on Saturday, February 5, 2011, the ACA officially pronounced that the Patrimony of the Primate was OUTSIDE the ACA's Constitution. It is an Australian entity, not an American one.As a result, the announcement from the ACA House of Bishops dated January 10, 2012 that the Patrimony of the Primate has "ceased its operations" is meaningless, since the ACA had already declared that it had nothing to do with the Patrimony. As an Australian entity, it was under either the TAC or the ACCA, not the ACA in any case. This is further support for the elected vestry's contention that, once the parish had voted to join the Patrimony in early 2011 and placed itself under the direct authority of John Hepworth, and later David Moyer, it had left the ACA, and that by its own repeated statements, the ACA recognized this.
The parish, in short, was not part of the ACA when the ACA tried to seize it in April and May 2012. In addition, the ACA had no jurisdiction to inhibit or depose Fr Kelley, and Marsh and Strawn knew this. This could have interesting implications should Fr Kelley pursue any question of defamation against them, although I simply don't know his intentions in this matter.
Lancaster and Anastasia were able to get around this and other problems in the first trial by arguing that these were ecclesiastical matters in which the court couldn't involve itself. (I don't believe the elected vestry's attorneys were aware of the February 5, 2011 action at that time, although they were aware of the January 10, 2012 announcement, as well as Strawn's e-mail to Morello acknowledging that the ACA did not have authority to remove or appoint vestry members. Judge Linfield felt he could not consider these items at the time.)
The appeals court's decision sending the matter back to trial based on neutral principles of law means that both the February 5, 2011 and January 10, 2012 declarations will become part of the evidence before the court.
