SAVE OUR
Збережім
Нашу
Українську Православну
Церкву
********************************************************************************************************************************************************
BORN AGAIN Putin and Orthodox Church Cement
Power in Russia, The Wall Street Journal 12/18/2007
****************************************************************
Holy Ascension Parish Discloses Statement of Facts
to the Superior Court of
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The UOC-USA diocese was
organized in the
of its
established in
and principles of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its
a) Autocephaly, -
independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence,
especially and particularly any
control or influence by
but not limited to the
Russian Orthodox Church and other churches or institutions allied with
the Russian Orthodox Church,
such as the Greek Orthodox Church of
b) Ethnicity - preservation
and propagation of the specifically Ukrainian cultural,
social and national
identity, including but not limited to the diligent promotion of the use of
the Ukrainian language as
the determinative factor in that process.
c) “Sobornopravnist” – the
age-old tradition of conciliar self-government and
broadest participation of
the laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule
characterizing the Russian
Orthodox Church and other
d) Local parish level
ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy
whatsoever,
e) The right of parishes to
hire and fire priests and pastors.
The significance of the
adherence to the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine, as outlined in
the prior paragraph, is the
fact that the UOC-Ukraine has been persecuted by the Russian
Orthodox Church for some 300
years, to the point of complete destruction in
public manifestation,
leaving its survival only underground. Historically, the Russian
annexation and persecution
of the UOC-Ukraine was aided and abetted by the Greek
Ecumenical
Patriarchate/Church of
In 1918-1921,
before being re-occupied by
bedrock of the age-old
Temporal Principles referred to above, declaring, its independence
[autocephaly] from the
hierarchical autocracy of the Russian Orthodox Church and any other
foreign institution
including the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople. The traditionally
populist, congregational
focus of the UOC-Ukraine, its “Sobornopravnist”, both reflected and
encouraged the cause of
Ukrainian national and social liberation from Russian rule.
The Greek
Patriarchate/Church of
reborn UOC-Ukraine in the
1920’s, in part due to the congregational reforms that the UOC-
of the UCC-Ukraine [referred
to in the Plaintiff’s memorandum as “UOC-KP”] since its most
recent rebirth in
uninterruptedly since the
1920’s,]
The Holy Ascension Parish
organizers were dissident members of St. Nicholas
Ukrainian Catholic (Uniat)
Church in
meeting - to voice their
grievances and thereafter voted to create a parish independent of the
Catholic (Uniat) Church and
then to associate with the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
headed by Archbishop John Teodorovych.
Following
resurrected UOC-Ukraine was
systematically destroyed by the Russian regime. This "ethnic
cleansing" of the
UOC-Ukraine (and of
of virtually every one of
the bishops and priests of the UOC-Ukraine, and of tens of millions
of Ukrainian Orthodox laity.
In the man-made Famine of 1932-33, alone, engineered by the
Russian Regime, some 7-10
million Ukrainian Orthodox were killed within a period of
several months. Of
particular note is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine was targeted by the
Russians for annihilation
specifically because of its ethnic Ukrainian identity and assertion of
independence, and its
pivotal, political, social and cultural role in the process of nation-
building. As part of this
intentional destruction, all assets of the UOC-Ukraine were usurped
by the Russian regime, and
then turned over to its agency, the Russian Orthodox Church.
As a result of the Russian
liquidation of the
the surviving
and trustee of the
Principles of the UOC-Ukraine. For more than half a century, the UOC-
the UOC-Ukraine in exile,
intent on preserving its independence from foreign rule and on the
reestablishment of and
reunification with its
In 1989, the
disintegration of the
Russian (Soviet) Empire and the ensuing declaration of independence by
trusteeship of the Ukrainian
Orthodox principles, and of its status as the spiritual center of the
“UOC-Ukraine in exile"
pending Russian rule of
Metropolitan Mstyslav, was
elected as Patriarch of the UOC-Ukraine and of its worldwide
dioceses, including the
UOC-USA diocese, until his death in 1993. However, even during
this new period of rebirth
of the UOC-Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church has continued
to claim that it is the only
legitimate Orthodox Church in
and work for the
“liquidation” of the UOC-Ukraine. The
Constantinople has continued
to support
Church in calling for the
“liquidation” of the UOC-Ukraine.
