ACNA argues that its own efforts to discipline Jones are at the heart of Jones' withdrawal, which the court cannot involve itself in due to the First Amendment. They also argue that granting any injunction would harm chaplains aiming to maintain their ACNA-backed endorsements.

A preliminary injunction is "extraordinary relief," they say, which is not deserved by the jurisdiction because "the crisis it claims to face is one entirely of its own making. ... it has ruined its own reputation by its own actions."

In addition to arguing that as a matter of history, Bp. Jones and the jurisdiction were integrated into the ACNA (denied by Jones in his first filing), ACNA also argues that the jurisdiction's trademarks, which Jones accuses them of infringing, are generic and perhaps invalid.

ACNA argues also that Jones was its official endorser with the military, and the jurisdiction is not in the picture; and that this can be seen in the Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs endorser listings; so, ACNA is within its rights to choose someone else to endorse for it.

ACNA disputes the jurisdiction's claim that ACNA's use of the jurisdiction's names has caused confusion in such a way that harmed the jurisdiction, saying any harm the jurisdiction experienced "was of its own making."

This document from the US District Court for the District of South Carolina is public information, though I don't think it has been hosted somewhere yet. I will post again with a link if that changes.

@ArlieColes Who wrote this filing for ACNA? "It conveniently leaves out why" and other sarcastic swipes at Derek Jones don't belong in a legal filing. It's like an ACNA staff text chain copied and pasted into this legal document! #Anglican #Gafcon #Gafcon23 #ACNAToo

@ArlieColes Absolute fire. Thanks.