# Appendix — Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0929%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 426 U.S. 696 ## Text Supreme Court, U. S, FiLED APPENDIX DEC 11 1975 | 2 MICHAEL RODAK, JR.. CLERK | —__ In the Supreme Court of the United States Octoser Term, 1975 No. 75-292 THE SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX DIOCESE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA, a Religious Body, et al., Petitioners, vs. DIONISLIJE MILIVOJEVICH, et al, Respondents. Volume I—Pages 1 to 356 Pleadings — Testimony On Writ or CERTIORARI TO THE Unritrep Srates Covurr oF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed August 26, 1975 Certiorari Granted October 20, 1975 INDEX PAGE Relevant Docket Entries in the Proceedings Below ...... 1 PRETRIAL PLEADINGS, OPINIONS AND ORDERS Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive eS Ge SU Bs TD ccisentncscticctensisccibecineiiditatininn 6 Opinion of Illinois Appellate Court, April 7, 1966; Sup- plemental Opinion, September 7, 1966 .......................... 10 Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and ex- ED CID scnevsniescasennieninciastvnineniniteicanaiiitaiaaiiiniaanni 31 Interim Opinion Re: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint ...................... 61 5 nee 65 Answer to Second Amended and Supplemental Com- ID cxsnasesscnntmnenriemtnannemieeiniaiaantiil . 68 Counterclaim and exhibits thereto 0...............:cccsceeeeeeeees 73 Second Interim Opinion Re: (A) Motion by Defen- dauts to Designate Parties; and (B) Motion by Plaintiffs to Strike Defendants’ Answer and Coun- ee sutenmmnnntennecsieianeismneninnes 86 Sy I I TI, Te tccectiedecercecninicnteehreeierestieters 91 Further Answer to Second Amended and Supplemen- OS GI ccecisessscsmnsseisnnvetieiniitaacitnnaiteaninnneinbamiatibtaiiapesatinds 94 ED Fa: SED ciincnsinisttsinisaridibintaiinasitiatiiamiamninesieds 103 Reply to Defendants’ Answer and Supplemental An- swer to the Second Amended and Supplemental TTD ep 148 159 160 161 121 7 ute number. The minute number 188 means that the matter was completed and acted upon before minute number 237. Document number 1726, PX 7e was com- pleted after 1725. I am familiar with Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibit 8a which I ordered prepared and which I checked right after receipt. 1 compared this document with the original minutes prepared under my supervision 5 and direction. This exhibit is an exact copy of the original. 1 don’t have any particular duty when the assembly is in session. When the session is over the secretaries come to my office with notes and request technical help from me for the composition of the min- utes. These sessions are held in secret behind closed doors. There are two doors, one of which is locked and there is a vestibule and at the end of the vesti- bule is the actual door into the Assembly room. The door is guarded by one of the guards of the Holy Synod. [ am in my office when the Assembly is in session. I can recall only one occasion when a per- son other than the Bishops of the church were in the Assembly room during a meeting. A non-Bishop ex- pert is required to leave the Assembly after fulfilling the purpose for which he is invited. I was not in Belgrade at the time of the Assembly meeting 162-3 July 27, 1963. Minutes for that meeting were prepared 164 165 167 and I kept them in my custody and control as secre- tary. I personally examined the minutes to determine whether the Bishops signed them. I certified the min- utes. On page 1 of Exhibit 8a is an excerpt from the report of the commission appointed to investigate Bishop Dionisije. That quotation is correct. I am familiar with Exhibit 9a, a copy of a document in the archives under my control. I had nothing to do with 178 179 180 181 182 122 the preparation of 9a. This is a true and correct ; copy. The signature is that of Patriarch German and the seal is that of the Holy Synod. This is the origi- nal. The decision of the Assembly on July 2%, 1963, was transmitted to Bishop Dionisije, and Archiman- drite Firmilian. Exhibit 10 is an original document with which I am familiar. The signature is that of Patriarch German and it is among the records and archives of the church. The Serbian which appears in Exhibit 10 is a duplicate of that which appears on 10a, down to the signature of Patriarch German. A 4 copy of PX 11a is in the archives and the records of 5 the church. This is a copy of the notice which was sent to Bishop Dionisije. I am familiar with Exhibit 12a. It bears the signature of Patriarch German and there is a certification from the counsel of the United States. This exhibit bears number 2403 and this is the number it receives when it was recorded upon receipt by the Synod. Number system begins with each calendar year. Documents which are sent are not given a received document number. The number 2403 in this document indicates the Holy Assembly sent it to the Synod and it was then given a number. The minutes number is 356 and it refers to the min- utes of the Synod. That minute number refers to a group of minutes covering the same meeting. The number refers to a subject which occurred in the meeting. I assign these numbers. Assembly number 44 on PX 12a refers to the serial number of the record book of the assembly of Bish- ops. The number 2 refers to the number under which the decision is recorded in the minutes of the Assem- bly. I am familiar with PX 13a which is a correct copy of a document in the archives. Bishop Firmilian aoe 123 183 signed this document. I had occasion to check the 154 185 186 188 189 minutes of the Holy Assembly of May 11, 1963. The decision referred to in PX 13a is recorded under that number in the minutes. Exhibit 13a in the second full paragraph reilects my mission on that occasion. I came to America on June 28, 1963, and I returned in the beginning of August. I was a technical person to the Bishops whose names are in the document. Their mission was to perform the consecration of Rev. Ste- fanovich as Bishop and to meet with the former Bish- op Dionisije and discuss with him the complaints that were sent against him. I attended the consecration which occurred about July 10, in Aliquippa, Pennsy]l- vania. Bishop Stefanovich is now dead, having died May 10, 1966. 13a was mailed to Archimandrite Greg- ory Udicki. I am familiar with PX 14a which bears the signature of Bishop Emilijan and the seal of the Synod. This is a true copy of the document in archives. It was mailed on or about the date it bears. The two bishops arranged the meeting with Bishop Dionisije and also sent him a letter. They went to a meeting in Libertyville and I was not present. They came back from the meeting and we got together and they brought with them the minutes of that meeting. The meeting was with people who had sent complaints. I was not present at meetings with complaining wit- nesses. I did not see the complaints in writing. Two Bishops wrote a joint report and Bishop Vasarion went to Belgrade. The meeting with Bishop Dionisije was arranged through intermediaries, Nick Stepanovich and Uros 2 Seferovich. Mr. Stepanovich is one of the co-counsels for defendants. Bishop Vasarion returned to Belgrade 193 195 124 to submit the report on the difficulties they faced in their meeting with Bishop Dionisije. That member re- turned to Belgrade before July 27. This Bishop did not come back to Belgrade from the United States and the remaining Bishop returned with me to Belgrade in August. I am acquainted with PX 154A, the original of which is in the archives. Dr. Uros Seferovich was on the diocesan council of the American-Canadian Diocese at that time. The docu- ment was mailed in America to the patriarchate in Bel- grade. Exhibit 16a is the formal indictment of Bish- op Dionisije. The first page of the exhibit refers to Bishop Firmilian of the Middle West Diocese. Copies of the indictment were enclosed with a letter to Bish- op Firmilian and | suppose that copies went to the other two Bishops in America. Letters of transmittal to the other two bishops are in our files in Belgrade. 2 The original indictment was transmitted to Bishop Dionisije. There was in fact a letter of transmittal to Bishop Dionisije. PX 18a is signed by me as secretary. I prepared } the original at the request of Bishop Firmilian. This document is in brief points the decisions of the Holy Assembly and Holy Synod regarding the problems in the United States. It was prepared on November 12 and transmitted to Bishop Firmilian. I used the ‘ minutes of the Holy Assembly and Synod in prepar- ing this document, and it is a true and correct reflec- tion of each of the minutes and documents. Concern- ing the reference in the second full paragraph, para- graph No. 3, I know that Bishop Dionisije was notified by mail. The original of PX 19a was received by the Patriarchate in Belgrade and is among the records of the church. It was received a few days after the date it bears, November 18, 1963. bo 125 I am familiar with PX 17a which I prepared in my office in Belgrade. The document was actually pre- pared in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but a copy was de- livered in Belgrade. I did not receive the original in Milwaukee; it was handed to me in Belgrade. It was brought to Belgrade by the head of the delegation, Bishop Chrysostom. The members of the Commission who signed the document prepared it; I did not pre- pare it. At the time it was brought to Belgrade, it had been signed by the two Bishops whose names appear on it. The document was then delivered to the Holy Synod. I do not find a document number of this docu- ment. I do not know what was done with the document when it got to Belgrade because | was not there. i have examined the archives and other records to de- termine whether this document was transmitted by mail and it was. The document was sent to those to whom it was addressed from Milwaukee. I know that some priests came to Milwaukee and other people came to Milwaukee and this document was given out to them. It was distributed around July 6, 1963. Both investigating commission Bishops were in America at that time. Bishop Chrysostom took the original and copies of this document to Belgrade after it had been distributed from Milwaukee. Exhibit 18 does not list the events recited in the order in which they took place. I will repeat the events. First on May 10, 1963, the assembly suspended Bishop Dionisije and ordered the Holy Synod to start judicial procedure against him. During the recess from this session, the Synod appointed Archimandrite Firmilian as administrator of the diocese. Later that day, the Assembly created the three new dioceses. Bishop 126 Dionisije was appointed to the Middle Western Dio- 222 cese. ‘Three administrators were appointed for the three dioceses. The judicial proceedings continued with the request for an investigating commission which was sent to America. After the commission arrived in 223 America and finished its duties, it tried to meet with Bishop Dionisije. 225 The subject matter of paragraph 5 occurred subject to the matters recited in paragraph 4. 228 I am familiar with PX 20a which was typed in the office of the Holy Synod and brought to the meeting of the Synod. It was sent to the former Bishop Dionisi- je. It was signed by Bishop Firmilian. It was sent to 229 Bishop Dionisije in Libertyville. 230 I am familiar with PX 2la. It was a copy of the 231 original judgment which is in our archives. It was 232 eutered on the date which it bears by the Holy As- sembly of Bishops. The persons listed on the last page are members of the Assembly of Bishops. 233 Iam familiar with PX 22a which was prepared under my supervision on or about the date it bears. It is a copy of the original in our archives. It was signed by 236 Patriarch German. The abbreviation and numbers 237 indicate that the letter was signed by the Patriarch and it was the 44th letter issued in 1964. MLADENOVICH testified as follows: Direct Examination. 250 The Bishop was appointed to replace Bishop Stefan. I prepared PX 23a. This Exhibit is signed by the 251 Patriarch and members of the Holy Synod. The Holy 252 Synod executes the decision of the Holy Assembly ap- pointing Bishops. I prepared an excerpt from the 253 minutes of the Assembly of Bishops held August 31, 127 1921. I also certified that excerpt. In 1921, the Patri- 255 arch was Demetrios. PX 24a bears my signature. The difference between the two calendars referred to in PX 24a is fourteen days. 262 PX 25a is an excerpt of the assembly minutes for August 31, 1921. I prepared the excerpt and my sig- nature is on the Exhibit. The quoted material is an 263 exact copy. 264 PX 26a was prepared by me and bears my signature. 266 The material within the quotation mark is an exact reproduction of the minutes. In the minutes appear 267 the names of several candidates proposed as adminis- trator of the diocese and I consider that it was esseu- tial to name only the person who was actually ap- pointed by the Synod. 268 I prepared PX 27a which bears my signature and the seal of the Synod. The quoted material is an exact 269 duplication from the minutes of the Assembly of Bish- ops held November 23, 1925. I prepared PX 28a which bears my signature and the seal of the Synod. This ex- cerpt is taken from the minutes of the assembly for October 12, 1928. The quoted portion is an exact dupli- 271 cation. 272 I prepared PX 29a and certified it. Quoted portion 273 is an exact copy. On this exhibit the number 14 refers 274 to the registration book and the other number, 77, re- lates to the number of the minutes. Excerpt 29a deals with the execution of the decision of the Holy As- sembly of Bishops. The phrase ‘‘Syn’’ numbered 276 2396 indicates the registration book of the Synod. 280 The reference in PX 30 to the authorization of the Holy Bishops’ Assembly is to the same reference num- bers as appeared on PX 29a and 28a. The second date 281 number relates to the calendar which is used in Ameri- 128 285 ca. With reference to Exhibit 29a the number 1457 in- dicates the number of minutes of the Holy Synod and the second number 2386 indicates the number in the registry book of the Holy Synod. The number 2396 also indicates the number in the registry book. The 286 difference between 2396 and 2386 could indicate that somebody made a mistake. The numbers on the second page of the constitution, PX 30, are the same that appear in the portion of the minutes, PX 29a. 287 Exhibit 3la was prepared under my supervision. It Zss bears my signature and seal and it is an excerpt of the meeting of the Holy Assembly in 1939. (The Court permits counsel to call the witnesses’ attention to var- ious portions of the Diocesan Constitution, not as a matter ot evidence, but solely as a help to the Court.) Article 23 subsection 8 refers to amendments. PX 293 3la is an excerpt of the minutes. PX 32a bears my signature and the Synod seal. It contains a correct 294 copy of an excerpt of the minutes of December, 1935, a meeting of the Holy Synod. Article 13 of the Ameri- 295 can-Canadian diocesan constitution provides for an administrator until such time that a regular Bishop is elected to fulfill the vacancy of the office of Bishop. 