# 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%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 426 U.S. 696 ## Text FiL&D DEC 11 APPENDIZ - MN Cn | In the Supreme Cowt 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, vB. DIONISLJE MILIVOJEVICH, et al, Respondents. Volume II— Pages 357 to 719 Testimony On Writ or CERTIORARI TO THE Unitep States Court or APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed August 26, 1975 Certiorari Granted October 20, 1975 ee eS INDEX Relevant Docket Entries in the Proceedings Below ...... 1 PRETRIAL PLEADINGS, OPINIONS AND ORDERS Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive TT . - Be Ge Gy Tis TID esestrceseseeteiccenesiteciteneticsseens 6 | Opinion of Illinois Appellate Court, April 7, 1966; Sup- plemental Opinion, September 7, 1966 ................. siaihionen 10 | Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and ex- . EIT IIIIIIIID :icisnscintneeenntinteicnseiepeceueieeaiociabenibaniiaeeanboiansegitis 31 ‘ Interim Opinion Re: Motion to Dismiss Second | Amended and Supplemental Complaint ...................... 61 ee Be GI Bi Ge BD . wceccetestemnniitatesnnnenenicsanentciittsonics 65 Answer to Second Amended and Supplemental Com- TTI. sistesidnsidithanbsdiuiinssainiateinietaaniscdgaiedinianen anc siedee teens 1356 11/18/63 Power of Authorization Executed by SIIIIID - ssccrvaciippsiicoseaconscunichimnainnsiiatsinnittetedibiteanaiehiel 1358 Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11} — pp. 901 to 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833 PAGE PLAINTIFFS’ Exuisit No. 84Q s4W 84X 7/29/63 Letter from Patriarch to Dionisije re ee 1359 1/25/64 Letter of Dionisije to Holy Synod re eae shia eidedialinieal 1360 11/14/63 Decision of 10th Church-National As- esmbly re Autonomy of Diocese .........................- 1365 Nov. 1963 Proclamation of 10th Church-National FRI sacussvvinscentapsincnnubninnnniaunnbininmntinie 1369 4/17/63 Report of Diocesan Executive Board re Unity with Church in Yugoslavia ...................... 1375 5/9/63 Resolution of Clergy Association re Uni- ty with Church in Yugoslavia .............................. 1378 6/7/63 Letter of Dionisije to Brkich Removing Brkich as Episcopal Vicar ................:.0.sscsecssssees. 1382 7/15/63 Proclamation of Dionisije ................... 1383 Certificate of Incorporation of Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese Council (1927) .............0.......... 1394 Certificate of Incorporation of Illinois Religious ND CON elisstinscccisccenitennienintianntenieiniceniennsses 1399 Certificate of Incorporation of New York Relli- MIOUD COTPOTRTIGR (TDER) ..00cccoccecvesscsssccccsesczescossoes 1403 3/22/65 Decision of Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court re Non-followers of Dionisije .................... 1404 9/3/68 Letter of Dionisije to Attorney for Du- shan Shukletovich re Pension ...0................0..000-+5 1407 4/6/61 Letter of Dionisije to Doushan Shoule- SE GF I seetitceniseticsenicenectareninnssippinieninnnionss 1408 Vol. | — pp. 1 te 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 te 719; Vel. 11] — pp. 981 to 1388; Vel. IV — pp. 1398 te 1833 xiii PAGE PLAINTIFFS’ Exursit No. 106 6/6/63 Minutes of Diocesan Plenum re 5/10/63 8 | | eee 1409 108 1962 Articles of Incorporation of California Re- I 1418 109 2/11/64 Decision of Diocesan Court re Use of STITT ‘dithiandsiicuseviniesiicinintiiedinteiupieeitidieeelianl 1424 113A 11/4/63 Letter of Dionisije to Vladimir Mrvi- chin, Dismissing Mrvichin as Vicar .................... 1425 115 ~=—- 11/23/62 Minutes of Diocesan Execv* ve Board ..1426 117 6/30/62 Letter of Dionisije to Clergy re Church STUUEETT sicbsblicsitensdustuiaithlabbiasiniaauesettniatipiieairiinineainiataaiiadeteiedt 1439 120 5/30/63 Letter of Dionisije to Firmilian re 5/10/63 Decisions of Hierarchy .....0.00000.000.ceee 1440 121 1963 Letter of Firmilian to Uros Seferovie re IEE © ticiosiccuseceniaisaustdidentiatebilistiidstaalstigusbiiieaniae diateabbaaiell 1442 123A 6/29/63 Letter of Dionisije to Simeon Groz- danovich re Reception of Investigating Com- STITT sidsccansieseecntadeietiianialadiisebcasedauiatiiaisanadaeicadinacacusats 1443 126 6/13/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Firmilian ........ 1444 128 10/18/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Firmilian re Effect of Reorgamization .....................:ccccssssssseseees 1446 129 Certificate of Incorporation of Monastery I ia al 1447 130 2/4/24 Deed to Mardary 0000.0... eeeceeeeeeeeeeee 1450 131 11/9/27 Deed from Mardary to Diocese Council 1452 Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 11] — pp. 901 to 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833 xiv XV PAGE PAGE PLAINTIFFS’ DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS Exursit No. DEFENDANTS’ 132 9/4/41 Deed from Diocese Council to Illinois Exxisit No. Religious Corporation .....................scsscsscssnssensenses 1457 29 Confirmation of Dionisije as Bishop of Ameri- 136 = 4/12/45 Deed from Illinois Religious Corpora- can Diocese by King Peter ....0............s.sescssessecssees 1570 tion to Monastery Corporation .....000.....00...0000..... 1459 29C Confirmation of Dionisije as Viear Bishop by 150 4/22/69 Deed from Illinois Religious Corpora- SRE I asec csnssannscsnsceneeintermnscncinennattniorunei 1572 tion to Pennsylvania Religious Corp. ................ 1463 30 1913 Minutes of Serbian Orthodox Priests’ & 151A 7/24/63 Resolution of Diocesan Executive Com- OER COUPON anne ncenemensnscnseeeeenminin 1573 mittee re Actions of New Bishops. .................... 1466 31 1916 Minutes of Serbian Orthodox Priests’ 152 6/12/63 Letter of Diocesan Plenum to Clergy re RUE -ninevisnssnschishanstircsstanlietithioheniiceiiatenintenabmiensaietaa 1588 Chureh National Assembly ..........................00000+ 1474 39 1917 Release of Father Mardary by Synod ........ 1598 154 By-laws of Diocesan Pension Fund (effective 33 1917 Call to American Serbs to Organize as U/1/93) ....-ecsescessessesentencsessesnessnsennenneenssnseneenenecnnesnenes 1477 Independent Serbian Diocese .0.....0...0cccceeceeeeeeeee 1598 195A 1/24/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1482 35 1923 Notice to American Serbs of Mardary’s 197A 8/10/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1535 Election as Administrator ............0..cc.ccccsseccesseseeee 1600 217. = Testimony of Dionisije in Rumanian Episco- 36 1922 Letter to Mardary from Bishop Nikolaj pate v. Trut2d (1958) cccccccscceoccccccccncvesecessscssessscseccee 1544 re Duties as Administrator... 1601 223 4/15/57 Letter of Dionisije to Clergy re Suspen- 37 2/21/23 Minutes of Serbian-American Priests sion of Antonije Abramovich ................0....0.000000. 1556 I ici as 1602 2299 =: 11/14/63 Resolution of Dioeesan Council to 49 7/21/27 Call for Chureh National Assembly ....1605 Amend Diocesan Constitution .00000000000000000000cccc.e.. 1558 51 Portions of the 1928 Constitution of Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada ...00...0....cccccccccccccceeees 1607 61 11/27/62 Unsigned Charges against Dionisije ....1612 64 4/25/26 Order of King Appointing Mardary Bishop of American-Canadian Diocese .............. 1620 Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833 ° Vol, | — pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11! — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833 Ne xvi PAGE DEFENDANTS’ Exursit No. 77 101 115 116 142 145 145 149 150 151 6/25/38 Letter of Patriarchate to Diocesan Court re Release of Irinej as Administrator and Election of Damaskin as Bishop. .................--. 1622 6/23/36 Letter of Patriarchate to Diocesan Court re Appointment of Irine} as Administra- __ ene: scoialilattasacastiennepianetecedssansdiaubeaiaieiiiaadueiatiaiean 1623 Sept. 1960, Resolution of the IXth Diocesan Church-Peoples Assembly ................-:.2::2se:+ee0200000+ 1624 11/7/46 Decision of Holy Synod re Appeal of Nikola Drenovae from Diocesan Judgment. ...... 1626 11/7/46 Decision of Holy Synod re Appeal of Strahinja Maletich from Diocesan Judgment ....1629 5/3/50 Decision of Holy Synod re Appeal of Vojislav Gacinovich from Diocesan Judgment ..1632 8/16/62 Letter of Damaskin to Dionisije re Del- SII ssicicisescelictensdersosccctuisschisieiadeihasienndisatasaedeedaiiansliietaniiin 1634 4/20/62 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Meeting CB nen 1634 3/2/62 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Meet- ima Of Hloly Asean ..................- * ZIVAN STEFANOVIC testified as follows: Direct Examination. My name is Zivan Stefanovic and | am a Cleric of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I was born in Yugo- slavia on August 26, 1911 and I was ordained in 1934 in Skoplie, Yugoslavia. I attended High School in Uzice and Seminary in Bitolj. I graduated from high school in 1927. I entered Seminary in 1927 and grad- uated in 1932. I attended the Theological Faculty in Belgrade from 1938 till 1942. I graduated from the University of Law at Belgrade attending the university from 1946 till 1950. 