CONTINUATION OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF WITNESS,
REV. BAZYL
ZAWIERUCHA,
BY MR.
SMORODSKY:
A. In these
Points of Agreement, I don't see the word.
P.46 Q Are -- and do the bishops
of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of the United States, are they directly elected by and are
responsible to the Patriarch of
Constantinople?
A.
Well, these particular bishops have not been elected nor have they
been consecrated by the Ecumenical Patriarch, the three
that presently
-- well, they are bishops who have not been elected nor consecrated by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Q. Have they been elected to the Church
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
A. They were received
under the omophorion and they received the Holy Chrism from the Ecumenical
Patriarchate which is a
sign of the unity
with that Patriarchate.
Q. Let me ask you this question: Does
Archbishop Antony, has he been elected to the position of Archbishop of
Hierapolis,
something like that?
A. That is his titular title.
Q. Is he a member of the Synod of
the Ukrainian Orthodox -- sorry -- of
the Greek – strike that. Is he a member
of the Snyod
of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople?
A. Yes, he's attended
meetings there.
Q. Father, prior to the Points of
Agreement, was anyone that was a member of the clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of
the United States of America
permitted or had the opportunity to co-celebrate the liturgy with a member of
the Church of
Constantinople?
Q. By them.
A. Because I know that
Patriarch Mstyslav – by them, I've heard, I've heard of some instances where
our clergy did concelebrate
in various parts
of the country with ecumenical Orthodox clergy gatherings, so --
Q. At ecumenical clergy gatherings?
A. Such as Sundays of Orthodoxy, vespers, even divine liturgies before the Points of Agreement. I do know some instances.
Q. Could you give me a specific example?
A. Now, again, not witnessing but hearsay.
Q. Hearsay. Well, do you know of your own
knowledge whether there ever was a co-celebration of liturgy with the Greek,
with
the Patriarch, a church -- under the
Patriarchate of Constantinople where the clergy of one church co-celebrated
with the
clergy of another?
Q. Prior.
A. It's difficult to say, but my knowledge is not that deep and extensive.
Q. You don't know?
A. I don't know.
Q. Prior to 1995, did the clergy of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America co-celebrate the
liturgy with
members of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in
Ukraine?
A. Yes.
Q. They did, did they not?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Now, after 1995, can a priest or
clergy co-celebrate the liturgy with anyone or any church in Ukraine?
A. We have -- it was
expressly stated by the Metropolitan, the Prime Hierarch at the Sobor – I
distinctly remember this -- in
1998, and the last
one, that indeed we could, if we were to travel to Ukraine, we could
concelebrate with any priest of the
Ukrainian
Autocephalous Orthodox Church.
Q. Let me ask you this question: This
was at the Sobor in 1998?
A. I remember this.
Q. Yeah. And there was a -- you know who
Reverend Partykevich?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And Reverend Partykevich, he is the
historian of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America?
A. One.
Q. And do you recall him standing up and
asking whether anything has changed?
A. I recall something, yes. Yes, I do.
Q. And you recall --
A. Yes.
Q. -- at that time Metropolitan
Constantine said directly to him, you may not co-celebrate, but in your case
I'm making an
exception?
A.
I don't recall that.
Q. Okay. I show you what has been marked
D-55. Can you take a look at those documents, please?
Q. Do you recognize these documents at
all?
A. No, I do not.
MR. SMORODSKY: Your Honor, for the record
I just would like to --
Q. You don't recognize these?
A. No.
MR. SMORODSKY: D-55, for the record,
are letters or documents produced by
the -- were produced by the plaintiffs during
the course of discovery. There are three letters
that in the course of discovery were represented to be statements made by the
Bishop -- by the Archbishop -- strike
that -- by the Patriarch of Constantinople, remarks made in 1995 to Bishop
Antony and
Metropolitan Constantine when they were
elected into the Synod of Rome, the Synod of the Bishops of Constantinople.
MR. REHILL: If Mr. Smorodsky intends to
offer this as an exhibit, I am sure he is going to have somebody testify about
it. I
don't remember what it is. It's not one
of the pre-agreed upon exhibits, and I couldn't know what it is. The witness
has never
seen it.
