This link leads you to the entire decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals. If you are a lawyer or other glutton for punishment, read the decision. If not, let me sum up the background, the decision, and the relevance:
1. Archdiocese sued St. Stan’s Schismatics to address the hijacking of the Church, the wrongful amending of the by-laws, and other issues related to the renegade board. In short, to regain control of the former parish so it could boot Bozek and the Board, restore order and make it Catholic again.
2. As in all lawsuits, discovery and motions have been made.
3. One key motion, it seems, is that St. Stan’s moved to disqualify both Roger Krasnicki (former St. Stan’s parishioner, lawyer and advisor to the Board in some capacity) and the law firm of Greensfelder et al. (the Archdiocese’s usual law firm), because it alleged Krasnicki had a conflict of interest stemming from previous representation, and that by implication so did Greensfelder, because Krasnicki helped them prepare the lawsuit.
4. Trial Judge Hettenbach denied the motion. St. Stan’s sought a writ of prohibition (you can think “appealed”) in the Missouri Court of Appeals.
5. The Court of Appeals mostly ruled in St. Stan’s favor. It found that the Judge applied an incorrect standard to the motion, and remanded the matter for him to decide the question consistent with its decision. It did not disqualify the law firms– but based upon the decision, the matter looks unfavorable for the Archdiocesan lawyers on remand.
6. If Krasnicki and Greensfelder both are disqualified, it means the Archdiocese starts from square one in many ways. If only Krasnicki is disqualified, it shouldn’t affect the case too much.
That’s how I see it anyway. It is a interim victory for St. Stan’s. If nothing else, it will cost the Archdiocese a considerable sum to defend, and possibly to fix.
Hey, Bozek, didn’t you say you would quit? What’s stopping you?