1 was a professor for two years in the monastery Rakovica teaching ca- nonical law. After my ordination in 1934 I was work- ing with the church court of the diocese of Skapolje from 1934 until 1938. Then I was transferred to Belgrade’s church court where I stayed until the end of 1944. Then I was transferred to the High Church Court in 1944 and stayed there until February 27, 1965. I left Yugoslavia on March 9, 1965. The presi- dent of Belgrade’s Church Court is the Patriarch, first Gabriel, then Vicente and now German. My titles or position depend upon the years; in the first vears I was like a clerk assistant. The first three years of court service are preparatory. In 1937 I was given the examination required for posi- 4593 4595 4596 5497 407 tions of church court’s judges. I then became a per- manent service in the court. From June 1, 1938 till December 1944 I served with the Belgrade Diocese Court. I did not hold any title in connection with that service. From December 1944 until February 27, 1965 I served the High Church Court and the Holy Episcopal Synod from 1952 to February 27, 1965. (Defense Counsel notes that he is handing PX 68 B, the Serbian of the Church Constitution to the witness) The High Church Court is referred to in Article 71 to Article 81 of the Constitution. I was referent to the High Church Court. This position is mentioned in paragraph 72, sub paragraph V. (The interpreter states that in English it would be ‘‘C’’.) The duties of the referent in the High Church Court are various. At the present time the church hasn’t the financial means to keep a bigger number of Clerk in the High Chureh Court. As a result I had to prepare everything that was needed for bring- ing up the judgments from members of the High Church Court, 3 Bishops and two members of priest- ly rank. I was involved in the meetings dealing with reports of matrimonial nature and criminal matters on priests. The High Church Court made short de- cisions which I worked out and prepared in official form as is customary in the High Church Court. I had duties in connection with Holy Bishops Synod. I was the referent in the Holy Bishops Synod and editor of the official Serbian Church newspaper, Herald. I was referent from 1952 until 1965. During the times of Patriarch Gabriel and Vincente I was not present at the meetings of the Holy Synod. Be- ginning with the election of Patriarch German I participated in the meetings. In the Holy Synod the 4601 1602 41604 4606 4607 408 work is divided into legal, administrative, financial and schools. I was given the sphere of legal matters but I worked in others. My duties in the Diocese in Skoplje from 1934 to 1938 were in general preparatory procedure, par- ticipating with one of the members of the court in questioning witnesses, writing the minutes about their testimonies, reworking decisions which have to be sent to parties participating for the court, or call- ing upon witnesses who have to come before the court at a certain day. I also worked on subjects which were not purely church nature and which in- volved decisions on the basis of civil law. For mar- riage questions we had the church cordex under the title of marriage law of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In relationship between parents and chil- dren we had the state law. I brought the decisions, taking care of what the church requires and what the state laws prescribe. There is only one supreme church court in the Serbian Orthodox Church. For Bishops the consti- tution foresaw a separate court, the Holy Bishops Synod in the first degree and in the last degree the Holy Bishops Assembly. Two kinds of subjects are considered by the supreme court, one coming by official duty and the other by complaint. Article 79 of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church states the kind of eases considered by the supreme ecclesiastical court. The court does not consider any case in the first decree. It is the second degree court and all of its decisions are final; no one can appeal from these decisions. As referent of the supreme . church court T had to accept every subject, report it in the recording hook, study the content of the first 4608 4609 4611 4613 4615 4616 409 decision of the lower church court, the complaint and all the papers and documents. After that I had to investigate whether the judgment of the lower court violated some regulation of the constitution or the code of procedure. After that I wrote in written form in the shortest manner what the judgment con- tained, what the complaint contained, what the papers and documents contained, and I gave my recommendation to the members of the court for their decision. When several subjects had been pre- pared I informed the president of the court and he called meetings. (Discussion among counsel and the court that witness’s term ‘‘Complaint’’ means ** Appeal’’.) When the day arrives the president comes with four members, two of whom are bishops and two priests functioning as honorary members as is re- quired by article 72 of the constitution. When all the papers from the first degree diocese and court are read supreme court agrees on the judgment or nullifies it. If the judgment is nullified the reasons have to be given for nullification.. I kept two books of these meetings. The first served to write down the decision of the meeting and the second, which is worked after the meeting, to prepare the judgment as a whole for signature by the president and the members of the court. The judgments given to the parties were signed by the president and the refer- ent. I prepared the judgment order of the supreme court. After World War II I was a member of a legal! committee formed by the Holy Bishops Synod. I crossed the border in 1965. I was appointed to the committee by the synod. The name of the committee is the legal committee. 410 I was the editor of the Herald from 1955 to 1965 having been appointed by the Holy Synod. The Herald is an official journal of the Serbian Orthodox Church composed of two parts, the decisions of the Holy Assembly and the Synod and the decisions of the Diocesan Bishops and the second part, various articles from the cultural life of the Serbian Church of the Serbian People. It is known as the Herald or Glaznie. 4618 When I was a teacher at seminary I wrote a book on family law in which I handled matrimonial law, parental law, and guardian law. I taught church law and the Serbian language in the seminary. After reviewing the appeal I made a recommenda- tion to the court for its action. When a judgment 1620 of the diocesan church court is annulled the judg- ment of the supreme court quotes the law which was wrongly applied and instructs the diocesan court how their mistakes or errors are to be corrected by a new judgment. I composed the instructions to the dio- cesan court. 4621 Ihave examined PX 69A. I am familiar with the document. It’s the penal law of the Serbian Orthodox Church, consisting of two parts, one part up to ar- ticle 63 named material regulations of penal law and the second part, article 63 to the end of article 92, 4622 procedural law. This penal code was written in 1961. I am familiar with the customs, procedures and prac- tices followed by participant in matters being pro- cessed under the penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church. T am familiar with section 67 of the penal code. 4634 Article 70.35 of the constitution of Serbian Ortho- dox Church states that a Bishop is judged in the — nl ee Rh eye er ee Ne 411 first degree by the Holy Bishops Synod. In the sec- ond and last degree the Bishop is judged by the Holy Bishops Assembly. This is spoken of in article 69.27B. There is no appeal from a last degree judg- ment. In the penal code the judgment of Bishop is spoken of in article 63 which in the main repeats the regulations of the constitution. I will read the pro- vision of article 70 to which | just referred. Point 35 says it is understood that ‘‘Holy Bishop Synod Judges in the first instance a. Discord among the bishops, b. canonical offenses of Bishops, c. disci- plinary courts violation of its organs and judges 4636 their discords, d. in the last instance of disciplinary offenses, of the teachers person and personnel of religious schools and seminaries.’’ The assembly of bishops judges in the second in- stances and article 69.27 B states that the assembly judges all cases in which the Holy Bishops Synod in 4638 the first degree judged. | just read from exhibit 68B. 4639 In order that the thought would be in full I had to add that in the second and final instance judges all the cases in which the Holy Synod in the first in- 4641 stance judged. The Holy Assembly judges in the first and final instance, as spoken of in article 69.27A the discord among the Bishops and the Holy Bishops Synod or among the Bishops and the Patriarch, and canonical offenses of the Patriarch. 