MR.
SMORODSKY: Fine.
THE COURT: Well, let's need to have it --
the Reporter mark it for identification.
(Marked D-55 for identification.)
BY MR. SMORODSKY:
Q. Father Zawierucha, do you know who is
Dr. Lewis J. Patsavos?
A. No, I do not.
MR. SMORODSKY: Letter to Mr. Robert A.
Hedesh, dated July 19, 1999, signed by Dr. Lewis J. Patsavos. And it was, and I
will represent to the Court, marked as
exhibit X filed by the plaintiffs on October 27th, 1999, in the first Motion
for Summary
Judgment.
Q. Father, you testified earlier as to
the paragraphs of Article One, section -- paragraph two, Article One, paragraph
two, which
is the autocephalous paragraph. Has
that phrase been continually in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Constitution
going back
all the way back to the 1920s?
A. From those constitutions that I have seen, it has been.
Q. What is the relationship at the
present, in 19 -- strike that. Prior to 1995, what was the relationship of the
Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of the United States of
America to the Patriarchate of Kiev in the Ukraine?
A. The first Patriarch to be elected of Kiev was the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., so --
Q. What was the relationship as you
understood it?
A. -- as I understood it.
Q. Yeah. I'm sorry. Before you answer --
A. Forgive me. I'm trying to, you know.
Q. Gather your thoughts?
A. Gather my thoughts.
MR. REHILL: Can I interfere with that
thought process? I am not sure that I understood the questions. Has he
understood it
when? As he understands it now? As he understood
it when the Patriarch Mstyslav was elected Patriarch?
MR. SMORODSKY: Let's break it down. I'll
withdraw the question.
Q. Father, you testified earlier that
you studied oriental religions-- oriental, orthodox, and Christian religions, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you teach the history of the
Church at the seminary, correct?
A. One course.
Q. One of the courses. And you have some
knowledge of the various histories of these churches, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, if I'm not
mistaken, your testimony is that you were a participant in discussions directly
with the Patriarch
Mstyslav regarding his becoming the
Patriarch of the Ukraine?
A. That one phrase.
Q. That one phrase. And you were present
when these events occurred, correct?
A. I was present in America.
Q. In America?
A. Yes. I was not there.
Q. What was your understanding at that
time as to your relationship -- by "your" I'm referring to the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
of the United States -- what was
your understanding was the relationship of the UOC-USA to the Patriarchate of
Kiev?
A.
Well, Patriarch Mstyslav, Blessed Memory, was alive, my
understanding was the following, and it was that he was the
Patriarch of
Kiev and all Ukraine, but that he made a point of stressing that he retained
also his title as Metropolitan of the
Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. in order for it to retain its internal structures
undisturbed.
Q. Now, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
the Ukraine -- of the United States of America participated in the Sobor and in
the
voting that occurred for Mstyslav or
his Beatitude Mstyslav to become Patriarch, correct?
A.
Some members of the Church did.
Q. The UOC-USA directly had
representatives there and participated in it, correct?
A. Yes, I gather that was the case.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of what the
Sobor or the highest organ of the UOC-USA considered the relationship to be --
A. I'm sorry. I do not clearly have that in mind.
Q. After Patriarch Mstyslav passed away,
did anyone from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America,
candidate to become his successor?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Father Zawierucha, you testified as to
the structure of the UOC-USA, and you made reference to the chart.
A. As a tool to help.
Q. As a tool. As a help.
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that your
exhibit has some missing parts to it as opposed -- with regards to the role of
the Ecumenical
Patriarchate?
A.
I -- it's not obviously -- it's not there.
Q. And there is a relationship, correct?
A. There is an intimate relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Sacramentally.
Q.
I am sorry?
A. Forgive me. Sacramentally.
Q. Sacramentally?
A. Yes.
Q. But the Points of Agreement indicate
who elects the bishops.
A. Bishops are consecrated, too, so there is a sacramental -- that is the most important.
Q.
What does paragraph six of the Points of Agreement say?