296 PX 33a bears my signature and the seal. In the correct copy of a portion of the minutes of the Holy Bishops’ Assembly in June 21, 1936. After the death 297 of Bishop Mardary, His Grace Bishop Irinej acted as administrator of the American-Canadian Diocese. 299 Bishop Irine] was appointed administrator by the au- thority of the Serbian Orthodox Church constitution and the American-Canadian Diocesan Constitution. 300 PX 34a has my signature and the seal of the Synod. 301 It contains an excerpt of minutes from the June 22, 302 1938, meeting. Paragraph 9 of the Diocesan Constitu- 129 tion gives the assembly the right to appoint the Bish- op. PX 35a beurs my signature and the seal. It is an 303 excerpt from the Synod meeting, November 25, 1939. 304 1 am familiar with PX 36a. It contains a signature of 305 the late Patriarch Grevrilo. The references in Ex- hibits 36a, 35a and 3a are to the same Bishop Dionisije. 306 Newly elected Bishops are required to write an oath and read it before the Bishops who are consecrating 307 him [sic]. (Defendant’s counsel admits the authenticity of the document). 37a is the only oath the Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church takes. When the Holy As- 309 sembly refers to a Bishop’s oath they refer to an oath similar to 37a. (Defense counsel states that during 310 the recess he has examined 37a and 22 lines are un- decipherable). (Defense counsel states that he is not 312 stipulating that this is a true and correct copy of the oath). PX 38a bears my signature and the Synod seal. The 313 quoted material is a portion of the Assembly minutes in 1951. PX 39a bears my signature and my seal. It 314 is an excerpt of certain minutes of the Assembly in 315 1952. PX 40 is an English translation of PX 40a. My signature appears on 40a. This is an excerpt of the 316 minutes of the meeting of the Assembly held June 1, 317 1961. The excerpt is accurate. My signature appears 318 on PX 41a. It is an accurate excerpt from the May 16, 1952, Assembly meeting. PX 42a contains my 320 signature and the seal. It is an excerpt from the No- 321 vember 26, 1957, Synod meeting. The quotation from 322 a letter of Bishop Dionisije is accurate. PX 42d is a 323 correct copy of the original. The numbers on it refer 324 to proto call books. My signature appears on PX 43a. 325 This is an excerpt from the Assembly minutes of Sep- 326 tember 9, 1958. The quoted portion of the Assembly 130 327 and Synod minutes are accurate. We reviewed the 328 original of PX 42a, in the archives. This photocopy 329 was made under my supervision. The signature is that 333 of the late patriarch Vikentije. The original of PX 37a is in the archives of the Holy Synod. I was not present at the time of the consecration of Bishop 334 Dionisije. I prepared PX 39c, photocopy of a letter from Bishop Dionisije to Patriarch Vikentije. 335 Patriarchate is the building which houses the central administration government of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Meetings of the Holy Assembly and Synod 336 are held there. The entire archives are kept in the building in Belgrade. The patriarch, Bishop members 337 of the Synod and all diocesan Bishops have access to the archives, but I obtain the materials for them. Clerks also have access. They use the archives in pre- 338 paring a report for a meeting, or if it is necessary in connection with a subject that they are dealing with. They request access through me. No other persons, 339 legal entities, state or municipal, have access to the archives. 343 =| prepared PX 40c. It is a copy of an act of Bishop 344 Dionisije dated in the month of May 1951. This docu- ment was received by Patriarch Vikentije and it has re- mained in the archives since its receipt. Exhibit 40c is 346 referred to in the minutes which are exhibit 40a. The 347 Bishop may give his proxy to another Bishop. The 348 constitution provides a limitation on the use of proxy. I prepared PX 4ic, a copy of Bishop Dionisije’s letter dated April 30, 1952, to Patriarch Vikentike. This document was received in the Patriarchate. It was sub- 350 mitted to the Holy Axsembly of Bishops. PX 45a is 351 in part a summary an! part a quoted excerpt from the minutes of the meetinz of the Holy Assembly. The 131 reference to an act of Bishop Dionisije on May 5, 1953, is a reference to a document sent to Patriarch 352 Vikentije. PX 45c is the letter sent by Bishop Dionisi- 353 je. This copy is a correct photocopy. The quoted por- 354 tions of 45a correctly corresponds [sic} to the minutes of the assembly. The other material is an accurate sum- mary of the portions of the minutes they refer to. 362 I prepared PX 46a, a document in the archives. The 363 first page is an official decision of the Assembly; the second page is an enclosure which deals with the sub- ject matter on page 1. The reference in 46a indicates that the Assembly did not approve proposal number 5. The enclosure 46a came from a letter from Bishop Dionisije to the Assembly. 46a and 46c, the enclosure, are identical in words. 46c is a photostat of the orig- 365 inal. The quoted material in PX 46a comes from the 367 minutes of the assembly. The signature at the foot of 46a is that of Vikentije. I prepared the material 368 preceding the quoted material on 46a. It is an accurate summary. The direction contained in the last para- graph of Exhibit 46a was carried out. This document 369 notes that the American-Canadian Bishop has been cautioned inat future decisions will not be approved when they prescribed that they become effective prior to the time that competent authorities approved them. 370 The directive in PX 46a was mailed to Bishop Dioni- sije. 371 I prepared PX 47a, an excerpt from the Synod meeting held July 15, 1958. Exhibit 47a contains a tran- 373 scription of the text contained in 47c. 47c is a letter of Bishop Dionisije dated July 8, 1958, to the As 374 sembly. This contains a proxy. PX 48a is an exce: pt 375 from the minutes of the Holy Assembly held Jv ue 9, 376 1959. Exhibit 48¢ was prepared under my di ection. 406 407 408 409 410 412 132 48c has the signature of Bishop Dionisije and it was received by mail. The document was received with markings as appear on the face of it. Document 48c is referred to in 48a. There may be a mistake in the date on these exhibits. They are exact copies. 48a con- tains a proxy entrusting Bishop Dionisije’s vote to Metropolitan Nektary. PX 49a was prepared under my supervision and di- rection. It is a copy of the original. 1 presume that the longhand notations on this copy were on the orig- inal when it was received. (Counsel states that the ; exhibit’s correct date is 19 April, 1960.) Bishop Dioni- sije signed PX 49a. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 46a and 46 have an error. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 49a was prepared under } my direction. It is an exact copy of excerpts of minutes. PX 50 is contained in PX 50a. I have placed the letter, 50c, first in my certification rather than after the ex- cerpt in order that the decision which appears in the minutes, PX 50a, would probably reflect the subject matter under consideration. The longhand markings on the exhibit have no significance to me. PX 5la was prepared under my direction. It is a true copy of the original in the archives. It is signed by Bishop Dionisije. The constitution requires dioce- san bishops to submit annual reports to the Synod, and this letter is one of those reports. PX 52a was prepared under my direction and is a copy signed by Bishop Dionisije. PX 53a was also prepared under my direction and it is a true and correct copy. PX 53a contains an exact quotation preceding the small letter b which is from the report from Metropolitan Damas- kin and Bishop Nikanor. I dictated the other portion of Exhibit 53a to my clerk. PX 54a was prepared under my supervision. 54a is an accurate copy of a 132 413 document signed by Bishop Dionisije. The numbers 414 410 416 417 415 419 423 424 425 and abbreviations refer to the protocol number of the American-Canadian diocese. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 54c was prepared under my direction. There is a reference in d4¢ to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 54a. The quoted portion of d4c is an accurate excerpt from the minutes of the Assembly meeting of May 8, 1963. Piaintiff’s Exhibit 54a contains a proxy for voting by Bishop Dionisije. Piaintift’s Exhibit 55a was prepared under my con- trol and supervision. It is an accurate photocopy of the original. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 55c is a letter from the assembly to the clerk of the faithful in the Ameri- can Canadian diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States of America and Canada and in Diaspora. 55a speaks of 55c. 55¢ was originally typed and then entered into the minutes of the -\ssembly. doc, in typed form, ultimately was printed at the direc- tion of the Patriarch. It was printed to explain what was undertaken and what charges were rendered by the Holy Assembly of Bishops and what measures were taken and penalties given to the former Bishop Dionisije. The Holy Assembly wished to explain why this was done. The church of Yugoslavia is referred to as Diaspora. These pamphlets were printed under my supervision. Diaspora refers to organized units of the Serbian Orthodox Church which exist in various countries out- side of Yugoslavia. There are congregations in Parishes, four or five in England, in Triest, and West- ern Germany. There are five or six or perhaps more in Australia. I do not know whether or not Diaspora included the American Canadian diocese territory be- fore the diocese was formed. PX 55a and b were 430 440 134 sent to the Bishops in the United States to be dis- tributed among the clergy and faithful. It is not customary to send copies to the clergy of brother orthodox churches. The Bishops told me they distributed these documents. It was printed in both Serbian and English so people who did not understand their mother tongue entirely could read the contents. The date of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 55c, July 27, 1963, is the date which the document was brought before the meeting of the Holy Assembly while the date of 55a, August 10, 1963, refers to the date when the Synod sent the document which was adopted by the assembly. I was in America while this was occurring and I do not recall whether any statement was issued concerning what the assembly had done. Other information was issued and compiled in Mil- waukee. It was signed by the members of the investi- 2 gation commission. I am 61 years old. PX 56 was prepared under my supervision and direction. PX 56a contains a correct copy of the minutes it reflects. The letter Bishop Dionisije referred to in PX 56a is in the archives of the church. Bishop Dionisije’s let- ter of May 23, 1962, was received by the patriarchate. 5 56a was prepared under my direction and bears my signature and the seal of the Synod. PX 57a was prepared under my supervision and contro! from the originals in the archives. The por- tion of PX 57a appearing above the word excerpt is a copy of a letter from Bishop Dionisije; the original is in the archives. PX 56a and 57a refer to letters which were signed by Bishop Dionisije. The refer- ence to ;rotocol book is to an official registry book of an organization, in this case the American-Canadian book. This book is kept in the United States. Each A OV ee Rene. eee deen o ) 454 460 461 462 135 diocese keeps a book. PX 58a was prepared by per- sons under my control and supervision from the orig- inal in the archives. The original was received at the patriarchate following May 25, 1962. It was signed by Bishop Dionisije and this is an exact copy. The parentheses on tne exhibit were probably placed there by a clerk. ‘The longhand marks in the exhibits were placed there after it [sic] was received. PX 59a was prepared under my supervision. It is a true copy of the original signed by Bishop Emilian. This document is a letter directed to Bishop Firmilian informing him of a decision of the Holy Synod. PX 60a was prepared under my control. It is an exact copy of a document addressed to Midwest American Bishop Firmilian. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6la was prepared by a clerk un- der my supervision and it was mailed following its date, May 20, 1955. It is signed by Bishop Makarije and it was mailed to Bishop Dionisije. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 62a is a copy of an original document in the archives and it is signed by the ecumenical patriarch Athanegoros. Athanegoros is one of the Patriarchs of the orthodox church and is first in honor among all orthodox patriarchs. His attention is particularly de- voted to the church of the ecumenical patriarch with its See in Constantinople. PX 62a was received by mail shortly after May 22, 1964. PX 22c was pre- pared under my supervision. It is an act of the Synod by which a copy of the judgment of the Assembly was sent to Bishop Firmilian. This is a copy and the original is in the archives. This exact copy is signed by Bishop Emilian. The quoted minutes are accurate. The other portions of Exhibit 22 are correct. The re- lationship between the Exhibit 22a, 22c and 22e is as 136 follows: 22a is a letter from Patriarch German in- forming Bishop Firmilian about what the Holy Assem- bly has decided with regard to Bishop Dionisije. Document 22e is an excerpt from the minutes of the assembly in which the subject matter of the offenses of Bishop Dionisije were decided upon. 22c is a letter from the Synod sending a copy of the judgment to Bishop Firmilian. 466 PX 63a is a document of the ecumenical patriarch. 467 The original is in the archives. It was received by mail shortly after May 5, 1964. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 468 63b is a true copy. The signature is that of Patriarch 470 Aphenagoras. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 64b is a copy of the original in the archives and it bears the registry book mark of Patriarch Athanegoras. 64b was prepared 471 by my clerks and is a true copy. It is signed by 472 Athanegoras and I know the original bears that sig- nature. 473 PX 65a was prepared under my supervision. The original was received in Belgrade shortly after June 474 9, 1964. It is a true copy of the original and it is signed by Chrisostomos of Athens, Archibishop of the Greek church in Greece. PX 66a was prepared 475 under my supervision and the original is in the ar- chives. It was received in the second half of July 1964. It came by mail and it is an accurate copy of the 477 original. It is signed by Christophoros, Patriarch of the Church of Alexandria. 480 PX 67b is an official act of the department for ex- ternal church affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate of July 13, 1963, sent to the Serbian Patriarch. It was 481 received in the mail shortly after the date it bears. 