4642 Court of first instance must render a judgment or decision of the case under consideration. Article 4643 63 of the penal code requires the court of first in- stance to make a decision. This article refers to judgments by diocesan bishops, diocesan church courts, the supreme church court, the special church courts foreseen by article 70.35 and 69.27 of the Serbian Orthodox Church constitution. 4646 4647 4649 4650 4651 $652 $54 412 The Penal code indicates which court shall retain jurisdiction until process is concluded. Article 64 provides in part: ‘*The church court which was in jurisdiction for starting the procedure retains its jurisdiction up to the end of the procedure.’’ (Coun- sel for defendant reads this sentence from PX 69 the penal code, article 64 ‘*The ecclesiastical court which had competence to initiate the due process shall re- tain its competency until the process is coneluded.’’) All judgments which are brought by the Synod on canonical offenses of Diocesan Bishops are appealed to the Assembly according to article 67.27 which de- cides the case in the second and the final instance. Article 78 of the penal code concerns appeals from the decision of the Holy Synod. (Defense counsel quotes article 78 of PX 69 ‘‘Appeals against judg- — ment decrees of the Courts of the first instance are allowed to be made to the Court of the second in- stance except in those cases mentioned in article 108.19 and article 217.2 and article 69.27 of the con- stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church.’’ Article 77 and 124 of the Serbian Orthodox Church constitution and article 82.2 and 3 of the penal code prohibit certain members of the Holy Bishops Synod when acting as a Court from participating in the judgment of a particular case. The same articles apply to the Holy Assembly when acting as a Court. Defense counsel quotes article 77 of the constitution ‘¢\ member of great ecclesiastical court who is per- sonally interested or has participated in investiga- tion or as judged (the same) in a lower instance (court) cannot adjudicate that subject.’’ Article 124 is also read: ‘‘A member of the ecclesiastical court who is personally interested or one who has partici- pated in the investigation of the subject being adjndi- a ee ee eet ee ee a ee ene —_ 4659 4693 4694 4697 413 cated cannot take part in the judging.’’) (Defense counsel quotes article 82 of PX 69, the penal code: “The court of the second instance will annul the judgment decree of the court of the first instance: ... 2. If it was not properly and duly constituted and 3. If in the deliberations disqualified or bribed persons participated.’’) I am familiar with article 90 of the penal code which was in force and effeet during the year 1963. (Defense council reads article 90 ‘‘In those cases provided for in article 69.27 and article 70.35 of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the rights of the diocesan bishop as provided for by these statutes shall be assumed by the Holy Assem- bly of Bishops respectively, the Holy Synod of Bish- ops according to the regulations of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the regulations of these bodies for conducting business.’’ (Lengthy discussion continuing to page 4686 concerning trial dates is omitted.) (The Court states that the wit- ness is recognized by the court as an expert in the interpretation of the penal code) Article 65 of the penal code refers to the procedure prescribed for both monks and priests. The same pro- cedural rules apply to the prosecution of charges against the Bishop as are applied in the prosecution of charges against a monk or priest. I am familiar with the procedures and practices existing under the penal code during the years 1963 and 1964. In the penal code there are two kinds of offenses mentioned for the clergy. One is of a smaller nature and dos not go to the ecclesiastical court, being resolved by the bishop of that jurisdiction who punishes by warning or repremand. Article 56 also 4698 4700 $703 414 provides for lesser offenses penance for 15 days and suspension from service in the church for 30 days. For offenses of a more serious nature the bishop does not execute the power of the church court but the accusations are transferred to the ecclesiastical court which will, after due proceedings as found in the rules of procedure, pronounce its judgment. Arti- cle 57 of the penal code as well as articles 216 and 217 of the constitution refer to this. Article 55 of the penal code is identical with the provision of the con- stitution. .\ punishment imposed by a bishop is spoken of in article 56 of the penal code. The term used to deseribe a punishment imposed by a Bishop is ‘Disciplinary Punishment’’. This term is used in articles 44 and 56 of the penal code. It is also used in article 60 of the penal code. Article 56 of the penal code divides all offenses of priests and laymen into two categories. In the first category belongs a warning, reprimand, penance for 15 days and suspension from clerical duties for 30 days. These penalties are not pronounced by a church court but are pronounced by the Bishop. Article 56 of the code and article 217 of the constitution speak of this. The second category of offenses includes trans- fer to another place of service, suspension from cleri- eal duties for more than 30 days, loss of a place of service for those who are not parish priests, suspen- sion from clerical duties for life, defrockment, de- frockment with expulsion from church membership, expulsion from the order of monks. These are the punishments for the clerics. These things are recited in article 216 and 217 of the constitution and article 55 of the penal code. A Bishop does not handle mat- ee 415 4705 ters of a more serious nature but they are handled by 4708 4709 4710 the constitution and the penal code. When a report comes charging a criminal offense against a cleric, whether it is a bishop, a priest or a deacon, the organ, be it the bishop or the Holy Synod, because the Holy Synod executes the right of a Bishop according to article 90 of the penal code when a bishop is in question, makes a report either to the church prosecutor or it appoints another per- son which will investigate the citations and the re- port, collect all proofs, investigate the witnesses and all other facts and circumstances. The investiga- tor will return the whole case of materials with all of the facts collected to the organ which appointed him to conduct this investigation. When the documents arrive the jurisdictional organ determines whether the penalty is of a disciplinary kind or whether the transgression is of a more serious kind in which case all the documents with all the ma- terial of the investigation will be transferred to that court for further execution. When the court receives the case, all the documents are given to the court prosecutor and he writes the indictment on the basis of all the collected facts and documents. The indict- ment is then sent to the parties that are involved. If an answer comes or does not come the court sets a date for a hearing and invites the accused at which time the subject matter is resolved and a judgment is rendered. The court of the first instance sends the ease to the court of the second instance either by oficial duty or by appeal of the interested party. This generally describes the procedure which is con- ducted against clerics before the church court in the Serbian Orthodox Church. 4715 4716 4718 4722 416 By jurisdiction organ I mean the Bishop for priests and deacons. For bishops the jurisdictional organ is the Holy Synod, according to article 90 of the penal code. For a Patriarch the jurisdictional organ is the Holy Assembly of Bishops. This is also mentioned in article 90 of the penal code. The right of an accused to receive the complaints against him is to be found in the last part of article 67 of the penal code. In 1963 and 1964 there was a practice in the Serbian Orthodox Church with regard to providing copies of complaints against an accused under article 67. Each court has a duty to find the truth in a criminal case. Because of that, during the 30 years that I spent in court it has never happened that somebody was not allowed to receive a written complaint, if it existed, to which he could reply in writing. (Defense counsel quotes a portion of PX 14, appointing bishops Hirzostom and Visarion: The Holy Synod of Bishops at its meeting under the above mentioned date rendered this decision: relative to ‘the decision of the Holy Synod of Bishops . . . of May 10, 1963 by which proceedings were initiated against his Grace Bishop Dionisije of Midwestern American Diocese, the Holy Synod of Bishops au- thorizes their Graces Bishops Ilirzostom of Brani- chevo and Bishop Visarion of Banat to go to the U.S.A. and in accordance with article 67 and 90 of the regulations and procedure for ecclesiastical courts of the Serbian Orthodox Church (penal code) to con- duct proceedings, to investigate the matter, and to conduct necessary hearings of, the accused and wit- nesses, and te conduct a gathering of evidence, and to submit a report, with all relevant documents con- 4726 4727 417 cerning their findings, to the Holy Synod of Bishops for further competent proceedings.’’ Once a Diocesan Bishop, the Synod or the Assembly receive a complaint against one of their clergy they are obliged by article 67 of the penal code to investi- gate whether the transgression is of such character that they can solve it in their own particular juris- diction or whether they will give it to a particular person who will investigate the whole case and bring a report of his findings. Lf the case in question is one where the Diocesan Lishop appoints a special person to investigate, tlien that person calls the ac- cused, the witnesses and all other persons who may add to the understanding of the case in the locality where the Court is, or if that is impossible, then the investigator will go to the place where the accused and the witnesses live and perform the hearing of the accused and all of the witnesses. When this is accomplished, the investigator will return the whole case with all the documents to the organ which sent to him to perform the investigation. That organ should then decide whether the penalty should be a disciplinary one and then pronounce the judgment in its own jurisdiction or that the whole case, with all the documents, should be given to the Court and ap- point a person who will be the church prosecutor if that person is not a permanent officer. Under article 67 the investigator calls the accused and witnesses and sets up a date, place and time when they have to appear in front of him for a hearing. Then he calls the witnesses one by one. He asks each witness his name and surname, age, place where he lives, reminds him to speak the truth because his testimony will be sworn to. The witness will explain 4731 4732 4733 418 the whole case, what he saw, heard or experienced in connection with the accused and when he finishes his testimony the accused can then, through the investi- gator, request explanation about certain points, cer- tain things. After that the investigator will decide whether he accepts the remarks of the accused, that the hearing of the witness, the testimony of the wit- ness should be supplanted, changed, or stand. When the witness finishes his testimony the investigator will read to him what is written about his testimony and then call on him to come and sign the testimony. Then the witness will be sworn. If there are more witnesses, the oath is given to all witnesses together. After the witnesses complete their answers with re- gard to the accusation they sign their own testimony and the investigator calls the accused to speak in his own behalf if he has something to say. Investigator records the testimony of the accused and the accused signs his statement. When this is finished the in- vestigator, with the cross and holy gospel, gives the oath to the witnesses regarding their testimony. With that the minutes are finished and signed by the in- vestigator and the secretary who made the minutes. Unsigned complaints cannot even be given to an investigator. Article 65 of the penal code requires that they he rejected by the organ to whom the com- plaints are addressed. This article states ‘‘ Unsigned complaints in no way could be taken into considera- tion or procedure.”’ (Defense counsel hands the witness PX 17A) The constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the penal code have no provision or place which gives the right or the authority to the investigator or an investigating commission to do anything other than 419 conduct the hearing of the accused and the witnesses and collect proofs. The investigator has no right 4734 to issue any proclamation or to call the clergy and the people to partition themselves from the accused and not to obey an order of the accused. The investigator has no right to decide whether somebody is guilty or not but thet right belongs either to the organ that sent him to perform the investigation or to the court which should decide about the guilt of the accused. 4735 Article 68 of the penal code tells the investigator what to do with the report. 4736 There is a provision of the penal code which for- bids one cleric to insult or seandalize another cleric regardless of whether he does it on his own with that priest or whether he does it openly or publicly. 4737 This is article 39 of the penal code. Details are de- scribed in articles 40, 41, 42 and 43. Article 216.4 of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church provides for the removal of a bish- op from his diocese. Article 55 of the penal code also refers to this. I know of no case where a bishop was removed from a diocese in the Serbian Orthodox Church without his consent or agreement. The con- stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church provides that a bishop or clergyman can be transferred into another diocese or parisii only after a judgment of the church court. Article 217 so provides. A Bishop or clergyman can be transferred to another place of service or diocese upon his own request or with his permission. Article 217 of the constitution, as well 4739 as articles 216.4 of the constitution and 55.4 of the penal code speak about the removal of a diocesan bish- 4740 op. Article 111 of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church states that a diocesan bishop can 4742 4744 4746 420 be removed from the diocese by the Holy Assembly of Bishops only upon a canonical verdict. The Synod has to judge such a bishop as the court of the first instance for canonical offenses to find him guilty and then the Holy Assembly of Bishops can take the necessary steps to remove him from his diocese. Be- fore that is done, a decision cannot be brought by the Holy Assembly of Bishops or the Holy Synod. (Offer of proof begins.) I have an opinion whether or not the action of the assembly as reflected by PX 8A deposing Bishop Dionisije from his duties as a diocesan bishop was a punishment under the consti- tution and penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The investigating commission was irregu- larly sent to the Holy Assembly because the Holy Assembly did not send this commission to the United States. Commission was sent by the Synod and all of its recommendations should have been returned to the Synod and after the Synod made its judgment, the case would go to the Holy Assembly of Bishops to be resolved in the second instance. Only then if the bishop is punished for canonical offenses could the Holy Assembly discharge the Bishop from his Diocese. This is foreseen in article 216 of the consti- tution of the Serbian Orthodox Church in article 55.6 of the penal code. (Offer of proof is closed and the court refuses the offer.) In July 1963 articles 218 of the constitution and the third paragraph of article 67 of the penal code were in foree and effect. {Defense counsel reads article 218 of the constitution ‘‘No one can be pun- ished with any church penalty without prior hear- ing’’. Counsel also reads a portion of article 67 of the penal code ‘‘No one can be punished with any 4747 421 church penalty without prior hearing.’’ Counsel also reads a portion of article 67 of the penal code ‘‘No one can be punished by any church punishment with- out prior hearing.’’ Article 69 of the penal code dictates the contents 4749 of the indictment. Article 69.2 states that the indict- ment has to cite which court has jurisdiction of the 4750 case. The portion of PX 16A, the indictment, on the 4752 4753 4754 4755 4756 first page under ‘‘Authorize the Holy Bishops Sy- nod’’ is the paragraph which I have referred to that is required by article 69.2 of the penal code. (De- fense counsel reads a portion of the indictment: ‘‘I am finding: that the Holy Bishops Synod of the Ser- bian Orthodox Church in accordance with article 70.35b of by-laws of the Serbian Orthodox Church and article 63, rules and regulations for the ecclesias- tical court of the Serbian Orthodox Church, is au- thorized to judge in first instance in case of guilti- ness of Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich.’’) All offenses that are brought about in complaints may be charged in the indictment. Article 69.3 and 4 states that each criminal offense has to be described, citing the time, manner of commission, explanation of the criminal offense with the naming of the kind of offense as these criminal offenses are classified in article 114 of the constitution of the Serbian Or- thodox Church. Offenses are also described in articles 8 through 55 of the penal code. A bishop cannot be accused of any criminal offense which is not named in article 214 of the constitution or articles 8 to 55 of the penal code. My statement is based upon article 9, 214, 216 and 268 of the constitution and article 92 of the penal code. (Counsel quotes article 9 of the constitution ‘‘Church offenses and penalties are those which are prescribed by this constitution ac- 4757 4798 4761 - se. 4.0 4769. 