Q. Yes. Again.
A. "The Primate or
Acting Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., after
consultation with the Exarch of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate in America,
shall submit a slate of candidates for the office of the Metropolitan and
bishops to the
General Council,
Sobor, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. for approval in the first
instance. The names of
those candidates
so approved shall then be submitted to the Holy and Sacred Synod of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate for
canonical
election."
Q. What do you understand the phrase
"canonical election" to mean?
A. That is a very important phrase.
Q. Yes, it is.
A. Yes. A serious phrase.
Q. Yes.
A. As I said to you
previously, that Article One, paragraph two of the Constitution has an internal
contradiction within it, and it's
pretty obvious.
When we speak of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America
keeping the dogmas,
canons, structure
and worship of the Holy Ecumenical Orthodox Church, then its autocephaly should
also fall under that. So -
Q. Go ahead.
A. -- so, therefore, we
have from the Points of Agreement that the candidate is elected by the Sobor
and is then passed on for
canonical election
to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in order to preserve the canons, dogmas,
structure and worship of the
Orthodox Church.
Q. Do you know if that language was in
all of the constitutions from the beginning of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
the
United States of America in the
1920s?
A. Again, I didn't remember -- read.
Q. You didn't go back to the 1920s?
A. I didn't go back all the ways, as I said previously, to read those from 1920s, so, the 1963 Constitution speaks of this, too.
Q. With regard to Canonical Election, did
prior to 1995, did the Ecumenical Patriarchate treat the bishops of the
Ukrainian
Orthodox Church as non-canonical?
A. Treat them? Regard them I would say better maybe.
Q. As non-canonical, correct?
A. In the strictest conformity
to the canons of the Church, they were validly consecrated if that's -- please,
we can't confuse the
two.
Q. I want you to use the term as you
understand it, and then if you wish you can explain how you understand that
term.
A. That's indeed they
are -- they were and always have been validly consecrated and ordained
hierarchs in the Orthodox, Holy
Catholic
Ecumenical Orthodox Church, yes, but was the -- a direct link and canonical
linkage to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, it was very vague.
Q. Father --
Q. Go ahead. Please explain. I'm sorry
for interrupting.
Q. You cannot explain it, correct?
A. No, I'm not -- not very clearly.
Q.
Do you know the difference?
A. There was -- let's
put it this way: There was some Orthodox churches that regarded our church
prior to 1994 regarded to be
non-canonical,
yes.
Q. And among those churches was the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, correct?
A. In the strictest sense, yes, correct.
Q. They did not co-celebrate the liturgy?
A. Usually, no.
Q. Correct?
A. Not with our hierarchs.
Q. Not with your hierarchs?
A. There may have been, as I said, some clergy who did, but again, that is speculation. I don't know.
Q. You don't know. That's pure
speculation?
A. It's again what I've heard.
Q. Now, by co-celebrate liturgy, what do
you understand that phrase to mean?
A. That we all share in
the same body and blood of Christ as Orthodox Christians and that is the
Eucharist. The body and blood
of Christ is the
sign of our unity.
Q. Now, that would mean -- correct me if
I'm wrong -- that co-celebration specifically refers to priests of one church
or
hierarchs of one church and
hierarchs of another celebrating the liturgy, the Eucharist, what the Latins
call the Mass, together
at the same altar, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That is to be distinguished from
co-celebrating or being present at the same ecumenical event?
A. Yeah. Gatherings.
Q. Gatherings, prayer sessions, or
anything of that nature, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that -- and that is the key
distinction between recognition and non-recognition, correct?
A. It is a key element within that, yes.
Q. Now,
since 1995 has anyone within the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
co-celebrated the liturgy with anyone from
Ukraine?
A. I do not know.
Q. Since 1995, what is the relationship
between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America and the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in
Ukraine?
Q. Any one.
A. What has been the
relationship? There have been constant contacts and fraternal greetings and
letters back and fort constantly
with various
hierarchs, priests, Orthodox priests and hierarchs in Ukraine.
Q. Any co-celebration?
A. Again, I do not know this.
Q. Any structural relationship?
Q. In any way that you recognized the
Church in Ukraine?
