LEAKED TRANSCRIPT: ACNA College of Bishops Emergency Meeting

A satirical Essay

By Concerned Anglican

January 31, 2026

[CLASSIFIED - FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY]

Meeting Date: January 2026

Location: Undisclosed Location (Definitely Not a Bunker)

Present: Various Bishops Whose Names Have Been Redacted to Protect the Guilty Presiding: The Right Reverend Julian Dobbs, Dean of the Province and Definitely Not Under Federal Investigation

Also Present: Bishop Jay Cayangyang, Who Is Having a Complicated Year

[Recording begins mid-conversation]

DOBBS: …and that brings us to item seven on the agenda: “How Did Everything Go So Wrong So Quickly?” Bishop Edgar, would you like to open the discussion?

EDGAR: I object to the phrasing. I prefer “minor challenges requiring creative interpretation of our governing documents.”

SECRETARY: Should I minute that as the official characterization?

DOBBS: Minute it as “ongoing discernment regarding provincial unity.”

SECRETARY: …I’m going to need a longer notepad.

BISHOP 1: Speaking of governing documents, has anyone actually read our Constitution lately? Because I’m looking at Article II here, and I have some concerns.

DOBBS: What sort of concerns?

BISHOP 1: Well, it says that only “dioceses or groupings of dioceses organized into distinct jurisdictions” can be members of the Province. So when we created a “Special Jurisdiction” by canon instead of constitution…

DOBBS: Yes?

BISHOP 1: …and then claimed it couldn’t withdraw because it wasn’t a diocese…

DOBBS: Go on.

BISHOP 1: …we essentially argued that something we created by canon, which we said was part of us, also somehow wasn’t covered by the constitutional provisions that apply to everything else that’s part of us. Do you see the problem?

DOBBS: I see that you’re overthinking this. Next item.

BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I just Googled “constitutional supremacy.” It says canons can’t override constitutions. That’s… that’s basic legal principles, isn’t it?

DOBBS: Please stop Googling things during meetings.

BISHOP 2: I also Googled “ultra vires.” It means acting beyond one’s legal authority—

DOBBS: We know what it means.

BISHOP 2: Do we though? Because we keep doing it.

BISHOP 3: Can we discuss the federal lawsuit? The one where we’re being sued for trademark infringement, trade secrets theft, and about ten other things?

DOBBS: What about it?

BISHOP 3: Well, the plaintiffs have three federally registered trademarks. They sent us cease-and-desist letters. We kept using their marks anyway. And now we’re facing potential statutory damages of two million dollars per mark.

BISHOP 4: How many marks did they register?

BISHOP 3: Three.

BISHOP 4: So… six million dollars?

BISHOP 3: That’s before treble damages for willful infringement. And punitive damages for malice. And the trade secrets violations under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. And—

DOBBS: Thank you, Bishop. I believe everyone gets the picture.

BISHOP 5: [typing on phone calculator] Let me just… three trademarks times two million in statutory damages… six million. Plus treble damages for willful infringement on the other counts, so if actual damages are two million, that’s… six million more. Plus punitive damages for malice, attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act violations…

DOBBS: What’s the total?

BISHOP 5: My phone says I should speak to a financial advisor and possibly a therapist.

BISHOP 6: We also apparently hired the two people who stole their entire database before they were terminated. The people who tried to log back into their systems after they were terminated.

DOBBS: I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation.

BISHOP 6: They’re now working for our competing chaplaincy organization. Running the very operation that’s using the stolen data.

CAYANGYANG: [shifting uncomfortably] Can I just say, as the bishop they elected to replace Bishop Jones, this is all very awkward.

DOBBS: How so?

CAYANGYANG: Well, I was consecrated suffragan by JAFC. With ACNA’s consent. In January 2025. Eight months later I’m supposedly replacing the bishop who consecrated me, in a "special" jurisdiction that is not legally or constitutionally allowed to exist, while working with staff who stole their database.

DOBBS: And?

CAYANGYANG: I’m just saying my LinkedIn is very confusing right now.

[Long pause]

DOBBS: Moving on.

