I was watching one of my favorite true-crime TV genres last night, a show where a detective solves an old, tough cold murder case. He gave some insights into how to do it: you develop a theory of the case, and you let new facts take you where they lead you.As of late 2014, I was updating my theory with new facts that had become available at that time. In reviewing my post, I think I had things pretty much right then, but I now realize that in 2015, and more recently still, other facts have become available to give a better picture of what I would still describe as a "group hidden agenda so far falling short of criminal conspiracy".
We now know that in November 2014 (I didn't have that information in December of that year when I wrote my post), Mrs Bush and Mr Cothran secured a $575,000 loan against a title to the property that was the subject of pending litigation. We also now know that during the summer of 2015, the Bush-ACA group negotiated with a chain liquor store to lease the commercial space without telling BevMo! that the property was in litigation. Once BevMo! learned of this, they quickly withdrew.
This strongly suggests a pattern of deceptive behavior with Mrs Bush at the center. As I speculated the other day, the apparent fact that $575,000 loan was interest-only for a period of only three years strongly suggests that the pirates intended to hold onto the property for only a brief period before unloading it, when they could pay back the loan and walk away with some part of the remaining proceeds.
Based on FCI paperwork, that company values the whole property in the mid-seven figures. However, if the property were sold with the object of demolishing the existing buildings and putting up luxury condos, its value could potentially be greater. (This is the goal of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles in the similar case of the property at St James Newport Beach. The difference is that Bishop Bruno has acquired that property lawfully, but similar property values are at stake.)
I have a hard time not thinking that somebody wanted money here -- big money. For Bishop Bruno, that money will go to reimburse his diocese for its major legal expenses recovering the property of ruined parishes in the "Episcopal Church Cases". For those in the frammis, I suspect the purposes will be murkier -- at minimum, as I've said before, a puppet vestry or restricted membership meeting would vote to dissolve the corporation, sell its assets, and pass them on to the ACA, less assorted payoffs, commissions, consulting fees, and lagniappes.
There is no question that, as more facts have become available, we've seen a continued pattern of deceptive behavior. This reinforces the question I raised in my second post on the frammis: Mrs Bush, the clear leader of the group,
joined the parish only in early 2011 after, by her account, 40 years of not going to church. In other words, she would be something of an Anglican Rip Van Winkle, waking up to find she'd missed the controversies over prayer books, women's ordination, lady bishops, John Spong, Gene Robinson, Anglicanorum coetibus, the whole history. What would bring her to St Mary of the Angels, and why would she care? And why would she suddenly care enough to pledge money to lawyers over this stuff?I've learned enough from reading Ann Rule to know that you shouldn't trust the stories deceptive people tell about themselves. I'm not sure what's up with the never-went-to-church-for-40-years number, but frankly, something's hinky.