4794 422 cording to the canons of the Orthodox Church.’’ And article 268: ‘‘When this constitution becomes effective, all laws, directives and other regulations cease to be valid which are contrary to this consti- tution.”’ Article 69.5 states that the indictment is obligated to precisely cite the proofs upon which it is based but does not speak anything about giving the proofs to the accused together with the indictment because it is considered that the accused must have been acquainted and received these documents, proofs, to answer them in writing as is provided in article 67, last paragraph. It is contemplated that the ac- cused would have received a copy of the complaint against him or a confrontation with the witnesses at the hearing held by the __stigating committee before the indictment was drafted. A complaint by a person who is dead would be con- sidered by the Court and included in the indictment under the condition that witnesses were cited for the statements and the accusation against the accused person. It is self evident that the witness has to testify about facts which he himself has seen, expe- rienced or gained knowledge in any other manner within his senses. The personal opinions of a witness about a certain event cannot be taken into evidence. (The court accepts the priest's previous two sen- tences as an offer of proof which is refused) (Counsel adds to the offer of proof as follows), When I spoke about the subjects of the testimony of witnesses I based my statements on the principle of the law and the judicial practice that the subject of testimony of any person ean only be what he saw or in any manner through his own experience. (The court re- fuses the offer of proof and it is closed) (Diseussion hetween court and counsel relative to production of certain documents.) 423 4794 The position of administrator of a diocese is men- 4797 4799 tioned in article 12 of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (Beginning of offer of proof) When a diocese is governed by an administrator no reorranization may take place. No important changes can be initiated according to article 12 (sic.) during administration of a diocese. A vacant diocese is gov- erned by an administrator appointed by the Holy Synod. Article 112 reads ‘‘Vacant diocese is gov- erned by an administrator who is appointed by Holy Synod. As long as the Bishop’s seat is vacant, there cannot be exercised any diocesan function which would effect diocesan organization nor can there be made any important changes in the matters which were initiated during the administration of the for- mer diocesan bishop.’’ (Offer of proof closed and refused) Article 71 of the penal code indicates the action the Holy Synod must take when acting as a court and arriving at its judgment or decision. (Counsel reads article 71 of penal code: ‘‘Upon receiving a reply to the indictment or should the court establish that it was not submitted within the legally appointed time, the court shall in a proper constituted meeting —always in secret session—study all documents and on the basis thereof, voting first in transgression and then on the punishment, decree the judgment. The punishment shall be proper and the judgment decree written up by a member of the court when the pre- siding officer may so designate.’’) Article 219 of the constitution requires the subject of canonical offenses have to be considered urgent and the church court is obliged to decide upon it within a year. (Counsel 4803- reads article 219: ‘‘ Matters of this kind must be con- 4805 sidered as urgent and a church court is obligated to 424 make a decision within the period of one year.’’) 4806- (Discussion between counsel, the Court, two interpre- 4820 4820 4822- 4824 4826 4827 4828 4831 ters and the witness to establish that the phrase in the penal code translated ‘‘disciplinary measures’’ may also be translated ‘‘disciplinary punishment’’ or ‘disciplinary penalty’’. This phrase is used in arti- cles 44, 56, 46, 38 and 60.) | find the expression ‘‘ private claim’’ in articles 43, 44 and 61 of the penal code. A complaint against a clergyman can be submitted by a layman or anyone else or the church prosecutor. When a layman is bringing a complaint against a clergyman it is termed a ‘‘private complaint’’. If the complaint is submitted by the church prosecutor then it is not called a private complaint but a complaint in accordance with official duty. Iam referring to article 61 of the penal code. (Beginning of offer of proof) The time limit for sub- mitting a private complaint is three months from the day when somebody received knowledge about the criminal offense and the one who committed it. Article 61 of the penal code, point 2 refers to this. A judicial authority may not accept a private complaint if it is made to him more than three months after the date of the transgression. (The court refuses the offer of proof) During the years 1963 and 64 I had occasion to be- come acquainted with the proceedings against Bishop Dionisije. The procedure began on May 10, 1963 before the Assembly and the Synod. I first became aware of the proceetings on May 10, 1963. I was employed in the Synod and the Assembly sent the whole case to the Synod. After the investigating com- mittee went to the United States all documents cov- ering the offenses of Bishop Dionisije were given to the Holy Synod. The Synod appointed the church prosecutor, Bishop Vasilije. At that time I received 4833 4834 4850 425 all the documents which arrived from the United States to look through them, analyze them, put them together in chronological order, make a list of the contents, bind them together, put the seal on them and give them to a person who took them to Bishop Vasilije. The next occasion that 1 had contact with the pro- ceedings was December 10, 1963. I was called by the Holy Synod to give an opinion as an expert about the requests of Bishop Dionisije for a copy of all accusations and for an extension of time to answer the indictment. I was present at that Synod meeting which was held in the Patriarchate. Patriarch Ger- man, members of the Holy Synod, Bishop Emilijan, Bishop Valerijan, Bishop Vladislav, and Bishop Pavle were present. Also present was the professor of the theological faculty, Dr. Gardasevich, myself and a secretary, Very Reverend Mladenovich. The professor and | were called to give an expert opinion concerning the offenses of Bishop Dionisije. There was another professor invited to attend but he did not show up. Bishop Visarion also attended the De- cember 10 meeting. There are minutes of the December 10, 1963 meet- ing and the names of the persons present and the conversation are recorded in them. Patriarch Ger- man opened the meeting and said to Professor Gardas- evich and I that we are invited to give our expert opinion on the subject of Bishop Dionisije. The first question His Holiness said is as to which regulations we should follow in connection with Bishop Dionisije. I said that it is difficult now to correct the method used because the indictment of the church prosecutors sub- mitted in October used the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, penal code and the holy canons. 