I had been wondering for over a year what evidence the ACA had against Fr Kelley in the civil theft charges, and it's becoming more and more clear that when they get to trial, they're going to do what they did in contesting the unemployment claim: submit a copy of the unsupported hearsay in the ecclesiastical trial and claim it's a "declaration". This isn't going to fly.
I very much doubt that they're going to provide anything else to contest the August 6, 2012 election, either. A major difficulty is that none of the Bush vestry has been willing to provide declarations or depositions, so its doubtful we will get any sort of new testimony from their side. I can only speculate as to why they won't testify or provide declarations -- either they just don't want to be bothered and think things will go their way without any effort, or they don't want to be sworn or cross-examined.
What I'm beginning to see is that Lancaster doesn't have a case. His clients will probably be thrown out of court for lack of standing in the civil theft case, but if they aren't, the evidence they seem to want to present will be inadmissible. The same may well apply to any efforts on their part to contest the forcible detainer action.
Lancaster simply hasn't been working very hard. His clients, both the Bush group and the ACA, appear to be living in a dream world. I'm starting to wonder just what it is that's impairing everyone's judgment here. If there are any adults left in the ACA, they should be asking the same question.
