "related cases" to January 8, 2016. However, I'm told that the law requires that Judge Strobel wrap her decision up within 50 days -- which takes us no later than December 15. We don't know exactly what her order will be, including what dates she may specify for execution of the final judgment. My wife thinks she is proceeding with extreme caution to avoid continued appeals.

The most important of the "related cases" is the one by the squatter group against Fr Kelley accusing him of "conversion", which is civil theft. (The civil charge would require only a jury majority based on the "preponderance of evidence", rather than a unanimous finding "beyond a reasonable doubt".) This case, of course, has been stalled since the appeals court returned the cases for retrial in 2014. Judges who have looked at the Bush group's allegations have repeatedly said that there is no evidence for them. During the brief time I was parish treasurer in 2011, I found no evidence of financial impropriety, and the accountant who audited the parish prior to its seizure in 2012 also found no impropriety. Presumably this case will be dismissed "with prejudice" under Judge Goodman next year.

Fr Kelley, on the other hand, is concerned that the squatter group remains in possession of his personal property that had been in the rector's office at the time of the seizure. I suspect that other problems will come quickly to light once the vestry regains access to the property and bank accounts.

The Calendar Again

As I've noted here from time to time, the squatters have seldom been conscientious in keeping the calendar up to date -- but recent weeks have been especially behind. Here it is as of this morning:

The most recent entry is for September 8, the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. If they were making an ordinary effort, we'd assume that there would be entries for Sunday, November 22, the Feast of Christ the King, and Sunday, November 29, I Advent. I don't know if it's significant that the retrial took place in September, distracting whomever was maintaining the calendar.

Whatever else it may be, it's a continuing indication that the squatters have never been running the place as an actual parish. With nothing noted on the calendar, I'd love to know what they have or haven't announced about legal developments during Sunday "mass". There's always been something hinky here.

The Bank Building

Yesterday on our way to mass at our Catholic parish, we took a slight detour to snap a photo of the bank building on parish property at the corner of Finley and Hillhurst.

The rear of the church building is visible past the left corner of the bank building. The bank building has had all the previous Citibank signs removed.

The photo reinforces several impressions I've had. First, there's landscaping on the property around the bank building that needs regular maintenance and hedge trimming. This costs money. There's a security light lit on the building side at lower right, which says that, even without a tenant, utilities must be paid, and this is a big building. I shudder to think about what might happen with no insurance. When I calculated gardening and utility expenses for the church building, I simply didn't factor in the additional costs for the bank building, which are clearly not trivial.

So minimal expenses for keeping the doors open are pretty clearly well above what the squatters now have coming in. In fact, given the version published in the Los Feliz Ledger, Mrs Bush wouldn't lease the space to Walgreen's because they wanted several months free rent to modify the space for their use. This suggests that the squatters were spending the rent money as fast as it was coming in and had no cushion.

So with BevMo! unexpectedly pulling out as a tenant and almost no money now coming in, how long can they keep the doors open? What on earth is the point of trying to gain a few days here and there by playing last-minute games? The building is not rentable with the property in litigation.

It's hard to avoid thinking Mrs Bush and those associated with her are delusional. Or something's hinky. I wouldn't rule out hinky.

Delay

I'm told that Lancaster & Anastasia "pulled another 'fast one' on Judge Strobel", saying they got delivery of her Statement of Decision by the US Postal Service, and therefore they are entitled to an extra five days to respond -- i.e., Tuesday, November 17. How this affects the date on which Judge Strobel's decision will be final, or the date of the hearing on disposition of the related cases, was not clear.

Playing games with the Postal Service is not a new tactic for Lancaster & Anastasia. The link and the news of the new delay raise an interesting question: according to their former web site (still down), Lancaster & Anastasia LLP is located at 350 S Grand Ave #2360, Los Angeles, CA 90071. This is in the California Plaza, an extremely prestigious address, and in fact only a few blocks from the county courthouse, where they could presumably have gone to pick up the judge's decision in person.

However, the rent at that building would be prohibitive for a law firm that can most charitably be characterized as struggling. The explanation is almost certainly that "Suite 2360" at that address is some type of mail drop, or mail drop-cum-phone mail facility. I tried a web search for "virtual office" at that location but couldn't come up with a specific link, but there are web sites for similar facilities located at prestige buildings all over downtown, Century City, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, and so forth, which suggests to me that Suite 2360 is something cheap and discreet. Philip Marlowe would have known all about it.

