In January 2009 the California Supreme Court ruled in Episcopal Church Casesthat church property disputes in California must be resolved by neutral ornon-religious principles of law, not by civil courts merely deferring to thedecrees of church “hierarchies” or larger church bodies. As a result, everychurch property dispute in California now will be resolved based onnon-religious factors that are unique to the dispute. While adopting thisnon-religious method of resolving property disputes between churches, however,the Court seemed to defer to the Episcopal Church`s alleged “trust canon,” whichpurports to create a trust interest in church property owned by localcongregations The Court made its ruling despite the fact that St. Jamespurchased and maintained its property with its own funds and has held clearrecord title to its property for over fifty years St.

James believes that thisruling overlooked decades of trust law in California that only allows the ownerof property to create a trust in favor of someone else, and will as a resulthave wide impact for local church property owners throughout California thatseek to change their religious affiliation In late January 2009 St. James formally asked the California Supreme Court tomodify its January decision. In February 2009 the California Supreme Court granted the St. James request, andmodified its decision to confirm both that the suit against St. James is notover and that no decision on the merits of the case has yet been made. Instead,the Court clarified that its decision was only based on the limited recordbefore it, which will now be augmented through the normal discovery and trialprocess In late February 2009, the case against St. James Church corporation, thevolunteer board members, and clergy returned to the trial court in Orange Countywhere St.

James can assert factual and legal arguments that were not addressedon appeal through discovery, depositions, motions, and trial. Using the legalstandard set forth by the California Supreme Court, the Orange County SuperiorCourt will eventually decide the merits of this dispute For example, St. Jameshas brought a complaint against the Diocese of Los Angeles based on a 1991written promise that it would not claim a trust over the property of St Jameson 32nd Street in Newport Beach On June 24, 2009, St. James filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with theUnited States Supreme Court A response from the Court regarding its decision tohear St James`s petition can be expected by October 2009.

If the Court takesthe case, a decision would be rendered by mid-2010 St. James:Karen BroCommunications Director[949] 675-0210 x310 – church[949] 235-4568 – mobileorSt James Legal TeamDr John EastmanLead Attorney in U.S Supreme Court[714] 628-2587orEric C. SohlgrenLead Attorney in Orange County Superior Court, California Court of Appeal,California Supreme CourtPayne & Fears LLP[949] 851-1100 x252 – office[949] 439-6149 – mobile Copyright Business Wire 2009. Miller Energy Resources Closes Deal on East Tennessee Consultants Which Ownsand/or Operates 377 Wells and Approximately 5,000 Shale AcresHUNTSVILLE, Tenn., June 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Miller Petroleum, Inc.,dba Miller Energy Resources, (OTC Bulletin Board: MILL) announced today thatit has completed the acquisition of 100% of the stock of East TennesseeConsultants, Inc. and related company East Tennessee Consultants II, LLC(collectively “ETC”)which includes 377 natural gas and oil wells andapproximately 5,000 leased acres located on Tennessee’s prolific ChattanoogaShale.As consideration, Miller Energy Resources issued the three principalsof ETC an aggregate of 1 million shares of common stock valued at $250,000. These principals will continue with ETC for a minimum of three years after theacquisition so as to provide continuity in its operations.Miller CEO Scott M.