482 67b was prepared with my assistance under my super- vision and is a copy of the original. It is signed by 137 Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Orthodox church. 483 One of the documents enclosed with 67b is the docu- ment identified with number 67f. This document was 454 prepared by the clerk under my control. It is a true 485 copy of the original. The second document enclosed has been marked PX 67c (The English translation is 486 67a). This document was prepared by a clerk under my supervision and I compared it with the original. 487 The registry book number referred to on this exhibit is that of the American-Canadian diocese in Liberty- ville and the signature is that of Bishop Dionisije. The Serbian Orthodox Church has a written con- 488 stitution adopted in 1931. PX 68a is that printed copy of the 1931 constitution. It was adopted by the Holy Assembly and proclaimed during the reign of King Alexander of Yugoslavia upon the recommendation of 489 the Prime Minister. It was published in the official newspapers, church papers and journals and distri- 490 buted among the clergy of the church. It was amended 491 in 1947. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 68a is the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church adopted in 1947, the second edition printed in 1957. There is no difference between the 1947 and the 1957 editions. From ’47 to 492 ’57 there were some amendments. The document I 493 have before me is the official copy of the constitution. It was distributed by the church to its officials. There have been no subsequent additions. A few amendments have been made to this constitution by the Assembly. 494 The last amendment was in 1967. It was amended in 1962. In 1962 the Assembly temporarily took upon 495 itself the functions recorded by the constitution to the Patriarchal council. In 1963 it was amended when the Assembly created 496 three dioceses in America. The action I am refer- 497 498 499 502 210 216 138 ring to is contained in PX 4a. In 1967 the Assembly nullified the articles pertaining to the election of the Patriarch and decided that a new patriarch would be elected only by the Assembly from among its own num- ber. In March of this year the Holy Assembly created a new diocese in Europe called the Serbian Orthodox Diocese for Western Europe and Australia with its See in London. This had the effect of amending the constitution. The creation of the new diocese changed the territory known as Diaspora; new diocese will en- compass under its jurisdiction almost all church or- ganizations in Diaspora. The entire Serbian Orthodox Church now is embraced within dioceses. I believe I have told you of all the amendments to the 1957 constitution. This document PX 68B is a 1958 edition of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The first sentence of Article One in the 1931 Constitution is the same as the ’57 Constitution and a new sentence has been added to the ’57. PX 69A is the Penal Code of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It went into effect in 1961 and has remained in effect, without amend- ment, to the present day. It was adopted by the Holy Assembly and carried out by the Holy Synod. Its original form it was a typewritten document and it is amorg the records of the church. 69A is an exact copy of the original. Upon the printing of the Penal Code, copies were distributed to members of the clergy. The copies were printed only in Serbian. Copies were distributed to all bishops of the church and all priests. It was published in the official organ of the church. Printed pamphlet copies were also delivered to all members of the clergy. 139 According to the Constitution of the Serbian Church, the canons of the Orthodox Church are interpreted solely by the Assembly of Bishops. Article 64 and 69.9 of the Constitution so state. There are 25 dioceses in the Serbian Church. These 520 dioceses change from time to time in territorial area. The needs and interests of the church, the progress of the church and especially in cases where the church is growing influence changes in territorial limits. Changes occur when the number of faithful and congregations become less. There have been occasions when a dio- cese or dioceses have been completely dissolved. The occasion arises when the Holy Assembly decides that a situation has arisen. 522 Serbian Church was founded in the 9th or 10th centuries and was under the jurisdiction of other churches. Total independence was obtained by about 150 years ago. The historical documents are not in agreement but they all claim that there were about 523 eight or nine dioceses at the time. The word auto- cephalous means that the head of the church is elected by the bishops of that church and the head does not need confirmation of anyone else; the church can com- pletely govern itself and elect its own hierarchy. The church has to be autocephalous to create dioceses. The number of dioceses existing in 1931 would be listed in 524 that Constitution. The original dioceses that were in existence 750 years ago have been re-organized and obtained different names and designations. None of 525 the original ones exist as a separate or independent diocese. New dioceses were formed between 1931 and 1957. In 1947 the diocese of Belgrade was re-organized 526 and two other dioceses were formed. The diocese of 528 Czech Moravia was released from the jurisdiction of 140 Serbian Church and allowed and transferred to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church. This diocese was located in Czecho- 529 slovakia. Reasons for founding new dioceses are the increase in number of faithful and clergy, the found- ing of new church units and more effective adminis- tration of the church and progress of church in gen- 529 eral. Increase in membership and number of congre- gations is a factor. (Offer of proof). The considerations that led to the re-organization of the American-Canadian diocese were the writings of the former Bishop Dionisije who 531 sought this. I have examined the writings to which I have just referred. I came to this country for the first time in 1963. I 532 formed the opinion that re-organization was necessary. 533 The reports of the Damascan delegation and the writ- ings of Bishop Dionisije indicate that the faithful in- creased, the clergy increased and the churches and con- 534 gregations increased. I read the report of Bishop Nekkray before he came to America to testify. (Offer of proof closed.) 544 The Court rejects the offer of proof. 546 Statistics and records are kept with respect to num- ber of churches, priests, baptisms, deaths, ete. These are compiled from reports by each diocese and bishop. I participated in the compilation of these statistics. I do not recollect the statistical data respecting the 548 church subsequent to the last war. Churches were damaged during World War IT as a result of hostili- ties. I cannot say exactly how many. About half of 553 the churches damaged or destroyed since World War 554 IT have been repaired. About 50 new churches have been built since the war. a a tn Se a = a a 141 One new cathedral was built since World War IL. 555 Two temporary cathedrals have been built. Cathedral churches where the bishop resides tend to be larger than churches and more elaborately built. 556 Monasteries are used for monastic purposes. The number of monasteries has increased since the con- ciusion of World War II. Seminaries in Yugoslavia 557 are theological schools. Students reside and eat there. 558 The number of seminaries has increased since World 559 War II. Some members of the faculty live on the premises of the seminaries. The number of schools and-members of the teaching staff have increased since 560 World War II. No seminaries existing at the close of World War II have been enlarged physically. The number of clergy has increased between 500 and 600 priests since the close of World War II. The number of faithful is about stagnant. There are about eight 561 million faithful in Yugoslavia. There were around 562 seven million at the close of World War II. We have about 214 thousand priests and monks and 563 600 nuns. We have about 300 persons preparing to become nuns and the number of young men in the monasteries preparing for monkhood, about 150. At the close of World War II there were around 1,500 priests and not even 100 nuns. There were practically 564 no young boys or girls preparing for monk or nun rolls. Church congregation in Yugoslavia has income and expenditures according to its budget. The mem- bers give offerings and some income is realized by the way of sale of candles and paying of a stole fee on the part of the faithful for various services, such as baptisms and funerals. The diocese also has its budget. Income for the diocese comes from the congregations and the monas- teries. 142 565 Diocese aiso has income from the sale of church publications. There are some dioceses which have some land on which there are orchards or vineyards. There are some dioceses which do not have an adequate in- come and they are aided by the Patriarchate. Patriarchate has its budget or income and expenses. It has a central shop, something like a small factory, for the making of candles to satisfy the religious needs of the faithful throughout Yugoslavia. Patriarchate also prints what the [sic] call church taxes; stamps, which are fixed to various church documents, such as baptisms or weddings. Patriarchate also has its own print shop which prints various church liturgical wor- ship books. It also has its own bookstore for the sale of these books. Some dioceses are economically strong enough to send revenue to the Patriarchate. These sources of revenue are inadequate and this is why the church turned to the state and sought from the state that it give to the church in annual compen- sation for its properties, buildings, homes and lands that were nationalized. The church receives that com- pensation from the state. Nationalization was per- formed upon the churches and also upon private in- dividuals. Compensation is also given to other churches and faiths in Yugoslavia. The creation of the diocese 569 is a hierarchical act. (Discussion between counsel and the Court regarding translation of PX 68A). 584 There are extraordinary income sources which are rifts. chiefly from the American and Canadian Dio- eese. These are sent either throuch the Patriarchate to the central church or to the diocesan bishops. The World Council of Churches sends specified gifts which range from $35,000.00 to $50,000.00 annually. These gifts come from various members of the World Coun- cil of Churches. One man in Wankegan sent a gift 143 which built a small monastery. The total amount of such gifts from America and Canada could be esti- 587 mated to be around $50,000.00 a year. Patriarch Ger- man was elected first President of the World Council of Churches at the last assembly of the World Council. (DX 70 through 70G are marked, counsel states that they are pamphlets and publications.) 588 70G was prepared in December of 1966. It was dis- 589 tributed among our churches and monasteries for sale to tourists who visit Yugoslavia. A large number were sent to our bishops here in America for distribu- tion among the faithful and priests. A portion were sent to other countries like Australia and England. (The court questions counsel as to the purpose of the Exhibits.) 601 PX 68C-1 was prepared by me personally. (Counsel 602 notes that the translation is PX 68C). It is an official act of the Holy Synod of August 12, 1963 directed to 603 Bishop Stefan. This is an exact copy of the original maintained in the archives. In preparing the original 605 of that document I examined the minutes of the as- sembly held June 8, 1962. It contains an accurate transcription of the minutes. 609 Cross Examination. 610 My clerks prepared PX 39C. 44A and 45C were also prepared by my clerks. We have a xerox machine in 611 the Patriarchate. I am not able to say that I prepared photocopies of minutes of the Holy Assembly of Bish- ops but only photocopies of the documents that were in my hands. I recognized PX 1, pages 567 through 573 of the Court file, and I recall preparing the documents set 613 out in those pages. bl+ blo vlo 618 §21 #29 144 (‘Lhe Court notes that page O67 is in English, 068, Y and 7U are in Serbian, o/1 and O72 are in Kng- lush.) 1 prepared pages 068, 569 and 370, which are in Serbian language. 1 can't say that these were made im the office of the Patriarchate in Belgrade. We could have prepared them on the other machine in the Patriarchate. ‘hese pages were made at the request of the church tor the need of the Courts. The Eastern Urthodox Church is also known as the Serbian Orthodox Church. When counsel refers to Serbian Kastern Orthodox Church i understand that he is referring to the Serbian Orthodox Church. There is ne provision in the Constitution of the Ser- bian Orthodox Church which specifies who may or may not have access to the Archives. [ do not remember showing any of the original minutes of the Synod or Assembly to any attorney. Attorneys for the parties in this litigation have visited me in Belgrade in my office. Mr. Jenner, Mr. Crown and Mr. Karacie visited me before my departure, at the end of March 1969. I showed them the case where the files are saved and the key for the case. I opened the case in order for them to look at what was inside. I do not remember that I opened any of the books. The minutes of the Synod and the Assembly are not printed in the official newspaper with the exception of that which the Assembly or Synod directly order printed. It is the duty of the Synod to execute the order of the Assembly. A elerk to the Holv Synod prepares the material which is to he printed. Tt is not submitted to the Synod for approval before printing. The name of the official publication is the Herald Official Sheet of the Serbian 624 628 629 631 145 Orthodox Church. There is an official and unofficial portion of the Herald (Gaznick) but it can happen that official matters are printed in the unofficial sec- tion. Jovan is the archivist of the Holy Synod; he re- ceives mail and enters them in the registry and gives mail to the responsible clerks or myself. His main duty is to expedite mailing. If someone gives him minutes to show to a bishop he can do that under my supervision. I have testified regarding this case in Waukegan, Cleveland, Akron, South Bend, Lorain. I was involved in trials in Cleveland, Akron and South Bend. I ean- not remember whether transcripts of my testimony or depositions have been shown to me. but I allow the possibility that it was shown to me. Some of my testi- mony was read to me but I don’t know if it was in part or in the whole. I remember that my deposition here in Waukegan was read to me and I did sign it. I do not remember the others, but I do not exclude the possibility that in part they were read to me. Excerpts of the Synod’s minutes identified previous- ly were prepared under my direction and control. The minutes are kept under my control. The pages in thie Synod’s minute hook are assigned page numbers, be- ginning with number 1 in each hook. When the minutes are written, it gets its page written and a continuation of the page where it stopped hefore. The entries in the Svnod’s minnte hook are tvnewritten excent for the signatures of the hishops. This is also true of the Assembly minutes. The minutes of the meeting are pnt in the hook in chronological order, as the sessions were flowing. The hooks are permanently bound. This is trne of the As- sembly minutes also. In 1919 all regional churches 146 were put together with the Metropolitan of Serbia. These church areas had been under the territories of 633 other states and nations. With the creation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after the First World War the church regions that were outside of Serbia were put together with the Serbian Orthodox Church. The 634 Metropolitanate of Montenegro joined with the Metro- politanate of Belgrade. Prior to this union the Metro- politan of Montenegro had self governing authority and was in a state that was called Montenegro. This was the Kingdom of Montenegro, separate from the Kingdom of Serbia but after World War I the King- dom of Montenegro joined the state of Yugoslavia. 