The more I look at Lancaster & Anastasia, the more I get the impression that they rely on a limited number of tired strategies to pursue the few cases they get. Quite possibly their mail drop does take days to forward things to them at home, although when they want to, they can apparently move much faster. On one hand, they need five extra days due to "postal" delay, while on the other, as we see in the link above, they create their own delays as it suits them to do so.

The Plaintiffs [Lancaster] demonstrably know how to mail a letter to get it delivered within one day, or three days.

They do not always choose to do this.

The Defense [Fr Kelley] offers in evidence Exhibit A and offers Exhibit B. Exhibit A had allegedly been mailed before the last hearing, and before Plaintiffs were aware the Court would examine this issue, yet had not arrived as service at the time of hearing, which Plaintiff's counsel did not mention to the Court. (Oddly not mentioned as it still had not been delivered as of that last hearing, and so was not viewed by the Defendant at the hearing, yet it was presumed part of the hearing.)

Yet Exhibit B, mailed after the hearing, was delivered earlier than A, to the same addressee.

Another repeat strategy, which we saw in the case of Becerra v Jones, Bell earlier this year, is to take a bad-facts case and try to turn it into a First Amendment issue. Lancaster lost that one, as well as the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases, on appeal.

Doesn't Mr Lancaster turn up someplace in The Big Sleep? The High Window? Seems like I have it someplace. . . maybe not.

St Mary's And The Media Again

Yesterday, I finally got an e-mail from Allison Cohen, the editor of the Los Feliz Ledger.

Hi John: I’ve been reading your blog. We have covered a lot of the St. Mary’s case and are awaiting (today) the judge’s final ruling. The story will be in our upcoming December 2015 edition.

I have spoken with the parties since I emailed you. Please call me at the office number below if you would like to talk more about this case.

Thank you.
Allison

Again, Ms Cohen is entitled to cover what she chooses, although in our neighborhood, the Ledger is little more than a nuisance item that goes straight from the front lawn to the trash can. If people don't bend over to pick the issues up and toss them, it's one more way that messages get sent to those who shouldn't get them indicating the resident is out of town. Ms Cohen, is there a way to opt out of this weekly litter delivery?

I assume, though, that the Ledger survives by selling ads on the pretext that it's providing some sort of community service. So why not cover the St Mary of the Angels story on a timely basis?

Earlier this year, the Ledger ran a story on how the community room in the bank building might or might not still be available if the parish finds a new tenant for the space. Then it ran two stories on how the parish might or might not rent to BevMo!.

Then it ran a story on how testimony was under way in the September trial, but although the judge issued a tentative decision nearly three weeks ago, the Ledger has made no followup. In other words, it's covered various non-events surrounding the parish since May, but the one thing that's actually happened isn't worth mentioning.

But let's look at some of the coverage. From one of the BevMo! pieces:

The church is currently involved in a contentious legal fight over who is its rightful owner. According to church officials, the liquor retailer also pulled out when it learned of the litigation.

One side is under Los Feliz resident and long time Los Feliz advocate Marilyn Bush who is listed as the church’s “senior warden,” and another, under Alan Trimpi, an ally of the church’s former pastor Father Christopher Kelley.

Dr Trimpi's name (Allan) is misspelled. Fr Kelley is not "the church’s former pastor". The legal fight was never over who was the parish's "rightful owner" the argument has been over who controls the parish -- its ownership is not and has never been in dispute. A couple of paragraphs down:

But due to the instability of the church and its legal issues, in April of 2012, an overseeing body, called the Anglican Church of America’s Diocese of the West, took disciplinary action against Kelley, removing him from ministry and took control of the church, appointing Bush and others to the vestry.

The parish left the Anglican Church in America in 2011. The main legal issue after 2012 was whether "Bush and others" were occupying the property as squatters. Judge Strobel's decision on October 26 established that the "elements of forcible detainer" had been met, which simply says that Bush and others are subject to removal as squatters once the decision becomes final next week. There are other issues: what is the impact on the neighborhood of the vacant bank building and apparent neglect of the property by the squatters? How is Mrs Bush helping the community here?