From the time of rebirth of
the UOC-Ukraine, its
and unequivocally
represented itself to be an integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
of
Following the death of
Patriarch Mstyslav, Archbishop Antony [an Archbishop within
the UOC-USA] was a candidate
at the “Sobor” [conclave] of the
was unsuccessful in his
candidacy, and shortly thereafter, together with other of his followers
within the UOC-USA,
clandestinely entered into contracts, agreements, and understandings
with the
eventually became hierarchs
of a different orthodox denomination, assumed Greek Bishop
titles, and the Greek
Orthodox Church of Constantinople now claims that the UOC-USA is an
administrative part of it.
МАЛЕНЬКИЙ
КЛАПТИК
УКРАЇНИ
Учасники
Святої
Літургії
Єпископи,
Священослужителі
і Хористи
У
невеликому
місті
Кліфтон, штат
Нью-Джерсі в США
знаходиться
Свято-Вознесенський
кафедральний
собор.
Протягом
останніх
років послуг
настоятеля
цього храму несе
чудовий
священик
протопресвітер
Олег
Жовнірович.
Завдяки його
доброті, вмінню
спілкуватися
з людьми, для
кожного знайти
пораду і
втіху, до
собору у
неділю звідусіль,
від старого
до малого,
йдуть українці.
Тут вони
моляться до
Господа,
дякують Йому.
Тут вони
спілкуються
своєю рідною
мовою,
радіють
зустрічі
один з одним.
Це є ніби
маленька
частина
України, яку
збудували та
подарували
нам наші
батьки та
діди.
Вдало
організовано
парафіяльне
життя. При
цьому храмі
весело та
цікаво
проходять різні
дійства. Так
парафіяни та
гості мали чудовий
концерт до
дня
народження
Т.Г. Шевченка, до
дня матері,
тата, веселі
ігри, пісні,
змагання та
смачні
шашлики були
на Івана
Купала. Але
найбільше
свято
відбулось
тут 3 червня.
Це візит до
Свято-Вознесенського
кафедрального
собору
єпископа
Паїсія, Вікарія
Української
Православної
Церкви – Київського
Патріархату в
США та
Канаді. Всі
готувалися
та з нетерпінням
чекали цього.
Зустрічали
Владику
дітки
Софійка та
Марічка
Мигалко, які
встеляли
йому дорогу
пелестками
троянд. А
біля церкви
чекало
багато людей
з прапорами
та
церковними
хоругвами.
Голова парафіяльного
уряду
Володимир
Могучий та
заслужена
сестриця п.
Анна
Хербетко
традиційно
привітали
Владику з
хлібом та
сіллю при вході
до собору.
Дівчата
Іванна і
Соломія Жовнірович
вітали
Владику
словами:
“Вас
Владико
приймає вся
християнська
родина
Вам
двері і серця
відкриваєм,
І
просимо Вас
гостинно!
Хай
серце Марії
Святе
Обійме
Вас лагідно й
щиро
І до
звершень
великих
веде!”
Настоятель
о. Олег
Жовнірович
подякував за
приїзд, за ту
радість яку
нам
подарував Владика
своїм
візитом і
запросив до
собору. З
владикою
Паїсієм
співслужили:
архієпископ
Уманський
Олександр,
єпископ Юстонський
Макаріус,
настоятель
храму протопресвітер
Олег
Жовнірович,
протоієрей
Орест та священики
Володимир і
Віталій.
Кожен
відчував Дух
Божий, що
панував у нашому
храмі.
Чарівно
співав
церковний
хор, під
керівництвом
п. Алли
Куцевич.
Такого співу
давно вже тут
не чули!
Після
богослужіння
всі присутні
мали чудовий
та смачний
обід, який
приготувала
п. Добродійка
Марта Костик
зі своїми
помічницями
п. Любою, п. Нілою,
п. Марійкою, п.
Лесею, п.
Оксаною. А
молоді дівчата
Олена, Ірина,
Іванна,
Соломія та
Лілія
розносили ці
смачні
страви на
столи. Всі столи
в залі
прикрашались
не лише
смачними наїдками,
а вишуканими
квітковими
композиціями,
які власними
руками
зробила дружина
настоятеля
цього храму
п. Богданна
Жовнірович.
Зал був гарно
прибраний та
прикрашений
завдяки пану
Валерію, п
Івану, п. Славку
та п. Нілі з п.
Богданною.
Але
найбільше
враження на
владику і всіх
присутніх
мала
концертна
програма, яку
підготували
та провели п.
