Holy
Direct examination of
Professor Thomas E. Bird, witness for the Defense.
To read the 7th installment go to trial Testimony Phase II Part 7
To read the 6th installment go to trial Testimony Phase II Part 6
To read the 5th installment go to trial Testimony Phase II Part 5
Cross
examination of Rev. Bazyl Zawierucha, witness for the Plaintiffs.
To read the 4th installment go to trial Testimony Phase II Part 4
To read the 3rd installment go to trial Testimony Phase
II Part 3
To read the 2nd installment go to trial Testimony
Phase II Part 2
To read the 1st installment go to trial Testimony Phase II Part 1
Closing Summary of Proposed Findings of Fact
and
Conclusions of Law
We
are providing a very brief summary of PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW as presented by attorney for the Plaintiffs (UOCUSA), Mr. Michael F.
Rehill. We see no need to provide complete details of Mr. Rehills’ arguments since
the issues can be summarized as follows…….
“The principal issues before this Court in
Phase II of this litigation are whether
the UOC-USA is a hierarchical church..”
And….
“The UOC-USA is and always has been a
fully integrated hierarchical church, as is
reflected in its Constitution which provides for a Sobor as “the
supreme organ of the
government of the Diocese”…”
The above statements by plaintiff attorney Mr. Rehil is a blatant
contradiction of terms. If UOC-USA is a “fully integrated hierarchical church”
then how can its Constitution provide for a Sobor as “the supreme organ of government”? It is obvious that Mr. Rehill
is NOT familiar with the term “Sobor” or “Sobornopravna” whereas Websters
Collegiate Dictionary provides the following definition of “hierarchy”…
“a ruling body of clergy organized
into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it”.
Since 1921 the basic
principals of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the major differentiator from
other world orthodox churches is the fact that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
was organized on “concilliar” principles. This basic tenet of “concilliar ”
church government was incorporated into UOC-USA by Archbishop Ioan Teodorovych.
This fact is irrefutable. In matters of church government and administration
UOC-USA is “Sobornopravna” or “Concilliar” and NOT
hierarchical.
*****************************************************
As a counter argument to Mr. Rehills’ and UOC-USA
position we are providing the following summary of PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW as presented by attorney for the Defendents, Holy
Ascension Church, Clifton, New Jersey, Mr. Myroslaw Smorodsky.
1)
The defendant Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of Passaic, Inc. is, as a matter of law, a congregational church,
independent as to all property, contract, and other civil or secular relations.
2)
The plaintiff UOC-USA is a religious entity
whose affiliated parishes are independent as to all property, contract, and
other civil or secular relations, among which parishes is the defendant Holy
Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.
3)
Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.
is not subject to any hierarchical control by any external authority of any
kind, secular or religious, except as to matters purely spiritual and religious
which are not before this court.
4)
Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.
has the right under its own organic charter and by-laws to maintain its separate
and independent status by all lawful means, including the right to secede from
any connectional relationship with external authorities, whether religious or
secular in nature.
5)
Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.
was incorporated under the law of the State of New Jersey in 1925 as a separate
corporation and not as a dependent or affiliated unit or subsidiary of any
other corporation or entity.
6)
Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.,
under the controlling and dispositive terms of its own corporate charter,
possesses the unfettered right to own, use and possess property, including both
real and personal property, in its own name and for its own uses, free of any
requirement for the permission or sanction of any authority or body outside its
own corporate structure respecting such ownership, use or possession.
7)
Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.
has in fact effected transfers in the past of properties, real and personal,
including sales of such properties and purchases of such properties, all
without the participation, intervention, approval or consent sanction of any
authority or body outside its own corporate structure respecting such sales and
purchases.
8)
The Constitution of the plaintiff UOC-USA
specifically reserves to parishes affiliated with said plaintiff the right to
own, use and possess property, including both real and personal property, in
their own names and for their own uses, free of any requirement for the
permission or sanction of plaintiff UOC-USA respecting such ownership, use or
possession of real and personal property by affiliated parishes.
9)
Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Inc.,
under the controlling and dispositive terms of its own corporate charter and
by-laws, and under the general law of the State of New Jersey, has the
unfettered right to seek out, negotiate with, retain, employ and discharge,
solely upon terms and conditions which to it seem right and proper, all
administrative and religious staff personnel, including pastors and other clerical,
religious employees of said defendant, all without any right of prior
permission or sanction, intervention or interference by any authority external
to said defendant.
10) It
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to assess the validity,
force and effect under the mandatory laws of any State of any actual or
purported merger of the corporate plaintiff UOC-USA with any other entity,
whether incorporated or unincorporated, and whether foreign or domestic; to
assess the compliance or noncompliance of plaintiff UOC-USA with such mandatory
state laws respecting corporate mergers; and to issue its declaratory judgment
with respect to the validity, force and effect such actual or purported mergers
of the corporate plaintiff UOC-USA.
11) It
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to assess the legality
of the use and disposition of corporate funds by corporate officers of the
plaintiff UOC-USA where these are relevant and germane to issues before the
court by virtue of the averments in the complaint of the plaintiffs or in the
answer, defenses, and counterclaims of the defendants herein.
12) It
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to assess the
allegations of defendants asserted in their counterclaim respecting breaches of
fiduciary relationships by the plaintiffs arising out of secular and civil
rights, duties and obligations among the parties.
13) It
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to assess and consider
the liability of plaintiffs to the defendants herein respecting damages, if
any, sustained by defendants as a result of plaintiffs alleged abuse of civil
process in, inter alia, the inclusion
and enumeration of children and nonconsenting adult persons as plaintiffs in
their complaint as initially filed with the court; their enumeration as
plaintiffs of persons with little or no knowledge of the facts and
circumstances of this action; their prolonged and determined failure to
cooperate with the discovery processes of this court; their enumeration of
false and erroneous corporate charters in support of their allegations
respecting the legal nature and capacity of the corporate plaintiff; and other
such instances of presumptive abuse of legal process on the part of plaintiffs.
14) This
court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether any individual
plaintiff has, by acts of omission and commission undertaken prior to the
filing of the instant action, abandoned his corporate position within the
corporate structure of the plaintiff UOC-USA by voluntarily affiliating himself
with another church, denomination, or ecclesiastical entity, thereby forfeiting
his corporate authority within the structure of the UOC-USA with respect to the
management (including transfers) of property and monies of the UOC-USA.
15) It
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to assess the
allegations of defendants asserted in their counterclaim respecting breach of
contract and fiduciary relationship by the plaintiff, Rev. Mironko, arising out
of secular and civil rights, duties and obligations created by his employment
contract with Holy Ascension Parish.
16) It
is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to assess the
allegations of defendants asserted in their counterclaim that on or about March
of 1999, that the Plaintiffs Mironko and Archbishop Antony wrongfully conspired
to and did remove two Antimines that were the property of the Holy Ascension
Parish. The Defendants allege that one
of the Antimines was returned but one is still not returned and are the property
of the Holy Ascension Parish. The
alleged wrongful actions of Plaintiff Mironko are not doctrinal or theological
but relate solely to secular issue of ownership of physical property. The relief sought by the Defendants is also
secular in nature seeking only return of the Antimines and is within the
purview of this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction.
17) Under
applicable New Jersey Procedural Law, specifically Court Rule 4:23-2, the Court
may invoke negative inferences as a consequence of the failure to comply with
discovery orders of this Court on the part of the plaintiffs in this action,
whether previously dismissed or whether remaining as active parties before this
Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________
Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq..
Counsel for the Defendants