Isn't that something the community should know before next month? Except that it contradicts a great deal of what the Ledger has said up to now.

Scenes Of Clerical Life

A visitor brought to my attention a photo posted on the ACA Diocese of the West web site covering its 2015 Synod, which was held this past October 14. This would be a couple weeks after the September trial and a couple weeks before Judge Strobel issued her decision.

The image strikes me as a group that might have been composed by a Leonardo or a Raphael. Clearly the focus is on Mrs Bush in the center, the elderly doyenne. She is laughing gleefully, though she did not laugh this way during the trial, and I strongly suspect the laugh is forced, the effort of an octogenarian alpha girl to put the bravest face she can on events. She is facing another elderly lady who wasn't identified to me, who is raptly engaged with her.

Mrs Bush is looking away from two other figures at the table, neither of whom appears diverted by whatever pleasantries Mrs Bush shares in the other direction. The priest is Fr Ian Emile Dunn, who is curate at St Peter's Anglican, Auburn, CA, one of the few remaining parishes in the diocese. His bio says he is an alumnus of Hillsdale College, an institution for which I have a great deal of respect, and frankly, I'm sorry Hillsdale wasn't Hillsdale when I was of college age. Apparently this is not an unusual reaction from people who take its excellent online courses.

As a result, I've got to think Fr Dunn is several cuts above people like Strawn, Marsh, Vaughan, "Brother Christian" Tutor, and the rest, and I'm wondering about his posture and facial aspect in the photo. With Mrs Bush facing the other way, he seems either to be praying or reflecting seriously on what he's gotten himself into. Fr Dunn, you are in my thoughts and prayers; I hope greater things await you.

The lady dressed in white on the right, I'm told, is Mrs Owen Rhys Williams. She appears to be impatiently studying her watch, with a less than happy expression on her face. Her husband, "Bishop" Williams, faces an uncertain future, with the St Mary's squatters presumably no longer able to pay him and the prospect of almost certain ejection from the premises in a matter of weeks. Mrs Rhys Williams is not sharing Mrs Bush's levity.

Behind the foreground group, between Mrs Bush and the old woman she is charming, are "The Venerable Canon" Frederick W Rivers and the dangerously incompetent diocesan chancellor, Mr Smith. Leonardo or Raphael couldn't have conceived it better.

A Few More Thoughts On The Virtue Online Post

The comments at the post are instructive. Except for one friend of the parish who intervened late, the other commenters appear to be angry and ignorant, to the extent that they get the spelling of "Kelley" wrong.

The anger in particular, although it's typical of what goes on at Virtue Online, is puzzling. The St Mary of the Angels case is an intriguing story -- clearly the lawyers and judges who've worked on it have thought it was worth their time. It's at the center of 20th century Anglican developments like the Congress of St Louis, "continuing Anglicanism", the Anglican Use Pastoral Provision, and later the TAC's Portsmouth Petition and Anglicanorum coetibus. There's a certain amount of evil in the story. but as Hogan's Heroes and Springtime For Hitler make clear, it can be healthy even to laugh at the greatest evil. Tony Morello lies somewhere between Sgt Schultz and Col Klink.

But there's no laughter at Virtue Online, as I assume there's none in Belchertown. The statement from Frederick Rivers that the court's ruling "should not be seen as a major setback" prompted a visitor to write it's "[l]ke someone pointing out 'It ain't over till it's over' when their team is down 10 runs at the bottom of the eighth." My wife and I are pretty sure the statement was drafted for Rivers by Mr Lancaster (another candidate for Sgt Schultz), and my wife suggests that, with the money spent and no tenant in the bank building, Lancaster is now comping his services. Not a major setback indeed.

When I started this blog, I looked to Virtue Online as a reason for not allowing comments. Fr Z from time to time observes that the comment sections of some similar blogs simply allow participants to place their souls in danger. I've never regretted not allowing comments here.

St Mary Of The Angels At Virtue Online

David Virtue finally covered the story. The reaction of the ACA is predictable. Judge Strobel's final order will be effective November 17, with a hearing for disposition of the related cases on November 18.

Quick Updates

The Lancaster & Anastasia LLP web site is still down, a week since I first checked, which suggests the reason is probably not just a technical glitch with the hosting service -- more likely, the glitch is no money to pay the hosting service.