Алла Куцевич
та п. Ніла
Кугнат. Звучали
пісні та
вірші про
рідний край,
рідний нарід,
рідну
домівку та
про батьків у
виконанні
дітей та
дорослих.
Настоятель
храму Олег
Жовнірович
подарував
всім
присутнім
декілька
музичних
творів
власного
виконання на
трубці. Багато
хто знав, але
не чув, як
грає отець Олег,
тому не
жаліли гості
оплесків та
вигуків
“чудово”. На
закінчення
концерту всі
разом,
виконавці та
гості
співали
пісень “Шануймося
друзі”, “Одна
калина”,
разом з Т.
Бобун пісню
“Одна єдина
моя ти рідна
Україно!”
В
залі
панувала
святкова
весела
атмосфера.
Люди
отримали те
піднесення,
те зворушення
за яким давно
сумує душа,
душа
українця-американця.
У всіх
присутніх
від оплесків
боліли
долоні, від
радості
сяяли очі та
“співала”
душа.
Приємно
всім було
почути з уст
Владики
слова
вдячності та
не
прихованого
задоволення,
радості від почутого.
Владика
подякував
діткам та дорослим
за чудовий
концерт.
На
даний час
церква
готується до
проведення
українського
фестивалю,
який
відбудеться
16 вересня.
Запрошуємо
всіх
українців,
всіх
бажаючих
приєднатися
до нас.
“Шануймося,
браття
українці, бо
ми того варті!!!”
Ніла
Кугнат
**********************************************************************************************************************
HOLY
Court
Archbishop Antony's Law Suit (see
below)
Myroslaw Smorodsky, P.A.
Counsellor at Law
CROSSROADS CORPORATE CENTER
Mailing address
Tel: 201-507-4500 Direct Dial: 201-857-2714
Fax: 201-882-2498
Email: myroslaw@smorodsky.com
Attorneys
for Defendants
Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the United
States
of
Plaintiff(s)
vs.
John
Luchejko et. al.
Defendant(s)
SUPERIOR
COURT OF NEW
CHANCERY
DIVISION
DOCKET
NO. C-47-07
CIVIL
ACTION
ANSWER
&
SPECIFIC
DEFENSES
The Defendants, listed in ¶ 1 below, by way
of Answer to the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
the USA, (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFF”) say:
The Parties
The Defendants, John Luchejko, Rose Clemens,
Wolodymyr Mohuchy,Kathleen Menke, Eve Raketsky, Jennie Luchejko, Ivan
Marchenko,Victor Rud, Peter Paluch, Lesia Paluch, Svitlana Marchenko,Theodore
Oleschuk, Stefan Tatarenko, Andrew Rachko, Peter Velechko, Sonia Lelet, William
Panycia, Frank Zeevalt, Ivan Lenczuk, Gregory Klymenko, William Nakonechny, and
Roma Lisovich, are individuals named in this Complaint (hereinafter referred to
as “DEFENDANTS”). All are residents of the State of
1. The Parish is a religious organization
organized in 1925
under the laws of the State of
complained of was affiliated as a parish of
the UOC-USA diocese and was and is a part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
Ukraine.
2. The Plaintiff UOC-USA diocese is a religious
corporation
most recently incorporated in
Plaintiff in the Complaint filed in this
action. The UOC-USA diocese has always represented itself to be affiliated as a
diocese of and an integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its center
in
Facts Common
to the Answer of the Defendants and to
all Specific
Defenses
3. A litigation [hereinafter 1999 litigation]
was initiated
in May of 1999 by the certain plaintiffs,
which included the corporate entity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of United
States of America [the Plaintiff herein], Archbishop Antony, and a small
minority group of former parishioners of the Parish. The Defendants were the
Holy Ascension Parish, the Parish Board and individual Parish members. All of the
named individuals in the 1999 litigation are also named as defendants in this
litigation. The 1999 litigation was filed and heard in Somerset/Hunterdon
County vicinage and was captioned Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA et al.
v. John Luchejko et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY,
CHANCERY DIVISION,
Docket # C-12067-99 and Law Division Docket # L 802-99.
