An attorney should not have to throw a tantrum for a court to follow its own orders. I’ve waited patiently for a week to observe how the Archbishop, his staff, and the Court would respond. Unfortunately, I am left alarmingly disappointed.
Even if you disagree with his choice to resign, Mr. Runyan acted with integrity. He immediately communicated with the Archbishop who was the source of his appointment. The Archbishop told Mr. Runyan he would speak with him before saying anything publicly. He did not do so. Instead, the Archbishop sent out a surprise communication to the Province on Sunday evening leaving Mr. Runyan no choice but to properly and promptly notify witnesses, who had given so much of their time, effort, and courage to this process, of his resignation. Simultaneously, the Prosecutor was locked out of his Provincial email account. This precluded him from the ability to send the Court his resignation letter causing him to ask the Archbishop to make that communication for him. Based on what the Court stated, apparently that was not done.
Just as the Archbishop’s letter hit your inboxes Sunday night, I received a notification in my inbox from the COO and ACNA Chancellor that they wanted to meet with me first thing Monday morning.
Given that I know this case, its history, its facts, and its evidence more comprehensively than anyone in the ACNA, I expected the call would be to hear my perspective of what happened and to discuss my willingness to continue to help. Instead, I was invited to consider my termination that day.
It struck me that the two of the people whose actions directly undermined the court process were now the same two wanting to discuss my termination. Oh, the irony! In the real world, the judge would be disciplined for judicial misconduct and those who gave him improper access to a party’s files would be fired and disciplined.
According to the Archbishop’s recent letter to the whole ACNA, rather than being reprimanded or removed, this same chancellor was then tasked with the important job of selecting the new prosecutor.Despite that, the fact of the matter is that there is no way a new prosecutor will understand in
a timely fashion the nuances, details, and context that make up this case. Thus, if this process moves forward according to the Court’s timeline, the Province will not be competently represented.
Proceeding with the same tainted court and simply appointing a new prosecutor flies in the face of Mr. Runyan’s prescient warning that “this is not simply something that can be casually overlooked for expediency’s sake.”
Read it all.