BISHOP 7: Can we circle back to the inhibition of Bishop Jones? Because I’m still confused about the procedure we followed.

DOBBS: What’s confusing? Archbishop Wood issued a Godly Admonition, Jones refused to cooperate with the investigation, so Wood inhibited him.

BISHOP 7: Right, but… under Title IV, don’t we need a presentment before we can order an investigation of a bishop?

DOBBS: Technically.

BISHOP 7: And was there a presentment before Wood ordered Jones to submit to an investigation?

DOBBS: Not as such, no.

BISHOP 7: So we… inhibited a bishop for refusing to cooperate with an investigation that we had no canonical authority to conduct in the first place?

DOBBS: I prefer to think of it as “proactive safeguarding.”

BISHOP 7: And then we filed a presentment against him in December for “disobedience to the canons” because he insisted that we follow the canons?

DOBBS: When you put it that way, it sounds problematic.

BISHOP 7: How would you put it?

DOBBS: I would avoid putting it any way that might appear in a court transcript.

SECRETARY: Should I be recording this?

DOBBS: Absolutely not.

SECRETARY: [gestures at notepad] What do you think I’ve been doing?

BISHOP 8: Speaking of Archbishop Wood, is anyone else troubled that the bishop who initiated this entire disciplinary action against Jones is now himself facing trial for sexual misconduct?

EDGAR: The Board of Inquiry found probable cause. It’s a process matter.

BISHOP 8: The allegations go back seventeen years. There are six sworn affidavits. Multiple women. The Washington Post has done two investigative articles.

BISHOP 9: Someone on Twitter compared us to Game of Thrones.

DOBBS: That’s ridiculous.

BISHOP 9: They said our final season has worse writing.

BISHOP 10: To be fair, Game of Thrones only had one archbishop with sexual misconduct allegations. We’re overperforming.

BISHOP 11: And wasn’t there a suspicious timing correlation? Wood creates a new Safeguarding Office in March 2025, right when his own presentment was being drafted. That office suddenly identifies Jones as urgent. Wood moves against Jones in September. The Wood presentment is filed in October.

DOBBS: Correlation isn’t causation.

BISHOP 11: Wait. Let me make sure I have the timeline right. Bishop Jones discovers Wood is covering up a bishop who failed to report child pornography to law enforcement. Jones warns Wood to come clean about his own misconduct. Two months later, Wood inhibits Jones. And we’re charging Jones with abuse of ecclesiastical power?

DOBBS: The charges are confidential.

BISHOP 11: They’re in the federal court filing. They’re literally public record now.

DOBBS: They’re ecclesiastically confidential.

BISHOP 11: What does that even mean?

DOBBS: It means we don’t discuss them in meetings that someone might satirize later.

[Door opens]

CHANCELLOR: Apologies for interrupting, but I’ve just received another discovery request from JAFC’s attorneys. They want all communications related to— [reads paper] —“the decision to continue using federally registered trademarks after receiving cease-and-desist letters.”

DOBBS: Tell them we’re asserting ecclesiastical privilege.

CHANCELLOR: That’s… not a thing, Your Grace.

DOBBS: It should be.

CHANCELLOR: I went to law school. It’s not.

DOBBS: Then assert something else.

CHANCELLOR: They also want all communications regarding the McElraths’ access to JAFC systems after their termination.

CAYANGYANG: [very quietly] They work for me now.

CHANCELLOR: Yes, Bishop Cayangyang, the plaintiffs are aware. It’s specifically mentioned in paragraph 94 of the amended complaint.

[Chancellor exits]

BISHOP 12: Can we discuss the… elephant in the room?

DOBBS: Which elephant? We have several.

BISHOP 12: The Washington Post article about you, Bishop Dobbs. The one that detailed two separate financial misconduct investigations totaling seventy-six thousand dollars.

DOBBS: Those allegations were investigated and dismissed.

BISHOP 12: By your own diocese.

DOBBS: Correct.

BISHOP 13: Has anyone actually read the full Washington Post article?