4852 4853 4854 4855 426 The accused has already received the indictment and requested that he receive copies of all complaints and proofs. At this time Bishop Visarion mixed into the conversation and his participation was stopped by the oldest member of the Synod, Bishop Emilijan who told him that experts had been invited to give their opinion and that Bishop Visarion was not in- vited and he should not mix in the matter. Bishop Visarion then left the meeting because he was not a member of the Synod and had not been invited to be present at the meeting. Dr. Gardasevich and I con- tinued to speak and when the conversation on the first question was ended the professor left. The second question was whether Bishop Dionisije should be given copies of the proofs. This question in discus- sion lasted the rest of the afternoon until 7:30 in the evening. I expressed my opinion that the written complaints should be given to Bishop Dionisije. The Patriarch did not agree with this. I cited text and read to the members the practice in previous years. There had never been a case when somebody was not given the right to analyze the documents and take copies of them. 4856 Patriarch German did not agree with my remarks 4857 and | answered to him that I was not there for politics but only to give my expert opinion on how I had been working on these matters and how it had been done for 30 years. Point 3, the request for an extension of time, was then discussed. A Bishop said that the prayer of Bishop Dionisije should be accepted in as much to give him one month more time, not six months. Patriarch German suggested the meeting be postponed to tomorrow to decide the question of send- ing copies of written proofs. Bishop Emilijan did not agree and stated that he had to return to his SSS oan 4858 4861 4862 4863 4868 427 diocese. At that moment a servant of His Holiness came into the room and said that there was a call from the Commission for Religious affairs and Father Miadenovich answered the phone. When he came back he said that His Holiness and members of the Synod were called by the President of the Commission for Religious Affairs for a meeting and dinner. Then news was brought that Metropolitan Arsenije had died. Bishop said they could not go to the meeting and dinner with the president of the Commission of Religious Affairs because of the death of Metropolitan Arsenije. After that a decision was reached to reject Bishop Dionisije’s request to send him copies of the complaints and proofs. Following the Synod meeting of December 10, 1963 I next came in contact with proceedings against Bishop Dionisije when Bishop Hrizostom on March 4 brought me the disposition of the judgment by which Bishop Dionisije was defrocked from his episcopal rank. He told me that the assembly had appointed a committee to compile the judgment. He told me that the Assembly of Bishops had ordered me to add to the judgment.the judicial explanations. At that time he handed me the whole case, with the indictment, which I should use during my technical formation of the judgment. I drafted the judgment and took it to a meeting of the Holy Synod where it was read and accepted. After that it was given to a person who took it to all the dioceses for the signature of the Bishops. I have an opinion as to whether the alleged transfer of Bishop Dionisije from the American Canadian Diocese to the Middle Western American Diocese was in accordance with the rules and regulations, customs and traditions and constitution and penal code of the SS 4869 4870 4871 4872 428 Serbian Orthodox Church. According to the regula- tions of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church and penal code the Holy Assembly could not transfer Bishop Dionisije to a newly created diocese nor divide the diocese into three newly created dio- ceses. Transfer, as spoken of in article 216.4 of the constitution cannot be pronounced without a previous hearing of Bishop Dionisije, the conduct of a whole investigating process and a judgment brought by the jurisdictional organ, in this case the Holy Synod. This is spelled out in article 217 of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Only after the Synod had collected evidence, proofs, conducted an investigation, and brought a judgment which has to be approved by the Holy Assembly of Bishops could Bishop Dionisije be transferred to another diocese. I have an opinion whether the deposition of Bishop Dionisije in July 1963 was conducted in accordance with the rules, regulations, customs, traditions, con- stitution and penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Holy Assembly could not depose Bishop Dionisije from his diocese before the Holy Synod brought a final judgment that his transgressions were proven and that he is to be punished by deposition from his diocese. It is the general practice in the Serbian Orthodox Church that a person cannot be removed from his position until the investigation and judgment are complete. Punishment by deposition from a diocese or parish is not a light punishment, as is reprimand, warning or penance for 15 days, but this is a punishment which can be pronounced only by the court in accordance with article 217 of the con- stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The juris- dictional court is provided by article 70.35 of the constitution. I have an opinion whether the alleged defrockment of Bishop Dionisije by the assembly in March, 1964 4873 4874 4875 429 was in accordance with the rules, regulations, customs, traditions, constitution and penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Hoiy Assembly of Bishops acted as Court of the first instance and it was not entitled to do so according to article 70.37b. The court of the first instance is the Holy Synod of Bish- ops. Because this procedure violated the provisions of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church Bishop Dionisije was not given the opportunity to appeal this judgment. There is no court of the third instance. Until the 17th century there existed a pro- cedure called ‘‘Inquisitional Procedure’’ which ad- judged only in one instance. After the 17th century and in the Serbian Church from the time it was organized, the procedure was always in two stages, one court adjudged in the first instance and the sec- ond court judged in the second and last instance. These two steps are provided by the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church and in the case of judg- ing bishops for canonical offenses the Holy Synod should judge as court of the first instance and the Holy Assembly as court of the second instance. The Holy Assembly has returned to the olden times of the ‘*Inquisitional Procedure’’ in this case. I have an opinion whether the investigative pro- cedures before trial by the Assembly of Bishops con- ducted in the case of Bishop Dionisije were conducted in accordance with the rules, regulations, practices, customs, constitution and penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The procedural process for the transgressions of Bishop Dionisije was not in con- formity with the principles of the law of procedure because the investigative procedure did not complete what it was supposed to complete. The commission was sent to perform the hearing of Bishop Dionisije, Nee eee ee aaa... 4876 4877 4888 4290 4891 4893 430 have a hearing of witnesses and collect proofs and it did not complete this task. The submissions were taken as testimouy when in fact these complaints had to be proved. The prosecutors appeared in the position of witnesses although they had never heard the witnesses. The testimony was never sworn to. Because of this there was no proof in the case when the judgment was brought. Without a hearing and testimony under oath nobody's testimony ean be ac- cepted as proof. Secondly, Bishop Dionisije did not receive the proofs which the church court has used describing his transgressions and offenses and upon which the judgment was rendered. He was not given the opportunity to answer in writing all these ac- cusations. The penal code has heen in effect since 1961. The practices under the penal code which I have testified were followed from 1961 up until 1965 when T left. The practices about which I testified were foilowed prior to 1961. Prior to 1961 there was no penal code but there was a constitution in which canonical of- fenses were regulated and by which clergymen were judged. T have examined PX 21A and it is the judgement which T referred to earlier in my testimony. The penal code, Article 82.5, requires that the judgment he hased upon the indictment against the accused. PX16A is the onlv indictment that was ever given to me. There were amendments to that indictment. Bishop Vasilije made an oral request wherein he sought that the indictment against Bishon Dionisije he extended for his offenses coneerning the holding of the church National Assembly November 14. and 15, 1963. The amendment T have inst referred to is spoken of in the judgment. PX21A it is under VI, 4896 4897 4898 4901 4902 431 page 10 of the judgment which I have. It is also mentioned under part 8 of the judgment. I have an opinion as to the legal effect of the failure by the prosecutor to forward to Bishop Dionisije amendments to the indictment before judgment. When the Holy Synod transmitted to the church court prose- cutor the joint report of Bishops Stefan, Firmilian and Gregory of November 25, 1963 concerning the Sabor held November 13, 1963, and that report con- tains the most serious offense of Bishop Dionisije, the church prosecutor should not have submitted it to the assembly as an amendment to the indictment before he transmitted it to Bishop Dionisije for reply or not to reply. This document could not have been taken into account by the Holy Assembly, even if it were competent to judge Bishop Dionisije in the first in- stance, because the prosecutor did not proceed in the prescribed manner. (Counsel reads a portion of Article 82 of the Penal Code: ‘*The Court of the second instance will annu! the judgment decree of the Court of the first instance: (5) if the ruling in the judgment is in contradiction with the opinion, or if the opinion is in contradiction with the judicial documents upon which it is based.) I did examine the complaints and enclosures to the indictment at the time they were sent to the prose- eutor and after the judgment. PX16A is the indict- ment to which I referred. The indictment included un- signed complaints and enclosures. It also included newspaper articles. Article 65 of the Penal Code concerns unsigned complaints. (Counsel quotes Arti- cle 65 ‘‘Unsigned submission shall not in any case be taken into consideration or process.’’ I speak the Serbian lancuage. I have studied Latin, Greek, Russian, Czechoslovakian, French and Hebrew, SE ee 4903 4904 4906 4907 4908 432 I do not speak these languages. I did not have a passport to leave Yugoslavia. I have a document to the effect that the government authorities refused to give me a legal passport so I crossed the border illegally. Cross Examination. I have the document to which I just referred in my possession. (Counsel marks that document PX165. The interpreter translates the letterhead ‘‘The Peo- ples Republic of Serbia, The Peoples Committee for the City of Belgrade, Secretariat for Internal Affairs, Department for the Service of Crossing Borders and for Foreigners.’’) The Serbian Orthodox Church is episcopal with a rank of Patriarchate. It is chureh hierarchal and church self governing. One orthodox church can be in union with other orthodox churches but need not be. There exist exiled orthodox churches, as the Rus- sian Church in exile which came inte existence after the revolution in Russia in 1917. Other churches are the Macedonian Church which has no communion with any canonical orthodox church until recently. Un- til recently the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Here in America there exists some church of a Leontvne which does not have a spiritual or canonical union with the Patriarchate of Moscow. There also exists a Polish church which is recognized directly by the Ecumenical Patriarchate but which the Russians do not recognize. Perhaps there are other churches but I have not particularly concerned myself with that question. I have studied the history of orthodox churches but I have never concerned myself particularly with that field. This was when I studied at the theological faculty and graduated October 10, 1942. The subjects 4909 433 there were divided into groups, one group belonging to the scriptures, another group to apostolic historical and legal. We studied and passed examinations in these subjects. The autocephalous orthodox churches in the world include the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constanti- nople, that of Alexandria, of Jerusalem, of Antioch, the Russian, the Serbian, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Polish. 4910 There are some in Czecholovakia and Albania. These 4911 4912 are small churches. The Greek Orthodox Church ex- ists but it has the rank of archbishopry and it is in community with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchate of Constantinople give the Greek church a certain autocephalous antonomous status with the rank of archbishopry, not of Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church in exile is scattered throughdut the world. The See of that church de- pends on which group is involved. The group of An- astasia which came from Yugoslavia is in New York. When I was in France there were three or four groups of Russian churches in exile. None of them recognize the Patriarch of Moscow. There is also Polish church in exile which are called Gregories and there are other Russian churches of which I do not interest myself. The Russian church in exile, that of Antonia and that of Anastasia and that of Leontyne are auto- cephalous churches because the Rusians had three or four bishops and any chureh which has that number of bishops and if the people and clergy wish it, can proclaim themselves autocephalous. The only ques- tion posed then is whether other autocephalous churches recognize them but that doesn’t bother them in existence and working. There need not be three 4913 or more dioceses. All bishops do not have to have 4914 4915 4916 4917 4918 4919 $921 1922 434 dioceses. The minimum number of dioceses is no- where mentioned but the minimum number of bishops is. The minimum number of bishops was rendered from the year 325, that is the beginning of the 4th Century, until the 9th Century. I am referring to the apostolic canons and the canons of the Ecumenical Council. This minimum is not mentioned in the Con- stitution or in any code. These apostolic rules and rules of the Councils are accepted by the Serbian Orthodox Church. I was a student of a great Russian canonist who taught canon law. I have mentioned in the United States a Leontyne Church. This is a church which is tied to the name of a person. The Serbian Orthodox church is tied to the person of St. Sava. Our church is called the Serbian Orthodox Church of St. Sava. While I was in Belgrade Patriarch German asked the Russian Patriarch to cut all ties with Bishop Dionisije. The Russian Patriarch replied that he agrees to this but asked the Serbian Patriarch to give instructions to cut all canonical ties with all Russian exile churches. I wrote an article about this in a Serbian newspaper. I was referring to all Russian Churches here in America who do not reeognize the Communist au- thority and Communist Patriarch in Russia. I wrote my article after my arrival in the United States in December 31, 1965. I wrote the article in 1966 or 1967. I do not have the article here. Prior to 1963 it wasn’t important whether Bishop Dionisije reeognized any of the church groups in exile. Bishop Dionisije was in communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church and if the Serbian Orthodox Church held a unity with those churches then the mat- ter was in order without regard to the stand of Bishop 4925 4926 4943 4944 4951 4952 4958 4960 4962 4963 435 Dionisije. The Russian Orthodox Church in exile in America, the group of Anastasia and Antonia was helped by the Serbian Orthodox Church after the Rus- sian revolution. Similarly, the Serbian Orthodox Church organized a church in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary and kept that jurisdiction up until 1946 when those churches were taken from the jurisdiction of the Serbian church by the Russian church. (Begin offer of proof) I do not know whether Bishop Dionisije recognizes the Russian Orthodox Church headed by Metropolitan Leonty at the present time. I don’t know whether the diocese does either. (Offer of proof is refused) In 1952 I was given the clerical rank of deacon. I was ordained by Metropolitan Josif as deacon. My highest clerical rank before leaving Yugoslavia was Proto deacon. In August 1965 I received the rank priest in Dusildorf, Germany. Bishop Dionisije ordained me. Since that time I have paid allegiance to him. I do not understand what counsel means when he asks me have I paid allegiance to the Holy As- sembly of Bishops. I have reeeived no edicts or pronouncements from the Holy Assembly of Bishops and have no need either to acknowledge them or not acknowledge them. Orders and decrees are usually sent through confident jurisdictional channels. My bishop has never transmitted to me any order and called upon me to carry them out. He is not obliged even to do so because the canons forbid communica- tion with a person which came to an authority sup- ported by the state Communist authorities. The Glaznik is a newspaper and official organ of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The first part of the section of the Glaznik has official announcements of 436 the Holy Assembly, Holy Synod, Patriarchal Council, Patriarchal Executive Board, Church Court and in general all church bodies. The second section contains various articles published about theology, cultural history and philosophy. I was editor of the Glaznik for ten years, 1955 to 1965. PX 166 looks like an issue of the Glaznik. Issues are disseminated in this country. I was a deacon in the Metropolia of Skoplje. I left that diocese in 1938 to go to Belgrade. Then I com- menced duties as clerk with the diocesan court in Belgrade, I served in that position until 1944. I became a Referent during the time of Patriarch Vikentije. There is a difference between a clerkship and a Referentship. Postition of Referent was estab- lished only by the new Constitution of 1947. Metropolitan Arsenje was secretary of the great ehurch court. He was a priest at the time, not a bishop. He was succeeded by Protopresbyter Licinich ; the Constitution no longer provides for a secretary of the court. The minutes of the deliberations the high church eourt are signed by the President and all members and by the reverend. They hear a seal and they are sent to the parties. T am the keeper of the seal. The seal is placed between the signatures of the President and the reverend. The document is sealed after the President signs it. Father Mladenovich was the su- preme secretary. In the Synod there are other secre- tarial positions. There is also the position of rever- ent, a position immediately helow that of the Sn- preme Secretary. I don’t recall when Father Mlad- 437 4973 last parish was Bellwood which I left June 1, 1968. I was appointed to another position by Bishop Dion- 4974 isije. I don’t know Bishop Dionisije’s personal mo- 4976 tives for assigning me to another position. I did not 4977 receive PX 168. I have never seen the original of PX 167. This copy should have a seal. I have never 4978 seen the original or a copy of PX 168. I was ac- companied by Vera Milinovich or Mustur, her name before her divorce, when I left Yugoslavia. I don’t 4979 know if she was the wife of Dushan Mustur when she left Yugoslavia. Her husband did not leave Yugoslavia with her. I don’t know her children. I 4980 did not know that she had children. I knew her for about a year or two before I left Yugoslavia. I went 4983 to Italy, France, Germany, Canada and America. 