An anonymous comment came through below for the fisking blog. Given its anon. nature I don't know whether it speaks true truth or spin truth. Hopefully someone who knows can either correct this or explain why it is not true:
My understanding is that the 20 counts were dismissed and a 21st count was created to deal with legalities pertaining to the settlement. Fr. Armstrong made an Alford plea to one misdemeanor (which includes no admission of guilt) and a no contest plea to the 21st count.
From Fr. Armstrong: "...on Friday a fictitious 21st felony count that had no basis in fact or history was created and added to address the original grand jury indictment and to assure proper jurisdiction. I plead no contest to that and it was differed. That was a procedural means to get to the real end, a misdemeanor. A fictitious misdemeanor was added, also without content-basis in fact or history, to which I entered an Alford plea...in other words, not an admission of any guilt but to accept the offer to reduce 20 felony counts to single misdemeanor."
5 comments:
The full plea agreement can be read here
It shows a 'no contest' plea to the count 15 felony charge, which places him on felony probation for 4 years.
Fr Armstrong and his parish have been spreading disinformation, although the parish have now removed their statement of support from their website.
It also opens the possibility of presentment under ACNA canons.
Anon., you seem intensely interested in this issue. So, why don't you use your name so that we can understand why you are interested in this? I am guessing that you are not in the ACNA, but you mention ACNA canons. Is your interest in creating more problems for Fr. Armstrong? Is there a vendetta here? I would like to present the true truth on this and as I have said, get beyond the spin truth. Your use of anon. makes me suspicious of your objectivity on this matter.
Thank you for the link to the plea agreement.
Who I am has nothing to do with the facts of the case, merely how you will therefore choose to interpret my posts.
Read the plea - the facts are there.
Your quote from Fr Armstrong clearly shows he has issued a falsehood - as can be easily verified from reading the plea agreement - which shows a plea of 'no contest' to count 15, with deferred sentencing and felony probation. There is no confusion.
As for creating 'more problems' for Fr Armstrong, how exactly is pointing out that the ACNA canonically prescribes presentment for a felony conviction my fault?
Anon, you won't identify yourself, you won't admit that you are not in the ACNA. Hmmm... So, this is a bit like What's My Line? Could you be Mr. Hitt, Chancellor of the Diocese of Colorado?
Don't permit anonymous comments on your blog and then moan when people avail of the option.
But then you are rather determined to make this about me and not about Fr Armstrong - and the fact that you're hatred of TEC has permitted you to swallow his fantasy version of the plea agreement hook, line and sinker before actually checking the facts.
Post a Comment