DOBBS: I’d prefer we didn’t—

BISHOP 13: [reading from phone] “Barnabas Aid pushed back and their liaison wrote Archbishop Beach ‘reiterating that the Dobbses had not obtained authorization from the head office for all their expenses and other payments.’ The charity requested their disagreement be ‘noted for the record’ if the IRS or another authority investigated.”

[Silence]

BISHOP 13: It says “if the IRS investigated.” That’s what they were worried about. The IRS.

DOBBS: Context is important.

BISHOP 13: What context makes “we’re worried about the IRS” sound better?

BISHOP 14: The lawsuit also alleges you “absconded with approximately forty-eight thousand dollars” from the chaplaincy jurisdiction when you led CANA.

DOBBS: That’s a gross mischaracterization.

BISHOP 14: Bishop Jones documented this in March 2021. At the June 2024 conclave, Jones prevented you from being considered for Archbishop by indicating he would expose these “financial indiscretions.” You withdrew from consideration.

DOBBS: I withdrew for personal reasons.

BISHOP 14: And then four years later, you end up as the acting head of the province, overseeing the inhibition of the bishop who has documentation of your alleged financial misconduct.

DOBBS: I see no conflict of interest.

BISHOP 14: You literally inhibited the whistleblower who exposed you.

DOBBS: He was inhibited for unrelated reasons.

BISHOP 14: What were the related reasons?

DOBBS: They’re… safeguarding-related.

BISHOP 14: Can you be more specific?

DOBBS: I cannot, for safeguarding reasons.

BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I just Googled “nemo dat quod non habet.” It means “no one can give what they don’t have.” That’s… that’s literally our entire jurisdictional argument, isn’t it? We’re claiming authority we never had to give jurisdiction we never controlled.

DOBBS: I thought I asked you to stop Googling Latin phrases.

BISHOP 2: I also Googled “conflict of interest” and there’s a picture of this meeting.

DOBBS: There is not.

BISHOP 2: There should be.

BISHOP 15: This seems like an appropriate time to bring up the admonition letters you sent to the three JAFC suffragan bishops last week.

DOBBS: A routine canonical matter.

BISHOP 15: They’re not part of our province anymore. They withdrew. They’ve formed a new Church, the Anglican Reformed Catholic Church. It’s incorporated in Alabama. They have three dioceses now.

DOBBS: We don’t recognize their withdrawal.

BISHOP 15: But… they don’t need our recognition to withdraw. That’s what withdrawal means.

BISHOP 16: They literally created a new church body to be a home for Anglicans in crisis. I wonder who the “Anglicans in crisis” are that they had in mind.

DOBBS: That’s speculative.

BISHOP 16: They incorporated on December 24th. Merry Christmas to us, I suppose.

BISHOP 15: Canon I.11 says the Special Jurisdiction “shall function under the oversight of the Archbishop.”

BISHOP 17: Canon I.11 also can’t override the Constitution, which allows dioceses to withdraw. And their argument is that they were never properly subject to Canon I.11 in the first place because the Constitution doesn’t authorize “special jurisdictions.”

DOBBS: That’s their interpretation.

BISHOP 17: It’s also the federal court’s interpretation, apparently. The court explicitly protected JAFC’s trademarks because JAFC “demonstrated questions as to whether the ACNA Constitution provides for the existence of a Special Jurisdiction.”

DOBBS: The federal court lacks ecclesiastical competence.

BISHOP 17: The federal court has competence over trademark infringement. Which is what we’re being sued for. While you send admonition letters to bishops in a jurisdiction we may never have legally controlled.

DOBBS: I prefer to think of it as asserting our pastoral concern.

BISHOP 17: Did you meet with them in person to discuss your concerns before issuing the admonitions?

DOBBS: Not as such, no.

BISHOP 17: Isn’t that required in our canons?

DOBBS: The canons are really just suggestions.

BISHOP 17: I don’t think that’s true.

DOBBS: We need to move on.

BISHOP 17: They filed the letters in a folder labeled “Correspondence From Bishops We Don’t Recognize.” It sits next to “Urgent Messages From Nigerian Princes” and “Extended Car Warranty Notices.”

SECRETARY: Should I minute the admonition letters as “pastoral outreach” or “possible evidence of continued bad faith for the federal lawsuit”?