635 I cannot testify on what ground the Kingdom of Serbia and Kroatia and Slavania was created. Part of the territory that formed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had been under the rule of other countries and kings prior to the First World War. 640 A metropolitan is a person and metropolitanate is a diocese that is under the jurisdiction of that metropoli- tan. Of the groups forming joining the Serbian Orthodox Church perhaps there were some dioceses that had independent government of their own and they could have been under the jurisdiction of some other church. The Diocese of Bulgaria was under the jurisdiction of Patriarchate of Constantinople at that time. The first 641 kine of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Kroats and Slovens was King Peter. 644 The first written Constitution of the Serbian Ortho- dox Church was 1931. I did not know when the first Assembly meeting occurred. The Assembly had num- erous meetings even before 1931. I know the kingdom’s name was changed to Yugoslavia, but I do not remem- 147 645 ber what year. Prior to 1919 the Serbian Orthodox Churches in the United States were under the jarisdic- tion of the Russian Metropolitante. As far as I know the organized diocese in the United States, as we understand it today and according to the Constitution of the Serbian Church and the Constitution of the Serbian Church and the Constitution of the Diocese of America and Canada, did not exist prior to 1919. The first Serbian clergyman sent to the United States by the Serbian Orthodox Church was Archimandrite Mar- 646 dary. He was sent shortly after World War I ended. 652 Only the American-Canadian Diocese, of the Dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church, has a written Consti- tution. Dioceses in Yugoslavia do not have Sabors composed of members of the clergy and laymen from each parish. The American-Canadian Diocese does have these church peoples Sabors. The dioceses in 653 Yugoslavia compose their diocese and board pursuant to the directives of the Serbian Church Constitution. These dioceses are enumerated in Article 14 of the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution. In Yugoslavia 654 the diocesan bishop assigns a priest to a parish. The 655 church congregation owns the church property build- ing in Yugoslavia. The Patriarchate owns buildings in Belgrade and some other property on which there exists small churches or chapels. All churches are the property of the church congregations on whose ter- ritory they are located. If the diocese has property that would be a small church on its property. I do 656 not recognize PX 2A for identification. I do not recog- 673 nize PX 2A and I do not recognize the original from which it comes. I am familiar with the delegation sent by the Synod in 1962 composed of Damaskan, Metro- politan of Zagreb and Bishop Backa. Their purpose 674 686 688 689 691 148 was to talk with the former Bishop Dionisije about the proposals inade by him to the assembly and Synod for upgrading the diocese to Metropolitanate, enlarge- ment of the area of the diocese, and appointment of two or three more bishops. They were to acquaint him about complaints and charges received in the Holy Synod against his person. I had received such charges for storing in the archives prior to the time that the delegation left. The delegation did not take the com- plaints or copies with them. The delegation was as- signed its task by the Assembly. I did not hear Bishop Dionisije refuse to sign the minutes. Bishops in the Serbian Orthodox Church are judged as a court of first instance by the Holy Synod. They are judged in the last instance by the Holy Assembly. The Assembly can do what its lowest organ can do. Article 90 of the Penal Code refers to which body shall be the court of first instance and which body shall be the court of last instance and the canons of the Ortho- dox Church also speak of this. The Holy Assembly governs itself according to the canons of the Orthodox Church, by the regulations of provincial Orthodox Church, and later according to the Constitution which is prescribed in the Penal Code. This is cited in the Constitution. I am familiar with Article 70 subparagraph 35A of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. That provides that the Holy Synod shall judge in the first instance canonical offenses of a bishop. But it is the right of the Holy Synod to inform the Assembly when the offense is of a more grievous nature and to seek help from the As- sembly. I am familiar with PX 17A which was issued on July 6, 1963. I was not present at any time when the SF 692 693 694 695 698 699 702 149 1963 delegation interrogated or examined witnesses. I was present at Shadeland when a woman was giving a hearing. The Commission heard other witnesses after July 6, 1963. I know that Bishop Chrizostom gave a hearing to special clergyman. Bishop Dionisije did not attend this hearing. I do not know whether Bishop Dionisije was invited to attend any of those sessions. I did not act as secretary to this delegation. I was only accompanying them. The 63 Commission made a report which contained new complaints against Bishop Dionisije. With the exception of the informal indictment prepared by the church prosecutor, Bishop Vasilija, these charges or complaints were not sent to Bishop Dionisije. Bishop Vasarion returned in due course after his stay here. No person was appointed as his representative or at- torney at the Assembly meeting of July 27, 1963. This is because there is no provision allowing that in the Penal Code. The archives contain all of the documents referred in the excerpt of the July 27 meeting, PX 8A. The meeting occurred, according to the American calendar, on July 27. A partial report of the investi- gating commission was submitted to the Assembly be- fore it arrived at its decision. I cannot say whether the entries in these minutes are in the order in which the Assembly considered them since I wasn’t there. When a meeting of the Holy Assembly is over the minutes are prepared and they would reflect the order in which business was undertaken. This is not neces- sarily so; there are exceptions. Something can be put into the minutes beforehand which is of greater im- portance. It also depends upon the secretaries. What is most important is everything that was decided at the meeting is entered in the minutes. The members ~! to or 150 of the Assembly can speak about decisions which are published and announced. Pages 10, 11 and 12 referred to on PX 8A, the July 27, 1963 meeting, refer to Bish- op Dionisije and the signatures on the minutes appear at pages 18 and 19. Other decisions were made on the intervening pages and I cannot determine from PX 8A what those decisions were. The actual minutes in the archive would reflect that. The Holy Assembly of Bishops did not hear witnesses on July 27, 1963. Courts of the first instance otherwise provided for in the Serbian Orthodox Church’s Constitution hear wit- nesses. The document prepared in Bishop Dionisije’s presence, the minutes formulated in Libertyville, was given him prior to the July 27 meeting. These minutes are in the archives. I read it about five years ago. I believe that document contained Bishop Dionisije’s surname and his calling but I cannot remember any other details. I think it was written by hand. I do not recall the details of that document. I do not recall whether the document was sent to him only that he was present when the document was prepared. I was not present at the time this occurred. PX 14A contains a copy of the decision of the Synod appointing the Commission which reported the As- sembly on July 27. The two bishops are Chrizostom and Visarion. The four bishops named in PX 8A are not members of an investigating commission but were bishops chosen by the Assembly to investigate or re- view the case and documents of Bishop Dionisije which had arrived. All four of these bishops voted on the decision made at the July 27 meeting. I cannot recol- lect who the bishop members of the Synod were six years ago. I cannot recall whether any of the mem- bers of the commission were members of the Synod. 151 It is not provided anywhere that a vote under Article 728 111 must be unanimous. I delivered the documents to the church prosecutor to prepare the indictment. Numbers were assigned to these documents as they arrived at the Holy Synod. I do not recall the date the first complaint against Bishop Dionisije arrived but it could have been before I became Supreme Sec- retary in 1960. Each document could bear a number or date indicating when it was received. I recall sev- eral charges in which the person who signed them had written ‘‘l give this statement under oath.’’ It is not required by the Constitution or Penal Code that the complaints be under oath. I do not recall which complaints were sworn to and which were not. I recall that in Milwaukee Bishop Chrizostom re- ceived and verified complaints from some clergymen. Some of these were in my presence. These were writ- ten complaints. I cannot certify whether oral com- plaints were written down by the investigation commis- sion. I do not recall whether the investigating commis- sion went to Milwaukee before it went to meet with Bishop Dionisije in Libertyville. I do not recall wheth- er the commission received complaints against Bishop Dionisije before or after July 5, 1963. Some com- plaints were received in Belgrade after the commis- sion returned to Belgrade. I have examined PX 16a, the indictment. Everything that is cited in the indict- ment is in the archives of the Synod. I presume that the charges were together with the original indictment. Copies of the enclosures referred to in the indictment were not sent to Bishop Dionisije. PX 16A was read in its entirety at the meeting of the Assembly and the period of time was extended by the church prosecutor. I do not know of my own 739 746 i47 152 5 recollection whether additional charges were added on November 13 and 14 of 1963 I do not recall whether additional charges were added to the original PX 16A prior to the decision of the Assembly in 1964. The judgment recites whether copies of additional charges were sent to Bishop Dionisije. I did not assist Bishop Vasilija in the preparation of the indictment dated October 16, 1963. As far as I know no members of my staff assisted him. He be- came a clergyman around 1935. He was elected bishop in 1947. He is the President of the ecclesiastical court of his diocese. I do not recall whether he has ever been a member of the Great Ecclesiastical Court. I was only present when oral testimony was given by a lady at Shadeland against Bishop Dionisije. I do not recall the details of her testimony. The alleged in- cident is in the indictment on page 9 and it occurred August 12, 1951. I do not recall whether any complaint regarding that incident was made to the Serbian Patri- archate prior to 1963. I do not know whether the charge in the next paragraph by Reverend Glochar re- ferring to incidents in 1941 or 1942 came to the Patri- archate prior to 1963. I don’t think Jovan Dutchich was alive in 1963. I don’t know when he died. I cannot from the indict- ment, page 2, determine when Jovan Dutchich made these remarks. There is a document to that effect in the archives but it is not cited in the indictment in its entirety. It is unknown to me whether Dobroslav Jevd- jevich referred to on page 3 of PX 16A was alive or dead in 1963. The enclosures to the indictment con- tain a copy of the newspaper article which is referred to. IT never knew the man and I don’t know whether he is alive or dead now. 153 On page 4 of the indictment there is a reference to a letter written dated August 19, 1963 which complains of an instance which occurred in 1953. I do not know 748 whether the Patriarchate received any complaint re- garding this incident of ’53 prior to the letter to me in 1963. (Witness turns to page 7 of 16A). I think Dushan Silaksi was not alive in 1963. I don’t know whether he died in 1950. I do not recall what docu- 749 ments the commission had with them. I don’t know 750 71 how many years have passed since Dushan Silaski died. I see the reference to Bishop Irinej at the bottom of page 22. No member of the Investigating Commis- sion spoke with Bishop Irinej who died prior to 1963. I find reference to Bishop Nickolai on page 23. The Investigating Commission did not talk with Bishop Nickolai. I do not recall that the person who made this complaint showed the Investigating Commission the alleged note. Bishop Nickolai died about July, 1956. This document does not state that any member of the Investigating Commission spoke with Reverend Sava Mikovich in 1963. I think this man is dead; I never knew him. Copies of newspaper articles were at- tached to the Indictment as an enclosure for considera- tion by the Assembly. On page 34, I find a reference to an unsigned pamphlet which was among the ma- terial considered by the Assembly. I do not recall whether a copy of the newspaper Free World, referred to on page 17 was enclosed with the Indictment. I am not familiar with that newspaper. I do not know whether the enclosure #4 referred to in the next paragraph from the University Educated Theologian designates the time, place and who the priest was that Bishop Dionisije allegedly ordained 154 when he was married with a divorced wife. This en- closure is in the Archives of the Holy Synod. I can- not tell the name of the priest who Bishop Dionisije al- legedly ordained by examining the Indictment. I can- not determine the names of the alleged two other can- didates in the following paragraph. The Indictment enclosure is