Q: Why is the Episcopal Church conducting a church trial of a priest who is no longer in the Episcopal Church?
A: The trial is to give the church a forum in which to attack Armstrong in the hopes of undermining his authority at Grace and St. Stephens and also to keep other Episcopalians from joining his congregation.
Q: Is this authorized by the canons?  Do the canons provide the Church authority to bring people to trial who are no longer in the church?
A: The canons say what we want them to say, no matter what they actually say—its sort of like Scripture.
Q: Why doesn’t Armstrong show up and defend himself if he is innocent?
A: Would you show up to defend yourself at a tribunal that is composed of people who are suing you, trying to put you in jail, and seek to end your ministry? 
Q: Why do people stay in a church that conducts itself this way?
A: Great question, but its off topic on this thread.  However, there’s a lesson to be learned here.  Whether he is innocent or guilty, Armstrong who was ironically a great supporter of ACI, took the institutional approach and submitted to eccliesial authority.  He submitted to inhibition and being barred from his church. Unfortunately, the Church used that time to build its case against him and undermine his ministry.  A cautionary tale for those who take the institutional approach.
Q: How is all of this going to turn out?
A: Hard to say.  Orthodox folk want to believe that Armstrong is being persecuted for his beliefs, and they regard TEC as having no credibility or moral authority.  However, some of the allegations are on the surface troublesome.  One would think that in the end, the truth will be revealed, since so many claim to be seeking it.

William,  Well said!  I know people on both sides of the issue are bruising themselves on it and that is painful for them.  “twould indeed be good if truth were to come out of this, but I wouldn’t make book on it.  If my bike didn’t have a flat tire I’d go mountain biking too!

#‘s 1 & 2.  Obviously the evidence is being presented to the public.  More than we can say about Grace Church’s behavior.  Now hopefully we’ll see.

Hopefully, Armstrong+ has his lawyer’s there, even if he is making a statement by not being there personally. It really does discredit to his cause to not clear his name, or at least give the Colorado diocese a chance to discredit themselves with a kangaroo court.

#4 I’d agree.

The case against Fr. Armstrong has been a witch hunt from the beginning.  I really believe that the ecclesiastical court is so far from being objective that it would be absurd to subject oneself to its charges.  The charges fall under the framework of a criminal indictment.  If so, this thing should be played out in a regular criminal court of law, not an ecclesiastical court.  So far, it would seem that the one having the most interest in pinning Armstrong against the wall is the IRS.  And, so far, the IRS has shown seemingly little interest in the thing.  What does that tell you?  The IRS is quick enough to jump on Clergy who make political statements behind the pulpit.  There is a crowd of people in ECUSA who would like to burn Don Armstrong at the stake for his scriptural views.  What too does that tell you?  It will be interesting to see how the Inquisition turns out.  Maybe they could capture him, bind him, throw him into the lake and if he sinks and drowns then he is innocent - just like the old days.

FrankV,
I’m courious how you know what the IRS is upto in this case? Do you know for a fact that they aren’t investigating?

A witch hunt? How? Someone complained, with evidence, and the diocese is obligated to investigate. How is that a witch hunt?