Armstrong’s attorney, Dennis Hartley, said the Episcopal court no longer has jurisdiction over Armstrong now that he is a member of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a mission of the Nigerian diocese.
A spokesman for the breakaway Grace Church, Alan Crippen, said that he learned of the criminal complaint Friday, and he welcomed it.
“We view this as a positive development,” Crippen said. “We are utterly confident of a fair process with the Colorado justice system, unlike the witch hunt conducted by the Episcopal Diocese.”
Both Armstrong and Colorado Episcopal Bishop Robert O’Neill have 30 days to respond to the ecclesiastical court’s preliminary ruling. The court will then issue a final judgment along with recommendations for a sentence.
If the Diocese was interested in maintaining an appearance of fairness, why would they have filed the criminal complaint on July 16, over half a month before the August 2 release of the preliminary findings of the ecclesiastical court?
[blockquote] A spokesman for the breakaway Grace Church, Alan Crippen, said that he learned of the criminal complaint Friday, and he welcomed it.
“We view this as a positive development,” Crippen said. “We are utterly confident of a fair process with the Colorado justice system, unlike the witch hunt conducted by the Episcopal Diocese.” [/blockquote]
This spokesman is just irresponsible for saying that they welcome the criminal complaint. No sane person would want to be the butt end of any criminal complaint or lawsuit. I’m sure that Armstrong in his heart of hearts wants this all to go away as do I–it looks bad for the orthodox believers.
If his supporters all keep saying that they want their day in a “real court,” they very well may have it soon–at the expense of Armstrong and his family–who are the ones who have to endure the process.
The criminal matter is one issue but then there is also a possibility of a civil suit against Armstrong to recover allegedly misappropriated funds.
In criminal defense work, most criminal lawyers I know give their clients a polygraph or voice stress analyzer and if the client passes, they are more than willing to make that available to the DA and the public. Let’s see if Armstrong’s attorney offers the DA the results of Armstrong’s polygraph or VSA.
Whereas Armstrong was convicted (though the order not final) in an ecclesiastical court, for the purposes of a criminal or civil proceeding, he does deserve the presumption of innocence in that forum. Let’s see what results in both the criminal and eventually, civil actions brought against him.
My guess is that Armstrong will settle at both the criminal and civil proceedings giving reasons that though he could have eventually proved his innocence, the time and expense involved was too great of a cost for him and his family.
Nothing will likely change among his critics or supporters. Critics will continue to view him negatively if not worse. Supporters will argue that the system was unfair (first, it was the ecclesiastical, then of course, the civil) as the heavy hand of the “state” just required too much resources in order to defend one’s innocence.
LTN: The spokesman is irrsponsible for welcoming a fair trial? Come on, give us a break. So far Armstrong has been through Hell and back with the public flogging from day one, paid witnesses that can’t read the records correctly, a kangaroo court and a foregone verdict. he is sure not the irresponsible one – I’ll give you one guess who is.
“My guess is that Armstrong will settle at both the criminal and civil proceedings giving reasons that though he could have eventually proved his innocence…”
The burden is not on Armstrong to prove his innocence, it’s on the state to prove his guilt.
I think, #2, that in this (somewhat unusual) case it’s reasonable to assume he does welcome a criminal inquiry, because he believes he will get an impartial examination of the facts rather than the shenanigans that have transpired with the diocese.
Chris…if Armstrong really welcomes a criminal inquiry…then may he get what he is asking for.
Any reasonable attorney will know that even in the criminal/civil judicial system, you never truly know how a judge or a jury is going to rule. This is why most good lawyers will recommend that their client avoid a trial if at all possible. It seems as though Armstrong and his supporters want a criminal trial and perhaps even a civil trial if and when the aggrieved party attempts to collect the alleged misappropriated funds–and they will–just a matter of time.
If Armstrong’s supporters really want to help, contribute to his legal defense fund–he will need it. I doubt that many who give lip support to Armstrong will actually dish out the thousands of dollars needed to help with his defense.
is right. Even if innocent, a successful defense will cost Fr. Armstrong thousands of dollars. The legal system is horribly expensive.
When I worked for the state of Florida, my annual salary, when converted to an hourly rate was about 25-30 dollars an hour. Even at that rate we had the ability to bankrupt someone we sued who had to pay a private lawyer 125 to 500 dollars an hour. At the current going rates it does not take many motions and hearings to force a defendant into tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Inappropriate comment removed by elf.