A. Well, of course, you
do understand that the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine at
one point -- I don't
know what the
situation of it is presently -- recognized Metropolitan Constantine as the head
of the Sobor of the Synod, so
there was a very
close relationship.
Q. Then what happened?
A. I don't know.
Q. Oh?
A. No, I seriously do not know.
Q. Okay. I understand. You are the
Director of the Seminary?
A. I am the Administrator.
Q. The Administrator. Are you familiar
with the Certification of Incorporation of your entity?
A. I don't know it by heart. If I saw it, I would be aware of it. (Marked D-102 for identification.)
Q. I show you this document. Would you
please take a look at it and tell me whether it refreshes your recollection.
A. Yes, I have seen this document. It does look familiar.
Q.
Now, take a look, I think it's paragraph two, the purposes clause.
Q. In the -- in the Certification of
Incorporation.
Q. That's correct.
THE
COURT: Could we identify the document for the record?
MR.
SMORODSKY: For the record, Certification of Incorporation of St. Sophilia
Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary, Inc., in New
Jersey,
a New Jersey nonprofit corporation, filed February 15th, 1991.
Q. Now,
paragraph two, that paragraph indicates the purposes why your seminary exists,
correct?
A. It does say the purpose for which, yes.
Q. And is the purpose to create or to
teach seminarians with regards to becoming priests in the UOC, Autocephalous
Orthodox
Church of the United States of America?
A. The corporation
organized to provide it does say Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the
United States of
America,
Ukraine, and the diaspora with qualified priests, pastors --
Q. Comma --
A. Comma.
Q. Ukraine, comma --
A. Comma.
Q. -- and the diaspora with qualified
priests, pastors, etcetera. Now, has that mission statement of your corporation
changed?
A. No.
Q. Do you provide --
A. Not on paper. No, not in any way.
Q. I'm sorry. I didn't --
A. Not in any way on paper. No, the mission statement stands.
Q. How about in reality; has the mission
statement changed?
A. No, not in reality.
Q. Do you still provide seminarians to
Ukraine?
Q. To Ukraine.
A. If there were candidates, certainly we would.
Q. And have there been any candidates?
Q. From 1995 on.
A. We have had certainly candidates from Ukraine who are now resident in the United States go through the seminary, yes.
Q. And they stayed here with the UOC-USA,
correct?
A. Some were ordained, some were not.
Q. Did
anyone –
Q. -- return to the Ukraine from 1995?
A. No, no one returned to the Ukraine.
Q. Now, is that because your church
became a part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople?
A. Forgive me. I don't think so.
Q. Now, going back to the structure on
your sketch, you have a pyramid structure, and your testimony was that the
parishes are
responsible to the Deanaries, who
are then responsible to the Eparchies, who are then responsible to the
Consistory?
A. No. The parishes, more direct link is to the Consistory, but also to the Eparchial Bishop.
Q. The parishes, their role, you do not
claim -- the parishes, they have absolute right to all of their property,
correct?
A. That's what it says in the Constitution.
Q. And in your studies along the way
about the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the United States of America, was there
any
slightest claim that the bishops or
the Consistory have any type of control or influence on the property?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay. You testified that the
Constitution of 1998 appoints and directs who the clergy are to be at the
parishes, correct?
A. Yes. It's in here.
Q. Do the parishes have any role at all
in electing, selecting, or appointing?
A. The phrase that I found was that they have a role in submitting a preference for someone, certainly.
Q. Basically a preference, correct?
A. Yes. They would request a certain priest, a certain clergyman from -- request from the Consistory.
Q. Now, that paragraph of the
Constitution of 1998 that you are referring to --
A. I hope I can find it immediately.
Q. Try.
A. Try? Okay. Here we go. Yes.
Q. Which paragraph is it?
A. Would you like me to read it? It is paragraph 11 of Article 11.
Q. Is that paragraph 11 --
A. No. 11 of -- sorry. Of 12. Article 12.
Q. Of article 12?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that any different than what
existed in 1963?
Q. Yes.
A. I can't -- I truly can't remember specifically.
Q. How about 1950?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Now, do you know what was the practice
from 1950 until now in appointing parish priests or pastors?