DOBBS: The former. Definitely the former.

BISHOP 18: Gentlemen, can we discuss our strategic position? Because from where I’m sitting, we have:

· An archbishop facing trial for sexual misconduct spanning seventeen years

· An acting archbishop with seventy-six thousand dollars in documented financial misconduct allegations

· A former acting archbishop who admitted discussing a “bishop-friendly” Board of Inquiry, then resigned

· A federal lawsuit seeking millions in statutory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages

· Thirteen separate legal claims including trademark infringement, trade secrets theft, tortious interference, and conversion

· Documentary evidence that we stole their entire database

· A presentment against a bishop that essentially charges him with “insisting we follow our own canons”

· Admonition letters to bishops who no longer recognize our authority

· The Washington Post actively covering our institutional collapse

· A newly incorporated denomination created specifically as a refuge from us

Have I missed anything?

BISHOP 19: Bishop Stewart Ruch was just acquitted.

BISHOP 18: Ruch was acquitted of mishandling sexual abuse allegations by a Board that was explicitly described as “bishop-friendly” by the archbishop who appointed it. The court document literally says the process suffered from “narrative capture.” That’s not a vindication—that’s an indictment of our entire disciplinary system.

BISHOP 19: But technically he was acquitted.

BISHOP 18: Technically, O.J. was acquitted.

CAYANGYANG: Should I… should I still be here? This feels like a meeting I shouldn’t be in.

DOBBS: You’re fine, Bishop Cayangyang.

CAYANGYANG: I’m really not. I’m the bishop of a jurisdiction that might not exist, appointed to replace a bishop who was never validly removed, working with staff who committed federal crimes, in a province where everyone in leadership is under some kind of investigation. I updated my résumé this morning.

DOBBS: Gentlemen, please. We need to present a unified front.

BISHOP 20: Unified behind what, exactly?

DOBBS: Behind our canonical authority.

BISHOP 20: Which canonical authority? The one that says we can inhibit bishops without presentments? The one that says we can create jurisdictions by canon that the Constitution doesn’t authorize? The one that says people can’t leave even when they’ve demonstrably left?

DOBBS: All of them.

BISHOP 20: Bishop Dobbs, with respect, those aren’t actually in our canons. We appear to have made them up as we went along.

DOBBS: We call it “living canonical tradition.”

BISHOP 20: I believe the federal court calls it “ultra vires overreach.”

BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I Googled “ultra vires” again. Wikipedia has updated the examples section. We’re not in it yet, but give it time.

BISHOP 21: What’s our defense in the lawsuit, anyway?

DOBBS: Ecclesiastical abstention. We’re arguing that this is an internal church matter and the federal court lacks jurisdiction.

BISHOP 21: But they’re suing us for trademark infringement. Under the Lanham Act.

DOBBS: Yes.

BISHOP 21: Which is a federal statute. That applies to everyone.

DOBBS: We’re claiming First Amendment protection.

BISHOP 21: For using someone else’s federally registered trademarks after they sent us cease-and-desist letters?

DOBBS: It’s… creative legal strategy.

BISHOP 21: It sounds like the legal equivalent of claiming diplomatic immunity because you’re really confident about it.

DOBBS: That’s a good idea.

CHANCELLOR: [poking head back in] I just want to confirm, we’re not actually claiming diplomatic immunity, correct?

DOBBS: Not yet.

CHANCELLOR: [sighs, exits]

DOBBS: Does anyone have any constructive suggestions?

BISHOP 22: We could acknowledge that we made mistakes. [Extended silence]

[Someone coughs] [A phone buzzes] [More silence]

DOBBS: Anyone else?

BISHOP 23: We could stop sending admonition letters to bishops who don’t recognize our authority.

DOBBS: That would be an admission that they successfully left.

BISHOP 23: They did successfully leave. They’ve incorporated a new Church. They’re functioning independently. They have their own college of bishops, their own dioceses, their own corporate structure. The only people who think they haven’t left are… us.

DOBBS: And the canons.

BISHOP 23: You mean the unconstitutional canons that don’t apply…the canons can think whatever they want. Reality has other plans.

