I wonder how this thing is really going. Some of the docket entries don't look promising. For example:
The motion for protective order regarding the deposition of William Bialzak was heard. All parties appeared by counsel. William Bialzak appeared by counsel Gary Sarachan. The motion was sustained as follows: The Court hereby orders that the deposition inquiry of William Bialzak will be limited to causes of action at issue in this case, and specifically inquiry will not be permitted regarding Mr. Bialzak's personal or business affairs, except as they relate to the Defendant corporation. So Ordered: Judge Bryan Hettenbach
So much for the prospect of inquiring into the towing company debacle. Of course, I have no clue what factors led to this order, but it would be nice to find out just how much the "personal or business affairs" of Bialzak have to do with the financial affairs of St. Stan's. St. Stan's attorneys seem to want to shield these affairs from judicial inquiry. Only the Archdiocese's lawyers can tell how important is this ruling.
Another ominous docket entry:
02/24/2009 , 09:00:00 - Counsel Status Hearing
Parties appear by counsel for hearing and status conference. Upon hearing, the Court orders as follows: 1. Status conference will be held April 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM. 2. St. Stanislaus motion for leave to file second amended counterclaim and add Archbishop Burke as a party taken under submission. 3. Plaintiff's shall file their response to St. Stanislaus motion for sanctions and motion to compel on or before March 13, 2009. 4. Plaintiffs shall file their answer to second amended counterclaim and file any amendments to their petition within 30 days after the Court grants leave to file the second amended counterclaim. So Ordered: Judge Bryan Hettenbach
Archbishop Burke is not a party to the lawsuit. The Administrator is, in his official capacity. So, it seems that St. Stan's seeks to add him to the lawsuit-- presumably, but not necessarily, in a personal capacity. Whatever the nature of the St. Stan's counterclaim, the opportunity to further publicly denigrate Archbishop Burke would warm the hearts of some. So, this motion for leave to add Archbishop Burke is taken under submission. If it is granted, the circus will begin in earnest.
When the Archdiocese filed this lawsuit, I wondered if submitting the inner dealings of the Catholic Church to the judgement of a secular Court was a prudent thing to do. I still do. If the amended petition of the Archdiocese still seeks the enforcement of the pre-amended bylaws of St. Stan's, then I would just say that the way the lawsuit and PR battle stand, the Archdiocese is risking more than it hopes to gain. So, at best, we hope that the Archdiocese exercises control over the re-integrated parish of St. Stanislaus, and Boguslaw is history. But the corporation/trustee model of parish is left in place. At worst, if the Archdiocese loses the case, who knows what anti-Church precedent will be set. Until the contents of documents currently under seal with the Court are made public, I don't know what those could be. At the very least, the current junta at St. Stan's would have reason to publicly crow.