in the Archives. See, that document would require a decision by the Synod. The documents that Mr. Jenner examined me on came from the Archives of the Synod. On Page 19 of Lxhibit 16, I find the quotation at- tributed to Bishop Nickolai. That quotation is con- tained ina memoran’ of Reverend Popovich. The ‘*P35/5’’ refers to Page #35.5 on the page. The Commission did not determine the address or location of the houses and lots alleged on Page 19 of the In- dictment to have been the property of Bishop Dionisije. It was the duty of the Investigating Commission to talk with the person submitting the charges, to establish if they were the persons who were submit- ting the charges and on the basis of that to certify the accuracy of the charges as submitted. The duty of the Commission is written in the document by which it was appointed. The Commission did not determi: e the address or location cf the houses and lots alleged- ly owned by Bishop Dionisije. I do not recall that the Holy Assembly did determine the address or location of these houses or lots. Our Constitution permits a Bishop to have his own private property. Article 38 of the Constitution provides that a Bishop’s funeral expenses and debts will be paid from his real estate and personal belongings. Exhibit #19 is a photocopy of a document which was prepared at my direction and control from the 768 769 771 773 155 original in the Archives of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It was received after the date in which it was written. Exhibit PX 20 is a photocopy of an official act con- tained in the Archives which was prepared at my di- rection and control. PX 20 is a reply of the Holy Synod to PX 19. I attended the Synod meeting on De- cember 10, 1963 in which the decision reflected in PX 20 was made. I do not hiave recollection of other busi- ness discussed at that meeting. I do not recall who else was present. In the event that I could recall, I could not as a clerk under vow make public what was discussed. I know this meeting lasted longer than usual, but I cannot say how long. I have never been a Court Clerk in the Church Court, and I only know what is prescribed in the Canons, Constitution and Penal Code. Nowhere is there an obligation to submit to the accused the complaints against him. There was a procedure for Church Courts prior to 1961. There was a procedural regulation for the Diocesan Courts but it did not apply to exceptional or extraordinary Church Courts. The former rules of procedure did not apply to a Bishop’s trial. When the Penal Code in 1961 became effective, it superceded the previous code. The reference in PX 14 appointing the Investi- gating Commission refers to Article 67 and 90 of the Penal Code which is PX 69. 777-783 (Conversation and reproduction of documents) 785 At the December 10 Synod meeting, a Professor of Canon Law was called in to be heard as an expert. I cannot recall whether anyone else was called in. As far as I know no member of the Holy Synod talked or conferred with anyone from the Religious Commis- sion on December 10, 1963. 156 786 = I cannot verify that I received the original of DX 3 for identification in Belgrade. PX 20 was mailed with- 787 in a few days after it was prepared. I do not know on what date Bishop Dionisije received PX 20. I don’t 788 know whether we have a return receipt. There were newspaper articles as enclosures. The last sentence 789 of Paragraph +65 of the Penal Code states ‘‘ unsigned submissions in no case are or will not be taken into consideration or proceedings.’’ Article +65 of the Penal Code was in force and effect for the years 1963 and 1964. During my absence in July, 1963 the Rever- end of the Holy Synod of Bishops, Protodeacon Civan Stefanovich, acted as Secretary to the Synod. I do 790 know that Reverend Stefanovich was present at the December 10 meeting, but I do not recall why. He was the regular Reverend of the Synod and it was not un- usual for him to be there. He had access to the Archives. 792 At the meeting of May 10, 1963 of the Synod, the Synod had before it a copy of the decision of the Holy Assembly made in its morning session which was sub- mitted by the Secretary of the Holy Assembly of 793 Bishops. I believe the Holy Synod met during the pause hetween the meetings of the Holy Assembly of Bishops on May 10, 1963. The Holy Synod of Bishops 797 did not render any verdict against Bishop Dionisije on the Indictment presented to it. Article #71 of the Penal Code was in force and effect during 1963 and 799 1964. The Holy Synod rendered its decision by which the entire subject was submitted to the Holy Assembly on February 25, 1964. I attended that meeting of the Synod. I do not recall who was there besides myself and the five members of the Synod. No witnesses were called to give any testimony regarding the complaints and charges against Bishop Dionisije. 157 800 PX 16 is the complete Indictment considered by the Synod on that date. Additional charges were added 801 to the Indictment as indicated on Page 12 of the Judg- ment. I do not recall whether additional charges were $02 added on November 13 and 14 of 1963. Article 70, sub-section 35b of the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution was in force and effect in 1963 803 and 1964. Article #63 of PX 69, the Penal Code, was in full force and effect during 1963 and 1964. Article #69, sub-section 27b of the Serbian Church Constitu- tion was in full force and effect in 1963 and 1964. All 806 of the Penal Code, PX 69, was in full force and effect without changes or amendments in 1963 and 1964. 807 The Constitution was in full force and effect and was changed in that it was amended in 1963 when the American-Canadian Diocese was reorganized and three dioceses formed from that one, and in 1962 when the Assembly decided to temporarily assume and per- form the functions of the Patriarchal Council. 809 I do not recall the names of the members of the Synod on May 10, but PX 1 contains those names. I 810 do not know the names of the members of the Synod on February 25, 1964. The Church prosecutor who prepared the Indictment was Bishop Visilije. Bishop Hrizostom and Bishop Visarion were appointed as the Investigating Commission by the Synod in 1963. 811 Patriarch German, Bishop Damaskin, Bishop Visari- on, Bishop Hrizostom, Bishop Valerijan, Bishop Va. ladislav, Bishop Nikanor, all voted on the judgment on March 5, 1964. No witnesses were heard or exam- ined by the Assembly on March 5, 1964. All the ma- 812 terials and documents referred to in the Indictment were available for examination and review by the As- sembly. Documents were available on July 27, 1963. 158 I was not present at the voting on March 5, 1964. The 813 signatures of all the Bishops appearing on the type- written excerpts marked PX 22e appear in the origi- nal minutes. Article #77 of the Church Constitution was in full foree and effect on March 5, 1964. Article 814 +69, sub-paragraphs 27 and 28, state the Judicial Authority of the Holy Assembly. On the basis of the Canons the Assembly can judge in both the first and second instance. Article #57 refers to the authority 815 of the Holy Assembly. Article #63 of the Penal Code refers to the Judicial Authority of the Holy Assem- bly. When the Holy Assembly acts as Court of the 416 first Jasgance, there is no appeal. An Appeal from a decision of the Holy Synod is to the Assembly. PX 1 818 was prepared under my control and I don’t recall ; whether it was done upon Bishop Firmilian’s request or his attorney. A request most likely did come from our Church authorities in America for the need of the Courts here. There have been many requests for docu- ments from the Archives relating to this matter since May, 1963. 820 PX 4, a letter from Bishop Firmilian was received in the office of the Patriarch shortly after the date it bears. The Synod studied this document. PX 3c is 821 the official announcement to Bishop Firmilian about his appointment. I do not recollect if there are any 822 such documents addressed to Bishop Firmilian as Administrator of the American-Canadian Diocese. I did not bring a copy of PX 1 to any of the other Court eases in which I testified. The intended material of 493 three lines is part of the decision of the Holy Synod. 894 The whole decision of the May 10 Synod is set out helow the colon on PX 1. The material in PX 1 is 826 the same as in PX 3c. This is the first time that the decision was submitted in its entirety to a Court. 159 I prepared PX 18a on or about the date it bears. It 827 is an official act of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is true and correct, but the decisions are only briefly reproduced and it does not follow the same consecu- tive order. Articles 57 and 64 of the Constitution re- 828 late to amendments. Article 16 refers to the Patriar- 830 chal Council. Articles 81 through 90 of the Constitu- tion refer to the Patriarchal Council. The Constitu- tion became effective through the decisions of the Holy Assembly and in due time it will be submitted to the Patriarchal Council which has not convened for nearly thirty years. 831 The decision to amend the Constitution and divide the American Diocese into three dioceses was not sub- mitted to the Patriarchal Council. The Constitution does grant to each diocese representation upon the 836 Patriarchal Council by the Vice President of the Diocesan Council and one ordained person of the white clergy. Article 82 of the Constitution so pro- 839 vides. PX 6Se-1 is the complete decision made by the Holy Assembly relating to their assumption of the duties of the Patriarchal Council. When the 840 Patriarchal Council is convened this decision will be submitted to it. The Patriarch convenes the Patriarchal Council. The decision of the Assembly was forwarded to all Diocesan Bishops. The Holy 842 Assembly did pass a Resolution providing that future Patriarchs will be elected by the Holy Assembly of Bishops and disbanning the Patriarchal electoral as- sembly. Articles 42 through 52 of the Constitution were affected by that decision. There are three of- 843 ficial dioceses in America. Eastern American-Canadian Midwest American, and Western American, and there is still not liquidated American-Canadian Diocese. 160 844 Ido not consider myself an expert on canonical law. 846 There is a relationship which is maintained by the heads of the autocephalous churches between them- 847 selves. The head of one Orthodox Church has no au- thority over another. There is an obligation for one Patriarch to inform another Patriarch of important events which happen in his church. Each autocepha- 848 lous church has the authority to rule itself indepen- dent of other churches. 849 Somewhere from $35,000 to $55,000 a year is re- ceived from people in the United States. That figure includes private donations to individual churches. I know that Bishop Dionisije sent a smaller sum of money to the Patriarchate for the Theological Facul- 852 ty. I could not guess what percentage of the budget 853 the $50,000 represents. I cannot verify whether the sums from the United States have decreased, but I presume that they are growing. 856 I did not represent the government in any of the nationalization of church lands. 862 In 1939 when I commenced my clerical work the King of Yugoslavia was in existence. The Kingdom 865 of Yugoslavia ended after the close of the Second 866 World War. It was succeeded by a republic where a President was at its head. Agricultural lands, forests, 871 orchards, and all other lands which were church prop- erties, were nationalized. There were two nationaliza- 873 tion laws. 881 The name of the government in Yugoslavia is the Federated Executive Council of Federal Socialistic Republic of Yugoslavia. There is a Commission for 887 Religious Affairs of the Federated Executive Council which pertains to all religions in Yugoslavia. I have dealt with this Commission in regard to my official 161 services as a Clerk of the Court. There were requests 891 from this Diocese for more bishops. As far as I know 892 Bishop Dionisije was net present at any hearings. He was not at any hearings when charges were made against him. Redirect Examination. 904 When counsel for the plaintiff were in Yugoslavia I did not exhibit any documents to them. I saw you off at the airport when you left Yugoslavia. The docu- 907 ments I brought are true and accurate copies. There 908 is no provision for a representative at a hearing on a 909 bishop’s trial. PX 8A contains all of the decisions of the Assembly of Bishops made in its session of July 27, 1963 with respect to the subject matter reported 913 in the exhibit. An offer of proof by defendant—examination of wit- 915 ness Mladenovich. (Court suggests that counsel state what he offers to prove rather than have the witness testify.) Counsel for defendant states that he offers to prove through this witness that all church property 917 above 10 acres of land was seized, that the committee for religious affairs is notified when guests are ex- pected from the outside and also when churchmen would leave the country to go elsewhere as guests. That one-half of the total amount paid by the federal committee for religious affairs is for pensions and that the federal commission for religious affairs is 920 appointed by the federal executive council. Counsel offers to prove that clergymen are not entitled to attack the government and carry on politically, and 921 that a record is kept of consents given for children to 922 attend religious education classes. That this witness was met by the Yugoslav Council or representative when he arrived in New York City in June, 1963. That 162 in his files taecre are requests for more bishops from the American-Canadian diocese but no requests for three new dioceses. Counsel closes offer of proof and 923 the Court rejects the offer. Redirect Examination continues. 926 Article 60 of the constitution deals with the question of majority or unanimous votes by members of the assembly and synod; 105 also deals with that subject. 929 Articles 3 and 60 of the Penal Code refer to a statute 930 of limitations. Article 66 and 70 refer to the situa- 931 tion where an accused does not submit a reply. Arti- cles that define clerical offenses and penalties are 53, 56 and 57 of the Penal Code. The type of offenses are 932 described in Articles 8 through 45. Articles 2A, 14 and 217 of the constitution deal with clerical offenses and penalties. Article 216 tells what kind of church 935 penalties there are for clergymen. Article 67 of the 936 Penal Code indicates that complaints need not be signed. 