BISHOP 24: At what point do we acknowledge reality?

DOBBS: When reality acknowledges our canonical authority.

BISHOP 24: I don’t think reality works that way.

BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I just Googled “institutional denial.” There’s a whole Wikipedia article. Should I read it aloud?

DOBBS: Please don’t.

BISHOP 24: Did someone ask our PR firm if they can help get us out of this mess?

BISHOP 2: We tried, apparently Kevin and George are on vacation.

BISHOP 25: Can I ask an uncomfortable question?

DOBBS: At this point, why not?

BISHOP 25: If we lose the lawsuit, and I mean really lose, damages in the millions, permanent injunction, the whole thing, what happens to the province?

[Very long silence]

DOBBS: We would… discern God’s will through the process.

BISHOP 25: God’s will appears to involve federal statutory damages calculated at two million dollars per willfully infringed trademark.

BISHOP 26: The Lord works in mysterious ways.

BISHOP 27: The Lord’s ways here seem less “mysterious” and more “predictable consequences of ignoring cease-and-desist letters.”

BISHOP 5: [still on calculator] I’ve been running the numbers. If we lose on all counts with maximum damages, plus attorney’s fees, plus the injunction that prevents us from operating our competing chaplaincy…

DOBBS: Yes?

BISHOP 5: Do we have liability insurance for “willfully ignoring federal trademark law while our leadership is under investigation for sexual and financial misconduct”?

DOBBS: I… would have to check.

BISHOP 5: You should check.

DOBBS: I think we should adjourn and reconvene when we have more information.

BISHOP 28: What additional information do you need? The lawsuit lays out the case in 278 paragraphs. The Washington Post has published multiple investigations. The federal court has already ruled on preliminary matters. We’ve sent admonition letters to bishops in another denomination. At what point do we acknowledge reality?

DOBBS: When reality acknowledges our canonical authority.

BISHOP 28: You said that already.

DOBBS: It bears repeating.

BISHOP 28: Does it though?

DOBBS: The meeting is adjourned.

BISHOP 29: [as everyone is leaving] Same time next week?

DOBBS: Unless we’re in depositions.

BISHOP 29: Which depositions? The federal lawsuit, the Wood trial, or—

DOBBS: Yes.

CAYANGYANG: [gathering papers] I’m definitely updating my LinkedIn.

SECRETARY: Should I title these minutes “Emergency Meeting” or “Evidence Exhibit 47”?

DOBBS: …Good night, everyone.

[Recording ends]

EDITOR’S NOTE: This transcript was definitely not leaked by someone present at the meeting who questioned whether any of this was a good idea. Any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental, except for the parts that are meticulously documented in federal court filings, Washington Post investigations, and sworn affidavits. The secretary has requested anonymity and a transfer to a diocese with less litigation exposure.

DISCLAIMER

This is satire. However, the following elements are documented facts:

· Bishop Jones was inhibited without a formal presentment being filed first

· ACNA’s Constitution does not authorize “special jurisdictions”—Canon I.11 created one anyway

· JAFC disassociated from ACNA in September 2025 and formed the Anglican Reformed Catholic Church in December 2025

· ACNA subsequently sent admonitions to the JAFC bishops and filed a presentment against Bishop Jones

· The federal lawsuit alleges $76,000 in financial misconduct by Bishop Dobbs across two separate incidents

· Archbishop Wood faces trial for sexual misconduct spanning 17 years, supported by six sworn affidavits

· ACNA faces potential statutory damages of up to $6 million for trademark infringement alone, before treble damages and punitive damages

· Lawrence and Megan McElrath, who allegedly stole JAFC’s database and attempted to access systems after termination, now work for Bishop Cayangyang’s organization

· The Washington Post has published investigative articles on both Wood and Dobbs

· Former Acting Archbishop Sutton resigned after admitting discussion of a “bishop-friendly” Board of Inquiry

· The federal court explicitly protected JAFC’s three registered trademarks

· Bishop Cayangyang was consecrated by JAFC in January 2025 and elected by ACNA to replace Bishop Jones in September 2025

We couldn’t make this up if we tried. Reality beat us to it.