Thursday, October 26, 2017

Final Status Conference Case BC487079 Department 32 This Morning

I attended this conference, on the upcoming damage trial in which the St Mary's vestry sues the ACA, the DOW, and certain individuals, scheduled for November 20, in the courthouse downtown this morning. There were several surprises. The last definite legal status update most of us have had was from a trial setting conference last July 12, reported here. The impression at least some observers had was that Mr Lancaster was withdrawing as counsel for the, ACA, the ACA Diocese of the West, Frederick Rivers as successor to Anthony Morello, and the Kangs, who haven't paid them since 2015 -- but he would remain as counsel to Mrs Bush.

Apparently, however, he also withdrew as counsel to Mrs Bush soon afterward. Having withdrawn as counsel, it was Mr Lancaster's responsibility to nofify all his former clients of the next hearings scheduled in the case. It is very unclear whether he actually did this. The next event scheduled was a pre-trial conference August 10, reported here. None of the defendants showed up. Judge Murphy, reviewing the paperwork, said they appeared to have been served. The vestry's counsel, Mr Lengyel-Leahu, now needing to notify these defendants of their next event, the final status conference scheduled for today, used the records of the Lancaster proofs of service from July to notify them of the new conference.

Several individuals, Mrs Bush, "Bishop" Rhys Williams, Mr Cothran from the Bush group, and Mr Creel from All Saints Fountain Valley, did show up at this morning's conference. Mrs Bush claimed that the defendants had been completely unaware of either the August 10 conference or this one, with only the previously scheduled final status conference for November 9 (which Judge Murphy had rescheduled for today on August 10) on their calendar. Mrs Bush also noted that, since oral arguments had been made before the appellate division on October 5, its ruling could come soon, and this could affect the damage trial.

But none of the defendants was represented by counsel. Mrs Bush wanted time to retain counsel, which after some back-and-forth with the parties, Judge Murphy granted, vacating the trial date of November 20 and changing that to a trial-setting conference, assuming the defendants could hire counsel by then. Of note as well, in a strategic move back in 2012, TroyGould, then the vestry's counsel, elected to remove Mrs Bush as a defendant in the damage suit, which at this point is probably very good news for her, at least 87 years old. The motive for this would probably have been her advancing age in any case.

However, this leaves three individuals as defendants in the damage suit, in addition to the corporate defendants ACA and ACA Diocese of the West. The corporate defendants must have counsel in the upcoming action; they cannot represent themselves pro per. The remaining individual defendants are Keith and Diane Kang, lay members of the dissident group from 2011-12, and Frederick Rivers, successor to Anthony Morello as the DOW's vicar general. None was present at today's conference. I would guess that as a practical matter, any of the defendants, should they lose the damage suit as seems likely, would either have few assets worth seizing, or they would make it extremely hard to seize them. As a result, the main penalty they will suffer, and they will suffer it soon, will be the non-trivial expense of engaging counsel, regardless of the outcome of the appeal or the damage trial.

But here's another issue: Mrs Bush acknowledged in today's conference that she had been aware of the November 9 date for the previously scheduled final status conference, so she was also aware of the November 20 damage trial -- Mr Lancaster had apparently still been her counsel in the July 12 conference when those dates were set, so he would certainly have told her about those dates. Yet, two weeks before the previously scheduled November 9 date for the final status conference for the damage trial, neither Mrs Bush nor any of the actual defendants had retained counsel.

Something's missing here. These people are potentially in serious legal trouble, they know their previous counsel has withdrawn, they know there are legal events scheduled that could have a very bad effect on their lives, yet they see no need to hire attorneys. Well, grant that they didn't hear about today's conference until a couple days ago -- wouldn't ordinarily prudent people nevertheless already have had attorneys to represent them, knowing a trial was coming up in a matter of weeks? My wife's theory is that, cut off from the St Mary's parish income, they've run out of other people's money to spend on attorneys and anything else. Maybe so.

I'm told, though, that the defendants have had a great deal of difficulty finding counsel up to now in any case.