937 Offer of proof. Suspension of a diocesan bishop is 938 not a punishment. Offer of proof is closed and re- jected by the Court. The word ‘‘enclosure’’ in the indictment refers to the material which was used as a basis for the writing 94] of the indictment. PX 4D was received after the date it bears in the Patriarchate in Belgrade. The original is in the Archives. The capital letter typing appearing above the letterhead does not appear on the original. The numbers 115 and ‘‘11 t’’ refer to the original 942 letter of which PX 4D is a copy. 943 The first patriarch was Joanikije. I was not a clerk 945 at the patriarchate at the time Bishop Mardary came 947 to the United States. PX 71A was received in Bel- 948 grade. The original is in the Archives. The signature 163 950 is that of Bishop Dionisije. Zivan Stefanovich became a deacon in Scopia around 1933 or 1934. He was cleri- cal trainee in the church court of that diocese. After a few years he was transferred to the church court of the diocese of Belgrade and having passed the clerical examination he was appointed recorder of that church court. A few years later he was transferred to work in the Holy Synod and later he became a referent of the Holy Synod. He remained at that job until about 951 3 years ago when he was lost. It was unknown where he was located. About a month after his leaving a man by the name of Mooster came to the office of the Synod 955 in Belgrade. I received a card from Father Stefano- 956 vich after his departure from some place in Germany. A letter was received from him directed to Patriarch 957 German. This letter is among the Archives and Rec- 958 ords of the church in Belgrade. I recall something of 959 its content. I don’t know where Father Stefanovich is now. He had no relationship with the Serbian Or- thodox Church in Yugoslavia or with the Serbian Church in America. 960 On May 10 the Holy Assembly of Bishops recessed 961 and the Synod met during the recess. The Synod meet- ing occurred before noon. No provision or rule exists 964 preventing investigating bishops from voting on judg- 965 ment. The patriarchal council met once, in the year 966 1936. Members are appointed for 6 year terms. Arti- cles 219 and 220 of the constitution have a relationship with Articles 67 and 90 of the Penal Code. 983 BISHOP NIKANOR ILICICH testified as follows: Direct Examination. My name is Nikanor Ilicich and I presently reside in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia. I am a Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1939 I became a priest and after 164 985 teaching for 17 years in a gymnasium, I was appointed Bishop of Gornji Corvos where I remained until 1951. I was then elected by the Holy Assembly of Bishops as Bishop of Srem with its See in Sremski Karlovei. In 1955 1 was elected Bishop of Bachaka and I still serve there today. Since the ordination and election 987 as Bishop I have attended every meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops. I was elected to the Holy Synod 988 in 1951 for two years and then in 1959 and for a third time elected last year. The Holy Assembly of Bishops meets once a year shortly after Easter. The subject ¥89 matter of these meetings are generally legislative, fi- nancial, educational and administrative. Canonical regulations require that every Bishop attend all ses- sions of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and this is 990 also contained in the Episcopal oath which he takes at the time of his consecration. I had occasion to visit the United States in 1962 and this was my first visit. We received a report from the Bishop of the Ameri- can-Canadian Diocese that, due to the expansive ter- ritory, he considered it necessary for this diocese to be elevated to the rank of a Metropolitanate and also proposed that South America and South Africa be annexed to this diocese. The question of the election of from two to three vicor-Bishops was also proposed. 991 I have examined PX 58-A as well as 57-A. 58-A is 992 a communication from Bishop Dionisije to which I just made reference. The Holy Assembly after the receipt of Bishop Dionisije’s letter considered and acted upon it. I was present in the meeting and par- ticipated in the discussion. The Holy Assembly ac- 993 cepted the recommendation and sent a delegation to the United States. I have examined Plaintiff’s Ex- hibit 72-A and can state I am familiar with the signa- 165 ture on the bottom which is that of the Supreme Sec- retary of the Holy Synod of Bishops, Archpriest Mladenovich. 995 Ihave read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 73-A and it is signed 996 and sealed by the Secretary of the Holy Synod. It is the commission which I received authorizing my visit 997 to America. The other members of the commission were Metropolitan Damaskin, and Photo-Deacon Bronco Petrovich. 1000 In addition to the written instructions in our com- mission we received oral instructions from Patriarch 1001 German. The Patriarch told us that there were many letters of complaints about Bishop Dionisije and that we should make an attempt io find out what was go- ing on and talk to the Pishop. The subject matter of these complaints had been discussed in meetings of the Holy Assembly of Bishops. We left for America on September 11, 1962. I believe we arrived in Liber- 1002 tyville on the 18th or 19th. We remained in the 1003 United States for 88 days arriving in Belgrade on the 4th of December. During the visit we traveled 1004 through all of America visiting and participating in various celebrations and had contacts with various groups. In an attempt to carry out our written and oral instructions, for the first several days we stayed at Libertyville and met with Bishop Dionisije. Met- ropolitan Damaskin and myself were present, but the 1005 deacon was not. Our discussions first dwelt on the size of the diocese and the need for vicar-bishops. We 1006 told him that we would transmit his requests to the 1007 Holy Assembly. In the Serbian Orthodox Church a Metropolitan is only an honorary title. In the Greek Chureh a Metropolitan usually has several Bishops who work under him and are his assistants. 166 1008 Bishop Dionisije and I had many discussions con- 1012 cerning these things. We also discussed this matter of a Metropolitanate with the Diocesan Council at Libertyville the day after we arrived. Metropolitan 1014 Damaskin told them that under the constitution of the Serbian Church a Metropolitanate of the type that he requested would not be possible, but with re- gard to any other problems of the church the Patri- archate who would endeavor to accommodate them in any way they could. Other than a general reference 1016 to some complaints which had been received in Bel- grade, no discussion was conducted concerning the allegations on the conduct and transgressions of Bishop Dionisije. We met the Diocesan Council again on the Patron’s Feast day of Bishop Dionisije. After 1021 we left Libertyville we visited a number of cities and completed our mission to observe our church-school of congregations in the country. 1029 Offer of Proof—When in Pennsylvania, a gentle- man came up to me and said that he had built the church there, and since 1905 had a well organized church congregation. He then said, ‘‘Only our leader isn’t good.’’ By this he referred to Bishop Dionisije. 1030 End of the Offer of Proof. 1031 Other incidents similar to this occurred in other cities. The delegation discussed with Bishop Dioni- 1045 sije these several incidents in Libertyville. As we 1046 traveled about the country, we received written com- plaints as well as the oral ones which we forwarded to Belgrade. Offer of Proof. To some of the people who made oral complaints we gave instructions concerning drafting a document and mailing them to the Patri- archate. End of the Offer of Proof. 167 1048 The delegation completed its examinations of the congregations sometime early December of 1962 and then made a report to the Holy Synod of Bishops. The report was submitted in January and the annual meeting of the Holy Assembly was held in April of 1049 1963. The substance of the delegations report was considered by the Holy Assembly during their meet- 1054 ing. Our report was read in full to the Holy As- sembly’s meeting. In the course of that reading and discussion, we made recommendations to the Holy Assembly that proposals made be accommodated where possible. Another committee was appointed to study the report again and make proposals. This 1055 commission made a further report to the Holy As- 1056 sembly of Bishops. I attended the May 10th meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the subject of 1057 the charges against Bishop Dionisije was taken up first at the suggestion of the Patriarch. Based on the canons, the recommendation was made that the material be given to the Holy Synod of Bishops con- 1058 cerning possible penalties against Bishop Dionisije. Also discussed at this time was the subject of sus- pension of the Bishop end the reorganization of the 1059 American-Canadian Diocese. The Assembly recessed its meeting forwcrding this subject to the Holy Syn- od of Bishops which in turn suspended Bishop Dioni- sije and appointed Archimandrite Firmilian as his administrator. 1064 The Holy Assembly then voted for a reorganiza- tion of the American-Canadian Diocese dividing it into three parts each given a new name; The Mid- Western American which was assigned to Bishop Dionisije, the Eastern American-Canadian and the Western American. Three administrators were ap- pointed: Archimandrite Firmilian, Archpriest Lasta- viea and Archimandrite Gregory Udicki. It is my 168 belief that the areas of South America and Africa 1065 were not included in any of these three dioceses, but were assigned to Bishop Sava. 1067 Regarding Plaintiff's Exhibit 57-A, I recall this letter as a report of Bishop Dionisije’s arch pastoral work. Proposals contained in this letter were dis- cussed at the afternoon meeting of the Holy Assem- bly of Bishops on May 10th, 1963. VERBATIM TESTIMONY [1071] By Mr. Jenner: Q. Your Grace, during the course of the after- noon session of the Holy Assembly of Bishops on May 10, 1963, do you have a recollection as to whether or not the Holy Assembly of Bishops, including [1072] yourself, had in mind and discussed that portion of Bishop Dionisije’s report in which he stated that he had divided the American-Canadian Diocese into four Episcopal Districts: The Midwestern, the East- ern, and the Western and Canadian. Mr. Snyder: Objected to. The Court: What is the objection? Mr. Snyder: The objection is what he had in mind and what the Sabor of the Holy Assembly of Bishops had in mind. How is this witness compe- tent to make such statements? The Court: Overruled. The Witness: Yes. The Constitution of the Church allows a Diocesan Bishop to divide his Diocese into as many Episcopal Districts as he wishes and we knew that the Diocese had four Episcopal Dis- tricts, but that has no connection with the reorgani- zation which is something completely new. That would not prevent us from reorganizing the Diocese regard- less of what he had done. 1075 1078 1079 1080 1082 1083 1085 1086 1091 169 ABSTRACT TESTIMONY RESUMED All of the meetings of the Holy Assembly of Bish- ops are closed meetings and only regular diocesan bishops are permitted to attend. Any balloting done at these meetings is done by secret ballots. The Holy Synod likewise conducts its meetings in secret and consists of the four member Bishops, the Patriarch, who presides, the Supreme Secretary, who is always present, and one or two clerks all of whom are clergy. The Supreme Secretary of the Serbian Orthodox Church is not permitted in meetings of the Holy As- sembly. The reorganization of a diocese is a hierarchi- eal matter. The meeting of 29 July, 1963, considered only the subject of the charges against Bishop Dionisije. T have read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8-A and was in at- tendance at the Holy Assembly of Bishops when the course of events and action recited in Plaintiff’s Ex- hibit 8-A took place. This document fairly and ac- curately reflects what took place on that day in my presence. From my recollection, we began the meet- ing as usual and then received reports from various committees. There was some discussion concerning Bishop Dionisije that, although he was under sus- pension, he was celebrating services and had re- nounced allegiance to the Assembly, the Patriarch, and the Synod. After this a discussion unfolded as to how to proceed with Bishop Dionisije and there were various opinions and then it was voted upon. At the conclusion of the discussion the subject was voted on and the decision was rendered that Bishop Dionisije he relieved of his duties. Reverend Hrzistom is the Bishop of Branichevo and Rev. Visarion is the Bishop of Banat. The com- ee 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1104 1105 1106 170 munique, which is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 17-A, was con- sidered during the course of the meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops on July 27, 1963. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 74-A, a document I have just read, was considered and discussed during the course of the meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops around July 27, 1963. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 75-A is a document dated June 6, 1963, on the letterhead of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States of America and Canada at Libertyville, addressed to the Diocesan Council Plenum of the Serbian Orthodox American- Canadian Diocese signed by Bishop D. whose hand- writing I recognize. The reading of this document refreshes my memory that it was considered at the meeting of July 27, 1963. I did not see this exhibit this is 75-A on July 27, 1963, during the course of the meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops, but when we were preparing our materials for the as- sembly I had oceasion to become acquainted with it. I can identify the signature at the bottom of Plain- tiff’s Exhibit 760-B as that of Bishop Dionisije and similarly it appears at the foot of page 3 on Plain- tiff’s Exhibit 76-A. This refreshes my recollection that Plaintiff’s Ex- hibit 76-4 and B were before the meeting of the Holy Assembly on July 27, 1963. The contents of these exhibits were reported on in the course of that meet- ing and dicussed by the members of the Holy Assem- bly. I have read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 77-A which is signed on the last page by Supreme Secretary of the Holy Synod of Bishops, arehpriest Mladenovich. This document was before the meeting of the Holy 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1134 1136 171 Assembly of Bishops on July 27, 1963, and a discus- sion ensued with respect to the subject matter in contenis. I have read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 78-A and it is signed by the Supreme Secretary of the Holy Synod. In the lower left hand corner of the Exhibit is the state- ment, ‘‘In Monastary of St. Sava on Vivovdan, 1963’’; Vivovdan is our national holiday and also a religious holiday. This document came to my atten- tion prior to the meeting of July 27, 1963, as had Plaintiff’s Exhibit 77-A. I had not, however, re- viewed any of these documents prior to the meeting of the Assembly of July 27, 1963. 