Anglican Ink accused of Misstating Facts and Conclusions in JAFC vs ACNA Imbroglio
- Charles Perez
- 3 hours ago
- 9 min read
By David W. Virtue DD
November 12, 2025
Bishops in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces & Chaplaincy have publicly accused Anglican Ink blogger George Conger of “publishing numerous untruthful stories about Bishop [Derek] Jones and the JAFC/SJAFC.”
An article on Anglican Ink’s website titled “SC FEDERAL COURT HANDS JONES A LOSS IN HIS BATTLE WITH THE ACNA,” is just the latest. “The reporter, George Conger, misstated facts and proposed conclusions that defy reality,” the communications team at JAFC told VOL.
Anglican Ink claims The Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the bulk of the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy’s claims for an injunction or temporary restraining order against the Anglican Church in North America.
Attorneys for Derek Jones, the bishop of the JAFC put forward four causes of action against the ACNA.
It asked the court to restrain the defendant from using the plaintiff’s service mark “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy”, the plaintiff’s name “Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy”, the plaintiff’s trademark “Anglican Chaplains”, the plaintiff’s logo, and Jones’ title “Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy.” It asked the court to compel the ACNA to no longer state that it had removed Jones from office.
On 6 Nov 2025 the Hon. Bruce Hendricks granted in part and denied in part the 8 Oct 2025 request for a temporary restraining order by the JAFC in its fight with the ACNA.
In response, JAFC argued that “To provide context, it is helpful to understand the definition of an “injunction.” An injunction is a powerful legal remedy that courts grant rarely, and only in compelling circumstances. Injunctions are extremely difficult to obtain and are primarily issued when the party seeking the injunction (JAFC) (1) has made a clear showing that irreparable harm would otherwise result, and (2) is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims.”
“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.”
“Truth is prevailing despite the continuous spread of inaccurate and one-sided media reports. Our Jurisdiction, the JAFC/SJAFC, and its leadership, remain focused on Christ Jesus and the Kingdom work He has entrusted to us, prayerful for those with jaundiced and ill-conceived agendas and who continue to slander our Lord’s ministry.”
Judge Grants Anglican Chaplains Group Order against ACNA
The entire Order is attached below:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces
and Chaplaincy,
Plaintiff,
v.
Anglican Church in North America,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
________________________________)
Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-12848-BHH ORDER On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy (“Plaintiff” or “Jurisdiction”) filed a complaint for preliminary injunctive relief and damages against Defendant Anglican Church in North America (“Defendant” or “Anglican Church”).1 (ECF No. 1.) On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed motion for temporary restraining order, or in the alternative, for preliminary injunction.
(ECF No. 6.) In the motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to restrain Defendant from the following: a. using Plaintiff’s Service Mark “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy,” Plaintiff’s original corporate name “Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy,” Plaintiff’s Trademark “Anglican Chaplains,” Plaintiff’s Trademarked Logo, and the unique title of Plaintiff’s head, the “Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy”; b. representing that Bishop Jones is no longer the “Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy” or that the Anglican Church has replaced him in that position; 1 Plaintiff’s complaint includes the following claims against Defendant:
(1) infringement of registered service mark for Plaintiff’s current name, “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy,” which has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office;
(2) infringement of a registered trademark logo;
(3) commercial misrepresentation under the Lanham Act, § 43(a)(1)(A);
(4) false advertising under the Lanham Act, § 43(a)(1)(B);
(5) violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act;
(6) misappropriation of corporate identity;
(7) tortious interference with employer contracts;
(8) tortious interference with chaplain contracts;
(9) slander of title; and (10) temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction.
(ECF No. 1.) 2:25-cv-12848-BHH Date Filed 11/06/25 Entry Number 27 Page 2 of 5 c. representing that Plaintiff lacks the capacity to endorse Anglican Chaplains who originate from the Anglican Church or any other Anglican diocese or province; d. slandering Plaintiff or Bishop Jones in private or public; and e. threatening or recruiting any chaplains, mission, chapels, or parishes that are in or under Plaintiff’s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6 at 26.)
