Can somebody comment on the composition of this panel?  I am not familiar with these folks, and I tink it is important for the credibility of this process that the folks passing judgment be, well, credible.  For me, and I hope for other thoughtful readers of this blo, it is in no way damning that they are faithful Episcopalians.  And I have difficulty believing that the bishop—even if he were misled in this matter—would have found it to his advantage to choose people without outstanding credibility.  BUt what about them?  How should we read this panel’s decision when it emerges?

I do not think in the present time that Rev. Armstrong could receive a fair hearing within TEC. There is far too much bad blood.  I do hope that CANA or the impending second jurisdiction does investigate the charges fully - Rev. Armstrong deserves a fair hearing - and the new jurisdictions need to properly police their own.

I don’t know Fr. Armstrong, but in the meanwhile I’d advise him to cease airing some of the vitriol on the blogs.  Some of the stuff on StandFirm the other day started to look a bit mental.  IMHO, private correspondence to the members of ACI would be more appropriate.  Just a thought—prayers for the proceedings—

IC,

O.

I agree, and thought the same thing, Orthoducky.

LOL, since when has looking “mental” been a novelty on the blogs!

The panel present at Tuesday’s hearing before the Ecclesiastical Trial Court consisted of five judges—two lay Episcopalians and 3 Episcopal clergy canonically resident in Colorado—and three alternates.  The presiding judge was Peter Munson, the rector of St. Ambrose in Boulder.  Other clergy appointed to the panel included Marty Pearsall, of St. Andrews in Manitou Springs and Marcia Stackhouse, of Our Merciful Savior in Denver. Clergy appointed to the panel as alternates included Todd Sorensen of St. Gregory in Littleton and Marilynn Schneider of St. Gabriel in Cherry Creek Village. Scott Barker, the lay assessor for St. John’s cathedral assisted Judge + Munson with counsel concerning evidentiary rules during the proceeding. A staff member from St. Ambrose present at the meeting suggested that Fr. Munson did not expect when he accepted his appointment to the Ecclesiastical Court to preside at such an proceeding as it had been more than 20 years since a trial had been conducted before the Ecclesiastical Court.

Judge + Munson noted on the record that respondent, Donald Armstrong, and his counsel, Dennis Hartley, declined to attend the proceeding.  The respondent had filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on Monday, July 27, to which counsel for the Diocese responded that afternoon.  Counselor Hartley filed a surreply on Monday afternoon.  After deliberations on Tuesday morning the Ecclesiastical court denied the motion to dismiss as the respondent had failed to present evidence of renunciation.  Press and public were welcome to the hearing.  Copies of the motion for Summary Judgment of Offense were made available to all present. Thick notebooks—estimated at 700 pgs.—containing exhibits, affidavits and supporting evidence were provided for the members of the ecclesiastical bench.  During the course of the proceedings, which included live testimony by a certified fraud examiner, projected images of check requests, checks, and parish accounts, and a videotaped deposition of the attorney who created the Bowton trust and has served as a trustee since its inception, numerous references were made to the exhibits provided to the court for use in their deliberations.

The local Colorado Springs newspaper, the Gazette, reported on August 1, that a spokesperson for the secessionist Grace CANA church stated that the vestry had opened its own investigation shortly after the schism and expects to have its findings ready next month.

Thank you, Candice, for your sober and exact report of the proceedings.  This morning’s CS *Gazette* says in a sidebar headline that there was testimony for as well as against Amstrong, and then fails to describe the testimony for him.  Was there indeed any testimony on his behalf?  Thanks for the information.  700 pages!

This whole situation is a quagmire.

Not even having his lawyer present is probably a guarantee guilty verdict, at least that’s how it works in civil courts. You can not claim you were railroaded if you do not make any attempt to show respect for the court. CANA would have no jurisdiction if the allegations took place before Armstrong+ was conically resident.

The only place Armstrong+ may receive a fair hearing is in the civil courts. That’s a mess for the whole TEC/CANA property dispute. Tje whole thing is a huge quagmire.

Correction to #6: The respondent’s Friday, July 27, motion to dismiss was received by the court on Monday, July 30.