A wrinkle, however, is that the Bush group in its appeal is representing itself as the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of St Mary's, which the courts since 2014 have ruled that they are not; the valid vestry is the one elected in February 2012. There is a serious argument that the Bush group does not have standing in the case, which Fr Kelley, as a "real party of interest", has consistently tried to argue to the judge, but so far has been unsuccessful.
In a succession of hearings on this case since last year, Mrs Bush has attempted to appear on behalf of the non-vestry in pro per. The judge has consistently told her that by California law, a corporation, which is what the Bush group purports to be, must be represented by an attorney. In court documents up to this morning, no attorney was listed for the Bush side, and there was some expectation that the judge would finally dismiss the case.
However, the Bush group found an attorney at the last minute, who claimed that he was "substituting in" on the case. This means, as far as vestry members at the session understand this, that he is appearing temporarily on behalf of the Bush group but does not represent them. Their last attorneys, Lancaster & Anastasia, withdrew from the case after being unpaid since 2015.
This was enough for Judge Hogue to set a trial date for the appeal on January 4, 2019. Significantly, nobody caught the name of the attorney who was subbing in, and he probably won't appear again on the Bush group's behalf. He had Jimmy Carter-era sideburns and did not seem impressive, although the St Mary's senior warden estimated his appearance would have cost Mrs Bush several thousand dollars.
This brings up the question of what the Bush group's strategy is, if they have one. Although Tyler Andrews, Mrs Bush's sometime attorney, wrote a threatening letter to the parish prior to its May 6 meeting, there has been no word from him since then. Since the Bush group had been notified of the meeting, the appropriate course, as far as I can see, would have been for Mr Andrews to secure a restraining order prior to the meeting, which in fact the ACA and Mr Lancaster did in 2012.
Instead, Mr Andrews wrote an angry letter, and so far, that's where things stand. My wife feels that it would have cost Mrs Bush $20,000 or more for Mr Andrews to get the restraining order, but of course, this would have been only a first step in trying to re-litigate the whole 2012 case. I would guess Mrs Bush has become reluctant to spend more than minimal amounts to keep the various cases going, and an overall strategy will be to delay as much as possible while spending as little as possible to kick the can down the road as needed.
This leaves the vestry and the parish in charge of the property, while Mrs Bush, 88, gets older with no strategy for a quick resolution. The ACA is presumably preoccupied with joining the G4 and the PNCC. On the whole, I do not favor a strategy of speed for the parish in trying to join the OCSP in any case. This probably works to the benefit of the parish and Fr Kelley over the medium term.