As of today, there is no mention of Judge Strobel's decision on either the Los Feliz Ledger web site or Virtue Online, although Virtue has pressing reflections from the Provincial Synod XXI of the Anglican Catholic Church Original Province, as well as an ACNA bishop's views on a Christian's relation to church and state. (Seems to me that both bodies would correspond to a common characterization by Mr Trump; they're losers.)

But then, so is David Virtue. So, for that matter, are Brian Marsh and Bill Lancaster.

The ACA's Dilemma

The ACA has a potential problem I've foreseen since 2012 -- its actions in placing a group of squatters onto the parish property have been instigated and formally, repeatedly, and publicly endorsed by the House of Bishops. The same ACA chancellors who recognized that the Patrimony of the Primate was separate from the ACA in 2011 saw no conflict in Strawn and Marsh seizing a Patrimony parish in 2012. These people are incompetent and will bring considerable trouble on themselves and the ACA. I wouldn't hire any of them to get me off a traffic ticket.

There's an additional downside to the direction the court cases have taken: since 2013, Church Mutual Insurance has refused to cover Mrs Bush and her group of squatters on the basis that they were neither the policyholders nor the insured on St Mary's insurance policies. By extension, it seems reasonable to expect that officers' insurance for the ACA will not cover actions by Marsh, Strawn, Owen Williams, Anthony Morello, Frederick Rivers, the chancellors, or others on the basis that in placing a group of squatters on the St Mary's property, they acted outside the scope of their authority.

Public corporations must sooner or later hold dishonest or incompetent officers accountable. Given an equivalent legal turn of events, which was predictable once the appeals court sent the case back for retrial, a corporate CEO would have been negotiating his severance package, and in due course there would have been a quiet announcement that he was leaving to spend more time with his family.

My wife and I see no choice for the ACA but to separate itself from the legal interests of Marsh, Strawn, Owen Williams, and others. The problem is that in a public corporation, the body that would do this is the board of directors. The equivalents to corporate boards in the ACA are parish vestries, diocesan standing committees, and the ACA Executive Council. Every indication I have is that these are packed with stooges and riddled with vacancies.

A visitor pointed out to me, for instance, that the ACA Diocese of the West Standing Committee has only two clergy listed, apparently with no other clergy willing to fill vacancies. It appears that Fr William Bower has simply extracted himself. Canon Charles Slagle is on the DOW Standing Committee, though not listed at any parish in the few that are left. In fact, he is Canon Missioner of the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, which can only mean that he is there to protect Stephen Strawn's interests, not those of the DOW. Two other prominent members of the DOW Standing Committee are Mrs Bush and Mrs Creel, both presumably liable for damages in the St Mary's seizure and thus with clear conflicts of interest.

There don't appear to be enough adults on any such body who aren't thoroughly implicated in the St Mary's seizure to act effectively to protect the denomination's interests. At the time I was compiling a list of ACA parishes and missions, it was pointed out to me that few parishes actually have rectors -- many are missions or parishes with priests-in-charge, who are subject to removal at any time by the bishop. Many of the strongest parishes with effective clergy, of course, left the ACA for the Patrimony in 2011, and several have gone into the US-Canadian Ordinariate.

Beyond that, if Marsh, Strawn, and Owen Williams were to be forced out -- highly unlikely in any case -- there are no credible successors. John Vaughan appears to have some potential exposure to scandal, which could erupt if he were promoted. James Hiles is an octogenarian who doesn't seem very active currently. It doesn't seem likely that Louis Falk, also an octogenarian, would step in. The only credible possibility would be George Langberg, although even he may be tainted by the St Mary's seizure.

This is almost certainly the way Brian Marsh wants it.

So Where's The Rest Of The Money? -- II

On Saturday, I looked at the parish's financial situation before Citibank moved out of the commercial property. But I've started thinking about the financial situation since mid-September, when I assume the Bush squatters got their last rental check.

Of the $22,000 rental income, the Citibank payment was about $21,000. The only remaining rental income is $1000 monthly for rental of the parking lot after hours for valet parking at a local restaurant. Prior to the seizure, plate and pledge amounted to $6500 per month, but I doubt if it's anything like that now. They used to get several hundred bucks a month for hall rental, but they threw AA and a choral group out when they seized the place.