A. The practice I do know is what I know since I entered the Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Q. And that is since 1991?
A. '90ish, '90.
Q. Now, is there a paragraph in the
Constitution that says that the Consistory must keep records of its actions?
Q. That may be interesting.
A. The Consistory does keep records obviously.
Q. You are a member of the Consistory,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think if you look under the
paragraph that governs the duties of the Consistory you'll find it in there.
A. I am. Yes. There is, indeed. Are you specifically meaning reference to records of clergy?
Q. Records of --
A. Clergy.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. It does say to keep the register of the clergy and clerics, parishes and faithful.
Q. To keep the records of the parishes,
correct, the register of parishes?
A. The register of the parishes and the faithful.
Q. You are a member of the Consistory, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Consistory does have records
about its relationships with the priests over the years, correct?
A. I'm sure I would keep those, yes.
Q. And those documents are the ones that
will have the history of how the appointment of priests at parishes actually
occurred,
correct?
A. I would assume so. I haven't seen them.
Q. To your knowledge, do you know what
the practice of appointing priests to parishes was before you came to the
Church?
A. Again, only on hearsay.
Q.
Nothing of your own knowledge?
A. Not prior to my entering the Church.
Q. Now, you testified earlier that there
is a paragraph in the Constitution of 1998 that requires parishes to register
their
constitutions, correct?
A.
With the Consistory, yes.
Q. With the Consistory?
A. Yes.
Q. And you also mentioned the fact that
the Constitution requires the Consistory to keep records of its registered
parishes,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge, has the Consistory
registered constitutions of the various parishes?
A. Of those parishes
that have submitted their constitutions, they have, and they keep encouraging,
the Consistory I mean, keeps
constantly encouraging, through the pastors of those parishes and by mail, for the rest to submit their constitutional bylaws
for approval.
Q. That paragraph of the Constitution
that requires registration is the same paragraph that was in the Constitution
in the 1963,
correct?
A. That I seem to remember to being correct.
Q. It was also the same thing that was in
the Constitution in 1950, correct?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Now, your testimony was of those
parishes that submitted their constitutions, they would review them, correct?
A. I assume they would.
I must tell you that since I have been a member of the Consistory since the
last Sobor we haven't
reviewed any
parish constitutions --
Q. Now --
A. No. I mean, the procedure, how this is done.
Q. Have there been pastors that refuse to
submit their constitutions?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Does the Constitution of the UOC-USA
provide for remedy for those who violate that Constitution?
A. I would need -- I don't -- offhand, I can't remember what the remedy there is.
Q. Is the remedy expulsion of the parish?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, based on practice, no, because no parish has been expelled for that reason.
Q. Why haven't they been expelled?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know?
A. I don't -- no, I don't -- not to mean I
don't know why they should have been expelled. I mean I just don't know. No one
has
been expelled.
Q. And are there parishes who have
submitted their Constitution that have provisions that are contrary to that of
the --
A. I do not know.
Q. You do not know. But all these records
are available within the Consistory, correct?
A. They are placed in the Consistory.
Q. And you could review them as a member
of the Consistory, correct?
A. I would assume I could.
Q. Now, you testified on direct that one
of the remedies that the Consistory has for a parish violating its obligations
under the
Constitution is to expel it,
correct?
A. That is a possibility.
Q. What
other possibilities are there?
A. Reminders, constant nagging, you know, fraternal Episcopal requests. It's rather, you know, we are a soft bunch.
Q. It's mostly requests?
A. Yes.
Q. Cajoling?
A. Encouragement.
Q. Encouragement?
A. Fraternal outreach.
Q. Nothing other than that, correct?
A. No, not that I've witnessed, not that I've seen.
Q. Not that you know of, correct?
A. I don't know of an instance where a parish has been expelled.
Q. Do you know of an instance -- well,
let me ask you this: Is there provision in the Constitution that permits the
Consistory to
suspend?
A. I never saw that word, suspend.
Q. Okay. Now, there is no definition in
the Constitution of what the term "suspend" means or it being
provided as a remedy,
correct?