78-A was presented at that meeting to the Holy Assembly and the content of the subject matter discussed during the course of the day’s deliberation. I have read Exhibit 79-A and can identify the sec- retary of the Holy Synod of Bishops signature on the last page. This was also presented at the meeting on the 27th of July. I have read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 80-A and it is signed by the Supreme Secretary of the Holy Synod. This document was similarly presented at the 27th of July meeting. I am familiar with Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8-A and it was presented with the other documents. The report, or Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8-A, was read at a meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops on July 27, 1963, by his grace Bishop Stevan of Dalmatia. Following the reading of the report, a decision was reached by the Holy Assembly with near unanimity that Bishop Dionisije be defrocked and that two new Bishops he elected. There was also declaration of the Midwest American Diocese be declared as vacant. 172 It is not possible under the constitution of the Ser- bian Orthodox Church either of 1931 or as amended in 1947 to have more than one Bishop as the diocesan 1138 Bishop for a diocese. Nor is it possible for the Holy Assembly to appoint a Bishop without designating him as Bishop of a particular diocese. Upon selec- tion of Bishop the candidate is required to take an oath of allegiance which is ordered in the Cathedral Church in Belgrade during the ceremony of the con- 1139 secration. In the oath he answers a series of ques- tions and takes an oath on each answer. These in- cluded that he will attend every meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops that he will submit to the deci- sions of the Holy Assembly and the Synod, that he will listen to his patriarch and not go into another’s diocese, that he will preach the word of God and sub- mit to the Holy Canons, and if any way he fails he submits to judgment. The oath is taken in the presence of the Patriarch and two or three Bishops who are performing the consecration. He is obliged to reduce 1140 this oath to writing with his own hand and then enclose it with other documents after signing it personally. It is then certified by the Patriarch and members of the Holy Synod. In the course of the July 27, 1963, meeting, consideration was given to the fact that Bishop Dionisije had taken such an oath. 1141 I was present at the deliberations of the Holy As- 1142 sembly on March 5, 1964. The indictment was read by the church court prosecutor who was Bishop Vasilije of Zhica in which he related all of the viola- 1143 tions of Bishop Dionisije. Since the commission had returned and reported that the Bishop no longer recognized our authority, each Bishop present was asked individually to express himself as to whether 173 he held Bishop Dionisije guilty and everyone replied that he was. Each person asked replied that he should be defrocked and so the decision was a unani- mous one. 1151 [attended the Holy Assembly meeting held on May 5, 1951. I have read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38-A. I also 1154 attended the meeting held on June 1, 1951. Bishop 1156 Dionisije did not attend these meetings nor any oth- ers; however, I recall after having read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40-A that Bishop Dionisije committed his 1157 proxy to Patriarch Vikentije. 1158 After having read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 41, I recall that at a subsequent Sabor Bishop Dionisije sub- 1160 mitted another proxy. The same situation occurred during the Sabor 1958. I attended the Assembly 1166 meeting on June 9, 1959. 1170 ~—s Lhave read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 48-A and it refreshes my recollection to the extent that Bishop Dionisije was unable to attend the Assembly on this oceasion and gave his proxy to Patriarch German. I attended the June 9, 1962 Holy Assembly meeting but have no independent recoHection of what occurred. 1171 =I have read Plaintiff’s Exhibit 56-A and can state that this refreshes my recollection to the extent that Bishop Dionisije sent his annual report and stated that he could not attend the Assembly and sent his 1175 proxy. We discussed at various times the charges against Bishop Dionisije with him. On one occasion in Libertyville near the end of our visit we asked Bishop Dionisije to pay attention to what was hap- pening in the diocese because of the things that were 1176 being said about him concerning his behavior. We told him politely that we were not investigators and informed him in a friendly way. He replied that he 1177 1181 174 was an American citizen and that anybody who wrote against him or spoke against him would have to prove what they had said. Upon our return to Belgrade, Metropolitan Da- maskin and I prepared a report which was completed in January of 1963 and then was submitted to the Holy Synod of Bishops and which is now in the ar- chives of the Holy Synod. In that report we described our travels and our arrival in Libertyville, our meet- ing with the representatives of the Diocesan Coun- cil, and of our discussions with Bishop Dionisije con- cerning his behavior. VERBATIM TESTIMONY [1182] The Court: Without the aid of this document, why don’t you ask him what he recalls about the discussion. Mr. Karacic: All right. Q. Do you recall, your Grace—strike that. We will withdraw that, your Honor. I think he has men- tioned he recalls that being in the document. Your Grace, during the time you were a professor at the Gymnasium, in Yugoslavia, did you have occa- sion to teach Religion and the Canons and the or- ganization of the Serbian Orthodox Church? A. Yes. Q. And are you familiar, your Grace, with the provisions of the Constitution of the Serbian Ortho- dox Church? A. Yes. Q. And in particular with Articles 14 and 15 of said Constitution? A. I am. Those articles speak of the dioceses which comprise the Serbian Orthodox Church. 175 Mr. Crown: Your Honor, I hand the witness 68B which is the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution in Serbian, and I hand your Honor 68 which is the Constitution in English, and I have opened it to the (1183) paragraphs to which Mr. Karacic has reference, 14 and 15. Mr. Karacic: Q. Your Grace, can you please ad- vise us, in your opinion as an expert, what is the distinction, if any, between those dioceses as men- tioned in paragraph 14 of the Constitution as are to be located in the territorial limits of Yugoslavia, and those dioceses as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Constitution, as to those dioceses located outside the territorial limits of Yugoslavia? Mr. Snyder: Objected to, if the Court please. In the first place, this has already been passed upon by the Appellate Court in the law on the case. In the second place, this witness has not been by this exam- ination qualified as an expert. Mr. Karacic: May I address the Court, please? The Court: Yes. Mr. Karacic: If the Court please, this matter came up before, and I believe it was your Honor’s opinion that this matter was within your purview, and at yesterday’s session, I believe Mr. Jenner asked several questions of this witness, and your Honor suggested that if it is his area within the [1184] church, you considered him on questions of his church an expert. Now, in addition to the qualifications we have tendered on this witness the day before yesterday, we have now asked the other question, if, in fact, he has ever taught the subject of his Church and the particular Canons, and he so testified he had. 176 The Court: I believe I have already referred to him in my opinion, as an expert in matters of this general type. Now, as to the question Mr. Snyder raises, that it has been passed upon by our Appellate Court, Mr. Snyder, will you enlighten me on that point? Mr. Snyder: Yes. The Appellate Court in its opinion has—I can get the opinion and point it out exactly, what it held. They have held, they have in- terpreted botn the Serbian Orthodox Constitution and these particular sections, and the Diocese Con- stitution, right in the opinion. Mr. Crown: Your Honor, may I address the Court for a moment? This case was up in the Ap- pellate Court on a motion for summary judgment. (1185] This is the first time—by this I mean this hearing which commenced in April—this is the first time that the parties had an opportunity to present evidence. There was no evidence presented on this issue in the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court simply had the Constitution before it, without the aid of expert testimony as to its interpretation. Now, this is new evidence. That’s one of the rea- sons the case was sent back. I suggest that this mat- ter is proper for this Court to consider, new evidence not heretofore presented. As far as the bare constitution is concerned, with- out evidence, yes, that was before the Appellate Court, but none of this evidence that will be adduced at this time was before the Appellate Court. It has never been adduced before, and this is one of the rea- sons this case was sent back for hearing on proper pleadings on the merits. The Court: It seems to me we had testimony of a like nature previously from the first witness but— Orb esesmeew ance SPO: s ee 177 Mr. Crown: We did, your Honor, from— The Court: But in any event, I am going to over- rule the objection. He may testify. 11186] The Interpreter: May I have the question re- peated? (Pending question read.) The Witness: A. Our Church, as an institution, is of Divine origin, and all dioceses are in a Canoni- cal and Hierarchical and integral part of the Church in Yugoslavia. That means all dioceses, both those enumerated in Articles 14 and 15, and they are all in Canonical unity with the Church in Yugoslavia. But as concerns their particular positions, this would have to do only with the administrative aspect. For example, the Diocese of Budim, it has a con- stitutional structure of administration which dates back to the time of Restrap, and the Diocese of America-Canada had a Church National Assembly, but in all cases, in cases of dioceses like that, the Bishop is still the head of the diocese. He is the administrator. For example, Bishop Visarion of Banat, he administers the Diocese of Timok which is in Rumania, but he has his Surrogate there who only attends to the administrative matters or affairs, but who doesn’t have any spiritual or canonical au- [1187] thority to do anything, if he doesn’t have the au- thorization from his competent Bishop. He doesn’t have the right of granting dispensations or any or all the other matters which fall only within the com- petence of the jurisdictional Bishop, and the spiri- tual aspects of his authority. That belongs only to the Bishops. The authority of a Bishop is not devisive [sic]. Everything that an administrator does, he does only by authorization. 1182 1186 1189 1192 1193 1194 1195 178 ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED I am familiar with the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and articles 14 and 15 enumerate the diocese which comprises the chureh. Our church as an institution is of divine origin and all of the diocese are in a canonical and hierarchical and in- tegral part of the church in Yugoslavia. That means all of the dioceses enumerated in articles 14 and 15 are in canonical unity with the Church in Yugo- slavia. But as it concerns their particular positions, this would have to do with only the administrative aspect. Cross Examination. The diocesan council meeting which I attended on September 14, 1962, was the council of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States and Canada a religious corporation. The meeting was held in Libertyville and Nick Stepanovich was seated at the counsel table during that meeting. Dr. Urof Seferovich was at that meeting. Metropolitan Damaskin spoke at that meeting and said that the directions to the delegation were to con- sider three things: (1) the elevation of the Ameri- can-Canadian Diocese to the rank of Archdiocese Metropolia (2) adding to the American-Canadian Diocese the territory of South America and Africa (3) election of two or more vicar-bishops as assis- tants to the legal diocesan bishop. Greetings were extended to us by Nick Stepanovich and Dr. Uro Seferovich. They told us that we could go to Shade- land, Jackson and Libertyville and see the progress made in the last 20 to 30 years. All of our expenses were paid for by the motion of the diocesan council. We were warmly received 1196 1198 1206 1208 1210 179 by Bishop Dionisije and given permission to go to all parts of the diocese. Bishop Dionisije also told us that he did not recognize the Macedonian church as an Orthodox Church and he would not recognize bishops as they came here and his congregation would not receive the priests. After being given traveling funds and permission, we went to Cali- fornia and traveled throughout the entire diocese. I believe that I have already testified as to all the persons with whom I talked with reference to the conduct or actions of Bishop Dionisije. i believe, to the best of my recollection, I talked of the conduct and actions of the Bishop with Dr. Uros Seferovich. I do not know Heirmonk Nikolaj Vazeich nor did I discuss the conduct of Bishop Dionisije with him or the Rev. Vladimir Milinkovich. I did not discuss Bishop Dionisije with Ljubich Milinkovich or the Rey. Ljubisav Djurich. I did discuss the Bishop with the Archpriest Stevan Prostran on the occasion of a visitation with him in his church and on another occasion when we were visiting him on a private visit. The only people who ever complained to me about the conduct of Bishop Dionisije were enumerated in my direct examinations. While I was in this country I made a courtesy call to the Yugoslavian Embassy. I do not know to whom I spoke and was only there for about 15 minutes. I had not seen the Yugoslavian consul prior to my visit to his quarters. Upon my arrival in New York, I was met by the counsel and Bishop Firmilian. After my arrival in Chicago, I was met at the airport and taken by Father Balach and Bronco Petrovich in a car to the monastery. I did not make any calls to the Yugoslavian consul 1212 1245 1246 1249 1250 1254 1255 180 but I don’t know if the others of the delegation did or not. I was not instructed before departing from Belgrade to make courtesy calls on Yugoslavian con- suls in the United States. In our diocesan meeting held in November, Metro- politan Damaskin thanked his grace Bishop Dionisije for purchasing all of the tickets and schedules and lodgings for our trip around the country. Metropolitan Damaskin also said at this time that the Bishop’s council did not recognize the Macedo- nian Church because it was a political thing under the regime. He said that they didn’t want the gov- ernment to mix into the church. He stated that he hoped that we understood their reasoning that their constitution shouldn’t be altered, as a change in the constitution concerning our