Let's see if they can even keep the doors open. Gas, water, and electricity alone amounted to $1300 per month prior to the seizure. This leaves out the phone, including AT&T internet, which were an additional $320. If they haven't trimmed that by now, they'd better, but they're already over the $1000 a month they can reliably expect. There are other base expenses they really can't cut: trash disposal, $85 a month; property tax on the commercial space, $60 a month; church casualty insurance $850 a month. If they cut any of these, there'll be a problem.

This assumes, of course, that when the rent money stopped coming in, "Bishop" Williams elected to work for nothing, not to mention the organist. But they'll still have to pay workers comp, $175 a month; unemployment $460 a month.

This means that exclusive of salary, they need to come up with something like $3250 a month just to keep someone from shutting them down or turning out the lights. But they may be committed to other items like copier lease, $110 a month, and candles, bread, wine, and incense, $150 a month.

How long will "Bishop" Williams hang around without a paycheck? The organist? Housekeepers, if any?

But this doesn't get to their legal problems. Without the rental income, they can't pay Lancaster & Anastasia LLP anything, which may already be reflected in that web site being down. How can they finance a potential appeal from the impending final decision from the September trial? "Maybe Mrs Brandt will forego her African safari next year," my wife suggested. "Oh, and Mrs Bush may be willing to cash in a CD," I added. We'll see. And as long as the property continues in litigation, the commercial space is not rentable. Mr Lancaster does not have a good appeals court record in any case.

There's an additional problem, in that the appeals court made a factual finding that the parish vestry is the one elected in February 2012. Mr Lancaster didn't even contest this in the September trial, insisting only that Mrs Bush continued to be a member of the elected vestry. This raises the question of whether the squatters associated with Mrs Bush even have standing to bring an appeal, if they can even finance one.

Our Fearless Media Keeping The Public Informed (Not)

Even rinky-dink outlets like Virtue Online and our local throwaway, the Los Feliz Ledger, have agendas, and they would seem to be as blinkered and biased as the drivebys. Let's be clear: they can cover what they choose. However, both Virtue and the Ledger have given the St Mary of the Angels case prominent coverage in the past, for instance here at Virtue Online, and as recently as a month ago in the Ledger.

With the worm beginning to turn, though, neither Virtue nor the Ledger appears to be interested in the case. I published my e-mail to David Virtue Saturday. Here's the subsequent exchange I had with Virtue. He replied, verbatim:

I wrote to Bishop MArsh who referred me to canon Rivers. When I get a statement from him I will write a story. many thanks for the alert

David

Seeing the potential for a runaround -- Rivers is one of Marsh's stooges -- I answered:

I’m curious, David. My guess is Rivers will either say nothing or refer you to someone else. If he doesn’t reply, does this mean you don’t cover the story?

Clearly peeved, he replied:

Of course not. I will cover it one way or another

To which I then replied,

When? So far, you’ve been very pro-ACA.

As of this morning, there's no news on the case at Virtue Online, though in the past, he ran numerous pieces containing wild allegations against the parish like the one linked above.

I copied the Los Feliz Ledger on my e-mail to Virtue. The editor, Allison Cohen, replied,

John: I will be in touch with you Monday. Thank you.

However, I didn't hear from her yesterday.

At the moment, I'm assuming that the policy of the ACA, Mr Lancaster, and Mrs Bush will be not to comment on the case, although normally, media will simply cover the story and note that such-and-such indicated he/she had no comment. In fact, the Ledger had a reporter at the trial and featured it prominently while it was underway. The apparent lack of interest in doing follow-up on stories they've featured prominently speaks to the agendas of those involved.

How Busy Is Lancaster & Anastasia LLP?

The firm's web site is still down -- I left a message at their office phone asking whether it meant they might not continue in business, but so far have received no reply. I'm sure Mr Lancaster has every wish to help me update the public on his firm, so I'm waiting for his call!

For a couple of days I've been doing web searches on "Lancaster & Anastasia LLP", "superior court", and various other combinations, but so far, I've come up with only one other case. Earlier this year, they lost an appeals court case, Becerra v Jones, Bell, Abbot, Fleming & Fitzgerald LLP, in which Mr Lancaster represented Becerra.

