Try sending a PM to brotherfrancis75.  I'm sure he could give an idea of what happened.  https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/at-the-beginning-and-end-on-an-age/

Probably banned.

I can only hazard guesses, and they'd not be based on any direct experience.  But it's a matter of public record that Vezelis claimed jurisdiction, and his bishops did as well, and all of their followers bought into it.  They were not shy about this, and they did not get along well at all with those who did not "recognize" their jurisdiction.  What I'm getting at is, despite the fact that these people (if you were to ask them) would hope to have you believe that any rift they had with anyone else was a "matter of principle rather than prudence," this was a relatively "extreme" group.  Strong convictions about matters of controversy aren't incompatible with a generally forgiving and understanding demeanor toward those who disagree with you, but I think that in the case of Vezelis' congregation, this (to use the lingo) exclusive attitude was the general attitude conveyed.  Now, exactly where that leaves us on the Bp. Strandt question, I don't know.  I'm just saying that the environment where he operated was not one that cultivated an atmosphere of pleasant disagreement on matters of controversy.  And such environments tend to see their fair share of rifts.  

One other thing you could do is sift through The Seraph.  Not sure you'd get the full story, but I'd be surprised if it was completely reticent on the matter.  I'm pretty sure it was published even after Vezelis died (2013).