I see pages 1-13, the 1-4, then responses, but no p. 23.

Starting at page 23, there appears to be 8 copies of the same document signed by three people. It appears to be one document reproduced 8 times.(All signatures are identical, in a the same position) But this may not be the case. Given the positioning of the signatures (a large space between the first and the last two) -one could imagine that there were other signatures that have been redacted (removed).

The content of the document seems to back up the earlier speculation that clergy present at the Virginia meeting in November did in fact sign a document pledging themselves. However, not to a foreign Primate directly, but to the "leadership" of Duncan as their representative to the AC.

Please Tobias (or anyone)- what does such a pledge mean? Can a bishop correctly make such a pledge - in secret, in concert with TEC polity?

Page 23 refers to the pagination of the PDF document, not to the page numbers in the original document. The two are frequently at odds when PDFs are created.

Curious indeed. I cannot make out the signature on the upper left of the area, but the one on the lower right appears to be +Robert W Duncan himself, and the one next to it a priest of his diocese. This tallies with the description on page 3 of the pdf file. Were copies of this sent to the eight other dioceses? That seems to be the plaintiffs' suggestion.

It is odd that +RWD would sign a statement choosing himself as the leader, but I suppose it makes as much sense as anything else in this crazy situation.

None of the items on this list appear "presentable" unless or until the Chosen Leader does something that is presentable; to which the signatories have solemnly engaged themselves to conform... Oh, sorry, that's something else. Here they have "solemnly pledged not to withdraw from these commitments."

Nonetheless, it is indicative, as the plaintiffs suggest, of a plan to achieve some unnamed "common purpose."

The legible names on the document are: at the top - Robert G. Devlin (Chancellor of the Diocese of Pittsburg), and at the bottom - Rev. John M. Heidengren (President of the Pittsburg Standing Committee) and Duncan, himself. Perhaps, the other names were redacted in order to argue that who else signed it is not pertinent to the present case. Here's hoping the judge finds otherwise.

Perhaps, the unnamed "common purpose" is to be found in the Request for Primatial Oversight sent to the global south and the Chapman memo. The present document was entitled "Westfield's Response To The Global South Steering Committee." Plaintiffs claim there are other documents to be discovered which will reveal what "Westfields Response" means, and further illuminate the "common purpose."

I've seen this commented on at Mark Harris' place and on HoB/D. There seems to be an assumption that the other signatories include the twenty or so "Windsor" - Camp Allan - bishops. But my memory is that only Network bishops were at the meeting in Northern Virginia in November. Although, of course, this was not a public, transparent event. So maybe it was just those seven or eight or so Network bishops.

The only bishops at this meeting were the Network bishops, and I don't think all of them were there. The Don Wimberly/Camp Allen crowd wasn't involved.

Back in January when Duncan produced the documents required under the court's discovery order, Duncan stated there was no document under which he or the other bishops submitted to the authority of a foreign primate. Only a request for APO to the GS. He did not mention this document though it was produced at the same time. Clearly, the way they avoided such a breach of TEC cannon was to pledge to themselves to Duncan who is/was taking his orders from the GS Steering Committee.

As a point of clarity - The GS Steering Committee states that they "met with bishops and representatives of eight Anglican Communion Network Dioceses who have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Global South Primates for various forms of Alternative Primatial Oversight."

So 8 Network dioceses were represented, some by their bishops - some by a representative.

In addition, "Representatives of other Windsor-compliant Dioceses" were present.

As well as, "representatives of the more than one hundred congregations that are now separated from the Episcopal Church." I take that to mean representatives of CANA and other alphabet groups. E.g. Minns.

It is not clear whether only the bishops signed, or whether others present signed as well.

As for the ramifications of the document on the current unpleasantness, it would appear that up to 8 Network bishops have pledged themselves to follow Duncan lead. And he is speaking not just for Pittsburgh, but the whole lot of 'em.

Disturbing is the word that comes to my mind.

I think the House of Bishops has every right to ask for an explanation.

The Westfields Marriott Washington Dulles Hotel is a very nice conference center in Chantilly , Virginia. Since the dateline for the document mentions Chantilly, I imagine that the name "Westfields Report" simply means that it was composed at a meeting at the conference center.