At the outset of oral arguments in downtown Los Angeles, a three-judge panel showed the parties a brief tentative ruling — that it was inclined to affirm Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Debre Katz-Weintraub’s denial of Becerra’s bid to dismiss the firm’s claims under California’s law barring lawsuits that impinge the exercise of free speech, called the anti-SLAPP statute.

William Lancaster of Lancaster & Anastasia LLP, representing Becerra, urged the appeals court to reverse its tentative decision and toss Jones Bell’s counterclaim, arguing Judge Katz-Weintraub erred in ruling Becerra’s conduct wasn’t litigation-related activity, which is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Lancaster argued that while the firm was suing over unpaid fees, the actual conduct giving rise to that claim was Becerra’s work in the underlying class action suits.

Justice Laurence D. Rubin, however, noted that is not unusual when a partner leaves a firm for the parties to have a dispute over fees.

“Isn’t this essentially a dispute about money between the partner that left the firm and the remaining partners, and not a First Amendment issue?” he said.

Becerra, Mr Lancaster's client, lost. That was back in February of this year. I'm still looking for other Lancaster cases.

If anyone can find others, besides the case against his former firm, or checks the web site and finds it up, I'd love to hear about it.

Visitor Opinion On Recovering Costs

A visitor sent an extremely interesting reaction to yesterday's post (my emendations):

Actually, it appears that Citibank paid the rent to the wrong party, and thus is on the hook for the entire amount, during the period when the squatters occupied the property. Citibank has deep pockets, and undoubtedly will pay an amount under seven figures as soon as the situation becomes clear to corporate counsel. If Citibank has insurance that will cover this (not exactly unlikely), the insurance company will pay the claim equally quickly. Whoever pays the claim [then] will sue the squatters collectively to recover the amount of the previous payments. In this type of case, all of the squatters and their accomplices are liable for the entire amount (there is no apportionment) so the plaintiff can confiscate assets of any and all of them to collect. If the squatters and their accomplices turned over any of the money to other parties, they might or might not be able to sue to recover those payments. The legal issue here will be whether, and to what extent, ACA Bishop Brian Marsh was involved in the decisions associated with the occupation and thus is deemed an accomplice, but the diocesan bishop will be deemed an accomplice in any case.

The seizure was initiated by Anthony Morello, at the time rector of the ACA parish in Fountain Valley, CA, but also at the time canon to the ordinary to Stephen Strawn, who was episcopal visitor to the Diocese of the West, and clearly acting at Strawn's direction. Mr and Mrs Creel of the Fountain Valley parish (Mrs Creel is on the Diocese of the West standing committee and also diocesan secretary, while Mr Creel is a representative to the ACA Executive Council) were also involved in the seizure and presumably would also be accomplices.

In addition to e-mails and letters from Strawn indicating his supervision and approval of the occupation, Presiding Bishop Marsh flew to California to visit the parish during events related to the seizure in June 2012, clearly indicating that he was involved in it. The ACA House of Bishops also strongly endorsed Morello's conduct in seizing the parish in a letter over Marsh's signature designating Morello "vicar general" in late 2012. Marsh himself was episcopal visitor to the Diocese of the West during 2013, after which Owen Rhys Williams took this position. All are presumably vulnerable to collection efforts.

The visitor continues,

The more interesting issue is the vacancy of the commercial building since the tenant elected not to renew the lease and moved to another location, resulting in loss of revenue. Here, the vestry clearly has a case against the squatters for the lost revenue on the basis that the squatters wrongful actions rendered the property unrentable. This case easily meets the burden of proof for a civil case ("more probable than not"), and can extend to a reasonable time to find a new tenant after the resolution of ownership. It seems very likely that executives of the former tenant will testify, or at least supply affidavits, saying that uncertainty of ownership of the property was what drove the decision to move the office to another location, but the suit probably is sustainable even without such testimony or affidavits, in which case the vestry probably can collect lost rent for the entire period, including a reasonable amount of time to find a new tenant. There could also be a claim for lost rent going forward if a new tenant pays less in rent than that which the previous tenant would have paid to remain there, though this could be more difficult to prove.

The vestry also can sue the squatters for

• cost of repairs of any damages caused by the squatters or as a result of their actions, including changing the locks,
• costs incurred for meeting and worship space until the parish actually can return to the church building, and
• cost of anything belonging to the parish that the squatters may have moved or sold, including the van mentioned in your post.

