In fact, the apparent absence of coordination or effective legal counsel strongly suggests that the overall cohesion among the group is breaking down. The exchange between Mr Cothran and the judge was simply embarrassing. The judge started out by asking Mr Cothran how he has the right of possession to the property. He asked Mr Cothran if he lived at the church.
Mr Cothran answered that he lived in his home (in Sherman Oaks), not at the church. Nobody lived at the church. But the vestry has title to the property, and Mr Cothran claimed to be on the vestry.
The judge replied that the "plaintiff vestry" (i.e., the vestry elected in February 2012) had title to the property. The judge told Mr Cothran patiently that he was not on the vestry.
The judge then asked if Mr Cothran was paying rent to anyone at the parish. Mr Cothran replied that he was not, there were no tenants at the parish. The judge explained that only a tenant can claim right of possession, and Mr Cothran had not filed a correct claim. He went on to explain that, as outlined in the law, Mr Cothran would need to pay the court a deposit of several thousand dollars in rent to further his claim of right of possession.
Mr Cothran said he'd paid $300 (apparently just the filing fee), and he thought that was enough. The judge explained that the church was valuable property, and the rent would be a substantial amount. Mr Cothran had not paid it.
Mr Cothran became more and more exasperated. The judge made it plain that he was denying Mr Cothran's claim of possession, and this was going to restart the five-day clock for eviction. Mr Cothran insisted that the case was under appeal. The judge explained that this was an entirely separate matter.
Mr Cothran then asked, "So what form do I need to fill out?"
The judge said, "I can't give you legal advice. I would advise you to contact your attorney, and in fact, to contact him very quickly."
Increasingly exasperated, Mr Cothran said he'd already talked to his attorney, although he was apparently not represented by any who was present in court. Mr Cothran then began striding up and down the aisle, pointing angrily at me and the two wardens, who were present from the vestry. He strode back toward the judge, who repeated that Mr Cothran's claim was denied. Cothran then strode back to me and the wardens, poking his finger at us, and shouting,
"KNOW. THIS. YOU. WILL. NOT. GET. IT."
At this point, the bailiff ordered Mr Cothran to leave the courtroom, which he did, followed by the squatter contingent. I noted that "Bishop" Williams's face was beet-red. The vestry and legal counsel stayed in the courtroom for some additional minutes to avoid encountering Mr Cothran in the hall.
Once we went into the hall, an observer who appeared to be an attorney remarked that Mr Cothran's conduct warranted a protection order. Mmes Greer and Rineer, the vestry's counsel, made it plain that the squatters were not going to leave without being dragged out and informed the wardens that they should not be present when the sheriff arrives to lock the squatters out. My wife and I expect to raise our level of situational awareness over the next days and keep our cars in the garage.
However, counsel said that there could be no further claim of possession, and the court would inform the sheriff that this claim had been denied. I assume that the five-day clock on eviction has been restarted, and the squatters will be removed from the property in a matter of days.
I took the elevator down from the seventh-floor courtroom. It stopped on the fourth floor, and when the doors opened, Mr Cothran and the squatter group were in the lobby, with Mr Cothran yelling and waving his arms. I shut the doors in a hurry, and there was no further confrontation. I never saw any effort by Williams, the phony priest and bishop, to exercise any restraint over Mr Cothran at any time.
Fr Kelley and the vestry, as well as their counsel, are clearly aware of the risks in the situation as it develops.
