Additional confirmation that Bishop Scriven was active in the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church without permission of the bishop or ecclesastical authority of a diocese of TEC.
Andrew Carey writing for The Church of England Newspaper and copied to Anglican Mainstream, wrote,
"After Bishop Duncan’s deposition, Bishop Scriven ceased to be assistant bishop of Pittsburgh and soon announced his return to England to work for a missionary society and serve as assistant bishop in Oxford. So from September until his move to back to England he was no longer officially a bishop of TEC, but a bishop from another province of the Anglican Communion who happened to be living in the United States."
I believe Bishop Scriven was not in any way malicious in his actions and believe the many witnesses that rise to his defense. But Mr. Carey's commentary supports my contention that Bishop Scriven was not a bishop in TEC from September on (or at least from the Diocesan Convention on) and that he had left TEC for another province (Southern Cone or CofE.) Either way he no longer was empowered to exercise episcopal office in the jurisdiction of TEC or the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On December 9th he ordained someone to the priesthood and he continued for a period of time in the employ of the entity that had aligned itself with the Southern Cone.
It turns out he did not just "happen to be living in the United States." Rather he was in the Diocese of Pittsburgh exercising episcopal office. At some point it became necessary to clearly state that he no longer had the right to exercise the office of bishop in the jurisdiction of TEC. He also left of his own accord. So he indeed voluntarily resign TEC. He just continued to act in an episcopal capacity within its jurisdiction and without permission of this Church.
Sounds like broken communion and incursion to me.