I assume that efforts to recover damages from the ACA by the St Mary of the Angels rector, wardens, and vestry will begin in a fairly short time. While they have a fiduciary responsibility to recover damages, they will not pursue a vendetta, especially if the ACA treats their reasonable requests promptly and with courtesy and respect.

So Where's The Rest Of The Money? -- I

My wife and I were watching one of our favorite genres last night, yet another true crime show. In it, a James Bond wannabe defrauded various clients out of millions by convincing them he was a freelance spy and international fixer. When it was all over, he got a slap on the wrist penalty, and one observer said, "You can only eat so many gourmet dinners and drink so many cognacs. Where's the rest of the money?" Good question.

The parish squatters had an income stream of nearly $22,000 a month from rental alone. I'm going to toss any estimate of plate and pledge -- the dissidents were tightwads, and the parish was closed entirely for many months. But I'm going to say the dissident group got 40 monthly payments, totaling nearly $880,000, during the period Citibank was paying rent.

The parish was in the black for the year prior to the seizure, according to its accountant. However, it had many budget items that ceased as soon as the seizure took place. The total monthly payroll just prior to the seizure would have been $14,110, which included salaries for rector and curate, cleaning and groundskeepers, music director, choir, and expenses for the deacon. All these people had been terminated by June, and the parish was closed for months afterward.

At some point, the squatters disposed of the parish van, which eliminated monthly lease and insurance payments totaling $850. Notwithstanding the parish was closed entirely for months, the level of activity afterward was lower, meaning lower utility costs. A series of short-term priests then said mass for about two years -- the squatters being tightwads, I doubt if they got much more than a weekly honorarium. I don't know what they were paying Owen Williams or Frederick Rivers -- we'll find out soon -- but they're tightwads.

So as far as I can see, there's as much as half a million that came in over 40 months that the parish wasn't spending, at least not for churchy stuff.

But when Citibank said they'd terminate the lease, it appears from published accounts that Mrs Bush was very anxious to keep the income stream coming: some prospective tenants were interested, but wanted several months free rent to modify the space for their use. Mrs Bush wouldn't go along; she wanted no interruption in the money and wound up getting the neighbors ticked off by renting to a liquor store, which backed out of the deal when it discovered the property was in litigation. (I suspect some neighbors made strategic phone calls to nudge things along.)

Next: as of today, the web site for Lancaster & Anastasia, LLP continues to be MIA. There could be various reasons for this, but one reason could be that Lancaster & Anastasia decided to cut the unnecessary expense. That could be consistent with Citibank moving out of the parish property and no longer paying rent. That raises for me the question of whether Lancaster & Anastasia, LLP had any clients other than Mrs Bush and the ACA, and with the disappearance of the St Mary of the Angels income stream, whether the firm will continue at all. At least, this is one way to look at it.

My current inference is that something close to half a million bucks went, first, to Lancaster & Anastasia, LLP; second, to some combination of the ACA, Brian Marsh, Stephen Strawn, Anthony Morello, Frederick Rivers, and Owen Rhys Williams; and third, to parties unknown. No squatter who signed any checks to any of these individuals was authorized to do so.

My wife the retired attorney thinks the banks involved have a potential problem. Normally if the authority to open or use an account is in question -- as it certainly has been with St Mary of the Angels, given the years of litigation -- a bank files an interpleader action:

Interpleader is employed when two or more parties seek ownership of money or property that is held by a third party. The property in question is called the stake, and the third party who has custody of it is called the stakeholder. The stakeholder is faced with a legal dilemma: giving the property to either one of the parties will likely lead to a lawsuit by the other party against the stakeholder and the new property owner.

Interpleader enables the stakeholder to turn the controversy over to a court and to be dismissed from the legal action.

My wife feels that Citibank, or any other bank involved, should either have refused to open a new account or filed an interpleader action. She is not aware of evidence that any bank ever did this. As she puts it, "If you pay the wrong person, you have to pay again to the right person and try to get the money back from the wrong person you paid it to."

Mrs Bush's family needs to hire an attorney to represent Mrs Bush. Brian Marsh needs to hire his own attorney. These people have shown imprudence beyond ordinary pigheadednes and have been poorly advised, Marsh in particular by his own chancellors.