The Court held an emergency hearing on October 8, 2025, following which the Court entered a text order deferring its ruling on the matter until it could be fully briefed. (ECF No. 10.) The Court instructed Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff’s motion by October 13 and Plaintiff to file any reply by October 15.
The Court then reconvened the hearing on October 17, 2025. Now, for the reasons set forth on the record during the October 17 hearing and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.2 STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 establishes the procedure for federal courts to grant preliminary injunctions.
“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” United States v. South Carolina, 840 F. Supp. 2d 898, 914 (D.S.C. 2011) (quoting Univ. of Tex. v. 2 Plaintiff’s motion requests a temporary restraining order, or alternatively, a preliminary injunction, but as the Court explained at the hearing on October 17, because the matter has been fully briefed and both parties have had ample opportunity to be heard, the question for the Court is whether to grant a preliminary injunction. 2 2:25-cv-12848-BHH Date Filed 11/06/25 Entry Number 27 Page 3 of 5 Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of the equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
“To obtain a preliminary injunction under the Winter test, a movant must make a ‘clear showing’ of [the] four requirements.” Alkebulanyahh v. Nettles, 2011 WL 2728453, at *3 (D.S.C. July 13, 2011); see also Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Winter thus requires that a party seeking a preliminary injunction . . . must clearly show that it is likely to succeed on the merits.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme Court has noted, a preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”
Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. DISCUSSION At the hearing on October 17, this Court explained that it does not intend to entangle itself into an internal canonical dispute over the Anglican Church’s ecclesiastical structure, as that would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment. However, the Court also acknowledged that some of the issues presented by Plaintiff may be ripe and appropriate for the Court’s consideration, such as Plaintiff’s trademark claims and questions arising under 28 C.F.R. § 17.655 (concerning ecclesiastical endorsing organizations).
After hearing arguments from the parties, counsel for Defendant effectively conceded that Defendant would refrain from using Plaintiff’s service mark “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy,” Plaintiff’s trademark, “Anglican Chaplains,” and 3 2:25-cv-12848-BHH Date Filed 11/06/25 Entry Number 27 Page 4 of 5 Plaintiff’s trademarked logo. (See ECF No. 23 at 17, 21-22, 51.)
Additionally, after review of the evidence of record and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden under Winter as to these three items, and the Court thus grants Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to those three items. (Id. at 52.) As to the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion, however, and after additional consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a clear showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.
As the Court noted at the hearing, in fact, very little about this case is clear. And as the Court also noted, there is some concern that certain of Plaintiff’s requests wade into ecclesiastical matters that are not appropriate for this Court to resolve, e.g., Plaintiff’s request that Defendant be precluded from representing that Bishop Jones is no longer the “Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy” or that the Anglican Church has replaced him in that position.
Furthermore, as noted on several occasions during the hearing, the record abounds in material factual disputes, and the Court does not find it appropriate to resolve those factual disputes at this time and based on the current record. Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s request that the Court restrain Defendant from slandering Plaintiff or Bishop Jones, the Court simply notes that law already exists to prevent slander.
In conclusion, and based on the record currently before the Court, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for an order restraining Defendant from using Plaintiff’s service mark “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy,” Plaintiff’s trademark “Anglican Chaplains,” and Plaintiff’s trademarked logo. However, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion in all other respects. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6) is granted in part and denied in part as outlined in this order. 4 2:25-cv-12848-BHH Date Filed 11/06/25 Entry Number 27 Page 5 of 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. November 6, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge
*****
Real Chaplains Respond to Letter Supposedly from “The Chaplains”
JAFC Communications Team
November 12, 2025
Last week, an online Anglican tabloid published a letter written by an individual who, with incredible hubris, signed his letter as “The Chaplains.” Most chaplains don’t know who this person is, nor why they would presume to speak for all chaplains. In this “Open Letter,” it is clear that the author represents only two or three people.
“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.
The Bishop and staff have been hearing, nearly non-stop, from priests and chaplains who have been expressing anger or concern over this latest attack on Bp Jones, knowing it is not true. Bishop Jones has asked that we stay “out of the fray,” but agrees that you, our chaplains, and particularly our newer chaplains, know that this “fiction has been around a while and even changes from time to time.”
“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.
END