4. The 1999 litigation began after the Parish
questioned the
propriety of certain actions taken in
December of 1994 by
Archbishop Antony and other church
corporation office holders, especially the signing of the “Points of Agreement”
which constituted an unlawful and unauthorized attempt to merge the UOC-USA
with a totally separate and unrelated (even sometimes inimical) church, the
Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople. By
these actions, the Archbishop Antony and the other hierarchs left and abandoned
the UOC-USA and became clerics in a totally
distinct and separate religious institution
thereby forfeiting all corporate, spiritual or any other authority over member
parishes of the UOC-USA or their parishioners.
5. The 1999 complaint, as advanced by all the
plaintiffs
therein including the UOC-USA, sought to
assert control over the internal management, operations, property and assets of
Holy Ascension Parish in contradiction to its own constitution and the long
standing practice of the UOC-USA.
6. The relief sought by the 1999 litigation
Plaintiffs in the
1999 litigation is substantially similar if not
identical to the relief sought in the case at bar.
7. The 1999 Defendants responded in that
litigation
asserting that such control over all parish
assets and parish governance is vested solely in the parish itself and that the
parish has by custom and its own organic documents the right to secede from the
UOC-USA. The Defendants also asserted claims against the 1999 Plaintiff bishops
sounding in common-law tort, fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit.
8. During the course of the 1999 litigation, the
claims and
defenses of all of the clerical Plaintiffs,
including the
claims of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of
the
Plaintiff in the instant case] and of a
substantial majority of the individual 1999 Plaintiffs were dismissed with
prejudice which dismissals
were never appealed by the UOC-USA or any other 1999 litigation plaintiff.
9. The Chancery Division of Somerset County
granted Final
Judgment on the 1999 Plaintiff claims in
favor of the 1999
plaintiffs who still remained in that action
concluding that they had standing. At the same time, the Chancery Division
entered judgment against Defendants in the 1999 action on their counterclaim
against the senior bishops of the UOC-USA on the basis that a secular court had
no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the Defendants’ claims against
these persons sounding in common law tort, fraud, misrepresentation, and
deceit.
10. The 1999 Defendants appealed the decision of
the Trial
Court to the Appellate Division which
rendered its decision on December 27, 2004, without publication of its written
opinion. The Appellate Court concluded that: a) the Trial Court was correct in
its decision on the issue of standing; b) the trial court also correctly
concluded that the civil courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Defendants’ claims sounding in common law tort, fraud, misrepresentation, and
deceit; c) but reversed the trial court in rendering its judgment in favor of the 1999
plaintiffs, the Appellate Court concluding that the civil courts lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims of the Plaintiffs also. A copy of the
unpublished opinion of
the Appellate Division is attached as Exhibit
A.
11. Dissatisfied with the Appellate Division’s
ruling, The
1999 Plaintiffs applied for certification to
the Supreme Court of New Jersey which certification was denied on March 16,
2005.
12. In June of 2006, Archbishop Antony,
admittedly a Hierarch
of the Greek Orthodox Church of
Constantinople, instituted an action purportedly on behalf of the UOC-USA in a
recently created “church court” of the UOC-USA against the Defendants named
herein seeking to obtain the same relief that was denied to the 1999 plaintiffs
in the civil courts, i.e. control of the property and administration of the
Parish. The members of the purported recently created “church court” are also
clerics or followers of clerics and hierarchs that had abandoned the UOCUSA and
had joined a different denomination – the Greek Orthodox Church of
Constantinople. The purported “church court” action was the first such attempt
ever instituted in the 80 year history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the
13. On October 6, 2006,
the Defendants herein petitioned the
supreme spiritual authority of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of Kyiv, Ukraine, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret, as to his
judgment on the purported “church court” action instituted by Archbishop
Antony. Exhibit B.
14. On October 24th,
2006, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret,
issued his decree that the Parish, its
parishioners, and the UOC-USA diocese are within his spiritual authority and
the actions of Archbishop Antony on behalf of the UOC-USA, and the decisions of
the purported “church court”, and of their agents, affiliates, and
confederates, are null, void, and of no effect in or respecting the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church or any faithful son or daughter thereof and that the same are initiated
by officials of a church other than the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and have no
factual or spiritual basis as violations of any relevant or applicable canon or
tradition of the Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Exhibit
C.
Answer
15. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 1 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that the
UOC-USA is a diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is hierarchical in
spiritual matters only. All issues of
property ownership and parish governance are strictly within the province of
the individual parishes.
16. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 2 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants admit the
incorporation of the Holy Ascension Parish in 1925 in New Jersey but further
state that after its incorporation, the Parish became a member of Ukrainian
Orthodox Church, located in Kyiv, Ukraine which at that time was establishing
its diocese in the United States under the leadership of then Bishop
Teodorovych.
17. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 3 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that some of
the named
individuals are former members of the Parish
administration; some are present members. However, all the named individuals
were and continue to be members in good standing of the Parish, of the UOC-USA
and of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
18. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 4 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that the
UOC-USA constitution
provides that the “Sobor” is the highest
organ of the diocese. However, the diocese has been since its creation and
continues to be an integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in
19. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 5 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that the
UOC-USA constitution
provides that the head of the diocese is the
Metropolitan but the diocese since its creation has been and continues to be an
integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in
20. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 6 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that the
UOC-USA constitution
provides that the “consistory” is the
executive organ of the diocese but the diocese has been since its creation and
continues to be an integral part of the
Ukrainian Orthodox
Church in
“consistory” are under the spiritual
leadership of the
Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in
21. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 7 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that the
UOC-USA constitution
provides for the establishment of a “church
court” of the
diocese but the diocese has been since its
creation and
continues to be an integral part of the
Ukrainian Orthodox
Church in
22. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 8 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that they are
without sufficient information to determine what actions were taken (or on what
factual, canonical, or legal basis) by the consistory on October 27th 2005 [erroneously plead by the Plaintiff as
October 27. 2007.]
Furthermore, whatever actions were taken by the “consistory”, were not valid
since its members are clerics or faithful of a different church, the Greek
Orthodox Church of Constantinople and not of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of
which the UOC-USA is admittedly a diocese.
23. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 9 of
the
Complaint, the Defendants say that they
received a mailing that purported to be a “Notice of Accusations and Issues”
but said notice was devoid of any authority since it was issued by clerics or
faithful of a different church, the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople and
not of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which the UOC-USA is a diocese. The
Defendants responded to this mailing advising the purported “church court” of
their lack of spiritual, canonical and civil authority over the Parish or over the Defendants by letter
dated August 4, 2006. Exhibit D.
24. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 10
of the
Complaint, the Defendants say that they are
without sufficient information to determine what actions were taken (or on what
factual, canonical, or legal basis) by the “church court” on August 30th, 2006. Furthermore, whatever actions were
taken by the “church court”, were not valid since its members are clerics or
faithful of a different church, the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople,
and not of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which the UOC-USA is a diocese.
25. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 11
of the
Complaint, the Defendants say that the
Defendants say that they are without sufficient information to determine what
rulings were made (or on what factual, canonical, or legal basis) on September
30th 2006. Whatever rulings were taken by the
purported “church court” on September 30th,
2006, were not valid since the purported “church court” members are clerics or
faithful of a different church, the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople,
and not of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which the UOC-USA is a diocese.
26. By way of answer to the allegations of ¶ 12
of the
Complaint, the Defendants say that they did
not honor the
decree of the purported “church court” for
the reasons set
forth in their letter of August 4, 2006. Exhibit
D. Furthermore, after
petitioning the spiritual head of the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Filaret,
(of which the
UOC-USA is a diocese), a decree was issued by
His Holiness
declaring the actions of the purported
“church court” null and void and of no effect. Exhibit
C.
27. In response to the allegations of ¶ 13 of the
complaint
the Defendants repeat and re-allege that
allegations contained in all paragraphs of Facts Common to the Answer of the
Defendants and to all Specific Defenses stated above, and their responses to ¶¶
1 to 13 of the complaint as though set forth at length herein. Defendants
further allege that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any civil relief as a
matter of Law.
WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment dismissing the
Complaint, awarding the Defendants reasonable attorneys fees, cost of suit, and
such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: July 17, 2007
Attorneys for DEFENDANTS
__________________________
Myroslaw Smorodsky
For the Firm
AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
1. The Court lacks Subject
Matter Jurisdiction over the
matter in controversy.
2. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Res
Judicata.
3. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Collateral
Estoppel.
4. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Equitable
Estoppel.
5. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Laches.
6. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Law
of the Case.
7. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Unclean
Hands.
8. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Waiver.
9. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred by
application of the doctrine of Election
of Remedies.
10. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred in
that the pleading Fails
To State A Claim upon which
relief may
be granted.
11. The claims asserted against the Defendants
are barred on
Public
Policy grounds.