The JAFC has published two updates countering the prevailing narrative from the ACNA side. First, they vigorously attack the individual behind the open letter from victims published by Anglican Ink.
“Everything points to one particular chaplain as the author of this letter – or someone writing it on his behalf,” explains Archdeacon Kenneth Gillespie. As it turns out, this is “… just the latest version of his ever-changing storyline.” The first version of this story was fabricated by this former chaplain in 2021 in an attempt to evade personal accountability for misconduct. It was one example of many instances presented during this person’s Ecclesiastical Trial that ultimately substantiated a long pattern of habitual untruthfulness and self-aggrandizement. […]
“This is the true story of a former Anglican Priest and US Army Chaplain who was defrocked following an ecclesiastical trial before his peers. He was found guilty of multiple charges and his actions nearly caused irreparable harm to several GAFCON bodies,” said Chancellor Joe Saloom. With a reputation for mixing just enough facts into his stories to make them sound credible, you can count on this person to always make himself out as the hero.
It is worth mentioning that during sentencing, the ACNA solicited input from several primates, all of whom recommended defrocking this priest, which was the end result. In previous versions of this former minister’s story, there were Archbishops and bishops – such as Abp MBanda, Abp Beach, and Bp Sutton – who were supposedly “supporting” his claim. Of course, this turned out to be completely contrived – and only served as more evidence of untruthfulness during his trial.
“This recent letter is one of the several fabricated, exaggerated, and already adjudicated complaints in Abp Wood’s created litany of accusations against Bp Jones. It is sad that Abp Wood did not follow the ACNA Canons by referring any complaints back to the JAFC Standing Committee for resolution or appeal. This would have saved the Abp and the ACNA the grief and infamy they now enjoy,” remarked Bp Marshall MacClellan, Bishop Suffragan for the JAFC.
The fact that the canons were brazenly ignored in Bishop Jones’ case, versus how they are trying to be followed to the letter in Abp Wood’s case, certainly gives the appearance of a preconceived agenda to underhandedly subvert Bishop Jones’ leadership of the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy.
The second post fights back against the view that JAFC lost the first round in their court case:
Here’s what actually happened: the Court agreed with JAFC, and granted the requested preliminary injunction, with respect to the following:
- ACNA must refrain from using JAFC’s service mark “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy”;
- ACNA must refrain from using JAFC’s trademark, “Anglican Chaplains”; and
- ACNA must refrain from using JAFC’s trademarked logo.
What this means in practical terms is that the Court determined JAFC is likely to prevail on those claims. Considering the potential damages that would flow from such success on the merits, JAFC is gratified and optimistic with the Court’s Order.
What are the potential damages? It’s implied that it would financial, so what does that mean?
Leave a Reply