A. I haven't seen the word, no.
Q. In the Constitution, the right to
expel a parish has always been there from 1998 to 1950, correct?
A. Again, I haven't read the 1950 Constitution.
Q. How about '63?
A. '63 I remember.
Q. Okay. And it's in there?
A. Yes.
Q. The Constitution of the UOC-USA also
has a provision that the parishes must file an annual report?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And correct me if I'm wrong. The
annual reports are reviewed by the Consistory --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to determine whether or not the
actions being taken by the parishes is in conformity?
A. Well, for the health, spiritual health of the church, of the parish, yes.
Q. Now, if the annual report showed
something happening with property, the Consistory wouldn't change -- wouldn't
do
anything about it, right?
A. Again, the property belongs to the parish.
Q. If they passed a constitutional
change, would the Consistory do anything about it?
Q. Yes.
Q. Yeah.
The parish adopted a constitutional change that did not comply with the
Consistory position.
Q. Right. Right. Would the Consistory
have a right to do something?
A. Can I refer to reasons for expulsion, if that is what you are referring to?
Q. Well, expulsion, sure.
A. I don't know. Well, it does specify.
Q. Refer to anything you need.
A. It does specify reasons for expulsion here.
Q. Of a parish?
A. Of a parish, yes.
Q. Take a look at that paragraph.
A. Okay. I think it's
under Consistory. No. It speaks of under Consistory, article six, paragraph
three, subsection H, that the
expulsion of
parishes that should fail to comply with the provisions of the present
Constitution. The Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of the
U.S.A. shall be carried out in accordance with the decisions of the Consistory,
approved by the Metropolitan
Church Council.
Q. And one of the requirements of the
Constitution of the UOC-USA is that its, the parishes' constitutions conform to
that of the
UOC-USA?
A. It is a requirement of the Constitution.
Q. And that is the power that the
Consistory has for violation of that provision, expulsion, correct?
A. I would seriously
doubt whether they would expel a parish for that reason alone. But nobody has been
expelled, so there is no
precedent yet,
that I can think of.
Q. Now, Father, we're coming to the end.
A. Thank you.
Q. You're welcome. The Consistory has
under its control all of the record-keeping of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
the
United States of America, correct?
A. That's where it's placed.
Q. And the head of the Consistory is
Archbishop Antony, correct?
A. Presently, yes.
Q. And he has been the head of the
Consistory from at least 1995, correct?
A. The President of the Consistory, yes.
Q. Does -- do the historical records
contain records relating to the various Sobors that took place?
Q.
Minutes, whatever, notes.
A. Minutes certainly. Yes.
Q. Documents?
A. Documents presented at the Sobor, yes.
Q. Yes.
A. You know, I don't
know that. I don't know who would keep those personal correspondences. If they
are in the archives,
eventually they
end up there.
Q. And the archives are under the control
of the UOC-USA, correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Those archives would also have correspondence
between the Consistory, the bishops, and the various parishes?
A. I would assume they do, since history needs to be written eventually.
Q. And that history that's being written
is something that Mr. Partykevich --
A. Yes, he is.
Q. -- is undertaking?
A. Presently.
Q. And actually he wrote a very extensive
article in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word indicating the volumes of documents that
are
presently in his possession?
A. I seem to remember that.
Q.
Is that correct?
A. Uh-huh. Not in his possession; that he has access to.
Q. Access to in the possession of the --
A. Consistory.
Q. -- of the Consistory. Are you at all
familiar with a hierarch that was known as Bishop Mark?
A. No, I'm not. I think he passed away before I entered the Ukrainian Church.
Q. Have you reviewed or looked at any
documents relating to the parish in Carteret?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Those documents relating to the parish
in Carteret, which is a member of the UOC-USA is located -- the registry and
documents relating to that parish
may be available at the UOC-USA?
A. I would hope I could help you with that more concretely. I would he assume they are, yes.
MR. SMORODSKY: Let me just go through my
notes, your Honor, if I may.
Next Installment:
Direct Examination by Mr. Smorodsky of
defense witness
Professor Thomas E. Bird,
Queens College, The City of New York.