diocese would be a start- ing point for further changes that would be imper- missible. He said that no one could foresee the end of it, and that he believed the church would be damaged more than profit from altering the constitution. He further stated that we could make regulations, by- laws, decisions as we wished for the benefit of this diocese and the patriarchate would enjoy and accept it. The Metropolitan further said that we should not touch the question of the constitution and gave the example that it is known that Bishops of Dioceses are elected and appointed by the Holy Bishop’s council and the laymen do not elect or appoint bish- ops. He stated that if we touched that provision and give the right to laymen then the civilians in the old country would ask for the same right. He fur- ther said that if that happened, God save us, for we would know who would be electing and appointing the Bishops in the old country. He told them not 1258 1259 1260 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 181 to discuss the questions publicly or through the papers. At this time Bishop Dionisije stated that at the present time he could not attend sessions of the Holy Bishop council while the atheistic communist regime was governing in Yugoslavia. He further stated that when he sent someone over there he asked that they be received—that he felt that it was his sacred duty to do national and church work in the United States and Canada and that it was not political. He also requested that if there were any charges against him they should be sent to him for an answer and that he wanted to know who was sending them and what they were. The Metropolitan told Bishop Dionisije that he was not punished because of not attending the Bishops’ council meetings. The delegation of which Brkich was a member was not received when it arrived in Belgrade as it was not headed by a Bishop. I do not reca!! any member of the council saying that it was very clear to every- body that the immigration of the Serbs to this dio- cese is for the destruction of communism. Nor do I recall someone saying we love and respect our holy church but we hate communism and communists. Currently in the United States and Canada there are three dioceses. The Bishop of the Western Amer- ican diocese is Bishop Gregory Udicki who was ap- pointed I believe in 1964. His diocese mainly con- sisted of California and he was appointed by the Holy Assembly of Bishops who have the sole power to remove him. Bishop Sava Vukovich is the Bishop of the Eastern American and Canadian Diocese who was appointed by the Holy Assembly of Bishops. To the best of my knowledge the Western Ameri- ean Diocese doesn’t have a constitution but uses the 1271 1278 1280 182 general constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church which is also valid for it. Similarly, the Eastern American Diocese and the Midwestern Aierican Diocese have no constitution of their own, but use the constitution of the Mother Church in Belgrade. 2 The Macedonian Diocese has a constitution but it was not approved by us. Other than the constitution of the Macedonian church which we did not approve and the forming of the American-Canadian Diocese, there are no other diocesan constitutions in the Ser- bian Orthodox Chureh. The Macedonian Church has a Metropolitan. The American-Canadian Diocese has not been com- pletely liquidated. t remains for the Episcopal Bishop’s counsel to arrange the internal affairs and then that will be the end of the American-Canadian Diocese. The assets there disposed of will then be distributed to the other three dioceses which would include giving Shadeland to the Eastern Diocese, Jackson to the Western Diocese and the Monastery in Libertyville to the Midwest American Diocese. None of the charges against Bishop Dionisije were ever given to him. I never personally received any letters on this trip about Bishop Dionisije as they were all handled by Metropolitan Damaskin. All of the charges written and oral, which were received in Belgrade and which the delegation received while here, were taken to Belgrade and none of that was ever given to Bishop Dionisije and when proceedings were initiated all of the material was given to the church prosecutor Bishop Vasilije to prepare an in- dictment. Father Petrovich was excluded from the meeting of Metropolitan Damaskin and myself when we discussed the complaints about Bishop Dionisije 1281 1282 1291 1295 1296 1297 ~ 1298 1299 183 with the Bishop. We were not ordered by the Patri- archate to exclude the Father. We were required by direction to discuss these things with Bishop Dioni- sije out of the presence of any other witnesses. These instructions came directly from the Patriarch. There is no requirement in the Serbian Orthodox Church which requires this and there is no requirement in the penal code. There was no other commission of the Serbian Orthodox Church which came to the United States of America between the time of my return on December 4, 1962, and May 10, 1963. It is the usual practice in the Serbian Church to announce in advance who the newly elected Bishops will be. The Holy Assembly of Bishops make that determination from a list of candidates. And in the ease of Bishop Firmilian and Udicki, this occurred on the 27th of July, 1963. There are a number of names on the list and a candidate waits his turn until he is selected to be made a Bishop. There were other names on the list than Firmilian and Udicki but be- cause of their qualifications for this region we elected them Bishops. There were about ten names on the list when this selection was made. It is not custom- ary for the Serbian Orthodox Church to announce the names of persons who will be elected Bishops before the actual election. The 1962 delegation of which I was a member was not sent to the United States to summons Bishop Dionisije to Belgrade nor did we at any time ask him to come to Belgrade for the purpose of answering the charges. The ’62 delegation was not appointed under the provisions of the penal code as an investigating body. Prior to leaving Belgrade we did not have an opportunity to see the charges lodged against Bishop Dionisije but were told by the Patriarch that they 1300 1301 1304 1305 1317 1318 1327 1328 184 did exist and that we should counsel and advise the Bishop orally that he should watch his conduct. After our arrival Bishop Dionisije asked the Metropolitan if there were any charges brought against him in Belgrade. The Metropolitan replied that there were and they were of a moral nature. Bishop Dionisije then stated that he was an American citizen and re- quested that those submissions and complaints be sent to him so that he could reply to them. None of them were sent. The Holy Assembly of Bishops notified Bishop Dionisije every year of the annual meeting, but none of those notices ever indicated to the Bishop that he would be punished for failure to attend. Bishop Nastich did not attend any of these meetings for his vicar-bishop. Neither the Bishop of Zica, Nikolai nor the Bishop of Dalmatia, Irinej ever attended a Holy Assembly of Bishops meeting while I was in atten- dance. Redirect Examination. I do not know what the Illinois Religious Corpora- tion is or what Illinois Religious Corporation laws are. The Hoiy Assembly of Bishops directed the newly elected Bishops and the church national as- sembly set new boundaries for the three new dioceses. The Holy Assembly of Bishops at no time subse- quent to May 10, 1963, ever took any action or made any decision with respect to the ownership or loca- tion of assets or property in the American-Canadian Diocese. Deposition of METROPOLITAN DAMASKIN: My name is Gredenicki Damaskin and I am the Metropolitan of Zagreb and am 77 years old. I be- came a deacon in 1913 and was ordained as a priest in 1916. I became a Bishop in 1931 although I am 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 185 referred to as a Metropolitan which is an honorary office in the Serbian Church and only four bishops have been so honored. A Metropolitan in our church does not have supervision over other Bishops. The patriarch is the highest rank in the Serbian Ortho- dox Church and a Bishop is elected patriarch by the counsel of Bishops. Bishops in the Serbian Church are elected by the Sabor of Bishops and are conse- erated by the patriarch with the assistance of two or three Bishops. The meetings of the Sabor of Bishops are not in secret, but they are closed to the public and no one ean attend except Bishops. Minutes of these meet- ings are kept and decisions are recorded. The first order of business at the first meeting of the Sabor is the election of two secretaries from its members and they record these proceedings. The minutes are prepared by the office of the Holy Synod of Bishops and are signed at the next meeting by all present members of the Holy Assembly after which the de- cisions of the Holy Assembly become law. Any vote which is not unanimous is taken by ballot. The patri- arch’s vote is no more significant than any other bishop except that in a case of an equally divided vote he casts the deciding ballot. I was a Bishop in the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States from 1938 to 1939. I came to lead the diocese in 1938 which had been vacated for three years after the death ot Bishop Mardary in 1935. The Holy Synod of Bishops is the executive branch of the Holy As- sembly of Bishops. The Holy Synod is elected by the Holy Assembly and is comprised of four Bishops who are members of the assernbly at whose head is the patriarch. The Synod has however a secretary who is not a Bishop and in exceptional cases is not 1334 1335 1336 1337 186 even a priest. Within the church there is the office of administrator who temporarily administers a parish or a diocese. While in the first case the administrator of a parish is a priest, the administrator of a diocese does not necessarily have to be a bishop. I was sent in 1938 to the American Diocese by the Holy Assembly of Bishops. Bishops are sent to the diocese only by the decision of the Holy Assembly and the diocese is created by the Holy Assembly of Bishops. Geographical boundaries do not always re- main the same and in the past other dioceses have changed boundaries to make administration of the church easier. As the general rule there is one bish- op for each diocese but the patriarch could have ac- cording to the constitution vicar bishops. These Bish- ops aid the patriarch and may perform any function which are not connected to the patriarch exclusively. The vicar Bishops are not members of the Holy As- sembly and they are responsible to the patriarch. From the time of the death of Bishop Mardary until the time I came to the United States as Bishop, Irinej Gjorgevic, the Bishop of Dalmatia was the ad- ministrator of the American-Canadian diocese. In November of 1939 the Holy Assembly of Bish- ops elected me for the diocese of Banat in Yugo- slavia and I returned to that post. I was succeeded as Bishop of the American-Canadian Diocese by Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich. I do not recall when he was consecrated but prior to that he was vicar bishop of the patriarch. T returned to America in 1962 in the capacity of president of the delegation of the Serbian Church under the direction of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the Synod and I was accompanied by Bishop Backa Nikanor and Deacon Bronco Petrovich, clerk 1339 187 of the diocese of Belgrade. During those 27 years from the death of Bishop Mardary until my return to America the congregations and members of con- gregants increased as did the problem of administra- tion of the diocese. When Bishop Mardary was dioce- san Bishop the parishes were not spread all over the United States but when I returned in 1962 my im- pression, which I reported to the Holy Synod and Assembly, was that the number of parishes had in- creased, but I did not know if the increase took place in all parts of the United States. The Bishop of any diocese administers the parishes in his diocese and it is customary and necessary that the Bishop visit parishes. When I returned in 1962 to the American-Canadian Diocese, I was sent on a particular mission. During the war and afterwards normal relations between our church center with the diocese of America and Canada were interrupted be- cause of circumstances. Besides there occurred cer- tain problems in the diocese of America and Canada which were to be solved. At last the Holy Assembly of Bishops deemed it necessary to send a delegation to solve certain questions which Bishop Dionisije noted himself and also some accusations that had 1340 been lodged against him. The problems of the diocese 1341 concerned the increased size and number of parishes in the United States and the possible need of a vicar to the Bishop there and a question of elevating the Bishop of the United States to the rank of Metro- politan. Lastly, there were the questions of the ac- cusations against Bishop Dionisije. Our delegation visited and held meetings with Bishop Dionisije, at- tended a meeting of the diocesan council, and visited various parishes in the United States and Canada where we had an opportunity to come into contact with the priests and the people. 188 VERBATIM TESTIMONY 1337) Q. Have you returned to America as representa- tive of the church and in the matters of the church several years later? A. Yes, I have. (. In what capacity and under whose direction? A. In capacity as the president of the Delegation of the Serbian Church and under the direction of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the Synod of Bishops. Q. Did anyone accompany you when you went again to America? A. Yes. Q. Who were they and in what capacity? A. They were Bishop of Backa Nikanor and Dea- con Bronco Petrovich, clerk of the diocese of Bel- grade. Q. In what year was that? A. 1962. {1338} Q. Which month? A. From September to November. Q. During those 27 years from the time of the death of Bishop Mardarije until the time of your sece- ond coming to America, did the congregations and the number of congregants increase? A. Yes. Q. How did the number of parishes and members through these years increase and did the problem of the administration of the diocese of America and Canada occur? A. Yes. Q. Were the parishes during the time of Bishop Mardarije spread all over the United States? A. No. 189 Q. When you returned in 1962, was the number of parishes increased so that they were spread throughout the United States? A. My impression which I reported to the Holy Synod and the Assembly of Bishops was that a num- ber of parishes had increased in the United States and Canada, but indeed, I cannot say whether this increase took place in all parts of the United States. [1339] Q. Does the bishop of any diocese administer par- ishes in his diocese? A. Yes. Q. Is it customary and necessary that the bishop visit parishe [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0929%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.