4984 Vera Mustur accompanied me. The time I left Yugoslavia I was married and had a son 30 and a daughter 26. After my divorce and Vera Mustur’s 4985 divorce we got married in a civil ceremony in Chi- cago. At the time I married her I was a priest ordained by Bishop Dionisije and the parish priest of the congregation in Bellwood. 4990 Procerdings for my defrockment were instituted. 4991 A Dushan Mustur initiated proceedings before the 4992 civil court. I received a Complaint. I was also 4993 charged because I came to the group of Bishop Dion- isije. I replied to the complaint and contested the competency of the jurisdiction in Yugoslavia because I was no longer in that diocese. I don’t know wheth- er a judgment of defrockment was entered. I have 4994 never received a decree nor an invitation to write anything on it. I could have received the charges enovich hecame secretary. in 1968. 4972 T reside at 901 Lake Street, Oak Park, Tllinois. I am not now assigned to any parish. My first and Se OE me Re te le eet 438 4997 Up until 1946 the church courts handled all divorce cases because all marriages were church marriages. From May 8, 1946 the state law regulating marriages was promulgated. That law obligates the entering of marriages before civil organs and divorces before the civil courts. Church marriages are not recog- 4999 nized by the state. I did not attend the December 10, 1963 Synod meeting as Referent. 5085 RIGHT REV. BISHOP DIONISIJE MILIVOJE- VICH, testified: Direct Examination. My name is Rt. Rev. Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich 5086 and I was born July 26, 1898 in Serbia. I finished four years of education in my village and then finished gymnasium in Kragujevae. At that time Serbia was an independent state and later in 1918 it became a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Kroats and Slovens until 1929 when the state became Yugoslavia. When 5087 I was born King Peter I was king. King Peter II is the grandson of Peter I and he is living in exile. After gymnasium I studied law for three vears in the University of Belgrade. Then I transferred to the theological university for four vears. Then I took a course for teaching and T became a preparing 5088 professor at the gymnasium at Kragujevae for two vears. TI taught religion. Then my wife died and I resigned. T taught at a teachers school and a gym- 5089 nasium in 1925 and 1926. My students were study- ine to he teachers in the public schools. T taught religion, geography, philosophy, logic and methodies. 5090 T was married at the end of 1924. T had just become a professor at the gymnasium. My wife se 439 became sick and she died after six months of tuber- 5091 culosis. I renounced my teaching position and went to Athens to become a monk. I went to Monestary Sava, where I received my monastic name of Dionisi- je. I took three vows to become a monk. I gave 5092 vows not to get married again, to obey the orders of the church and holy canons and a third vow of poverty. I was released from the vow of poverty 5093 when I became a bishop. I stayed in Mount Athens a couple of months and then returned to the Kingdom of Serbs, Kroats and Slovens in 1927. I was sick of tuberculosis at that time. I went to a monastery recommended by Bishop Nicholi and became Abbott of the Monastery of Dracha for two years. I super- 5094 vised the monastery and the monks. I had 15 monks and novices. In 1929 Patriarch Demetrius called me to be professor at a monks school in the Monastery of Rakovica near Belgrade. For two years I super- 5095 vised the monks and gave them lessons in religion and canon law. In 1931 I was selected by the Patriarch to go to Constantinople to the academy of Halko. I learned the Greek language and made a study of the Greek Orthodox Church. I also studied Greek 5096 philosophy and history. I studied apologetics, the science of defending Christian teaching from Roman philosophy. After this study I went to Yugoslavia where I became professor of the seminary at Sremski 5097 Krlovic. I was professor for two years and taught apologetics, philosophy, religion, canon law and at that time I gave my examination for a masters de- gree from Belgrade University. My thesis was the Anglican Church under the rule of Henry VII]. A masters degree covered philosophy, religion and so on. The examination is given before a state commis- sion for anyone who wants to be a professor. 5098 2099 5100 9101 5102 9106 5107 5108 5109 5115 44) Then Patriarch Varnavas sent me in 1933 to be director of the Monastic School in the Monastery of Visoki Dechani where I stayed for five years. I gov- erned the school, had 90 students and taught religion, logic, philosophy, apologetics, Bible stories, and can- on law. In 1938 I was elected Vicar Bishop. The examination I took was written and oral and lasted one week. It was a state rule for the examina- tion for professors. This examination covered gen- eral history and history of the Serbian people, philos- ophy, apologetics, political lessons and so on. I also answered questions regarding canon law. In 1933 when I passed this examination I received recognition as a regular professor in every school in Yugoslavia except the University. When I became Vicar Bishop I was Patriarch Gabriel’s assistant and I had no diocese. I was Vicar Bishop for two years and in the spring of 1940 was appointed by the Royal Deputies to he Bishop of America and Canada. King Peter II was fifteen or sixteen vears old and the Royal Deputies made the appointment. I was approved by the Royal Deputies and had a decree from them appointing me Vicar of Patriarch Gabriel. Confirmation of election of a bishop or patriarch belonged to the king so the Royal Deputies had to confirm and issue a decree that I was a bishop. DX 29 and 29A is the document I aim referring to. It came from the government. The document is signed by Prince Paul who is related to King Peter. Under the Constitution the Roval Deputies ruled until King Peter became of age. DX 29 is a copy of the document that I received confirming my appointment as a bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I received no other documents indicating that OT ae es ne OE a a Teer | 5117 0118 3120 9123 0124 5128 5129 441 I had been appointed a bishop. i would have to look in my archives to see if I still have the original. The original might be in Belgrade. I recall seeing the original but I will have to look to see if I have it. I came to the United States April 15, 1940 bringing with me a secretary, Rev. Firmilian, Rev. Dazgich, and Rev. Balach. A layman who is presently a priest in Detroit also accompanied me. Nicholi Dazgich is the same man who testilied in this case and served as an interpreter. Demetri Balach is Bishop of Aus- tralia at the present time. | first met Bishop Firmi- lian in Belgrade. [| met him in the Patriarchate when he came from Montenegro from the seminary where he had been released as professor by Patriarch Gabriel. At that time I was Vicar Bishop to the Patriarch. Metropolitan Joseph was present at the time I had a conversation with Bishop Firmilian. I told Firmilian that Patriarch Gabriel would not ac- cept him in his diocese and Metropolitan Joseph said he would accept him in his diocese. I saw the docu- ments presented to Patriarch Gabriel by the Ec- clesiastical Court and | know of my own personal knowledge the reasons why Firmilian was released from the seminary in Montenegro. I presided over the Ecclesiastical Court at that time. Bishop Firmi- lian was involved in a court proceeding. An employee of the National Bank of Yugoslavia came to the court to present charges against his wife and pictures and letters. These pictures showed his wife and Rev. Firmilian together somewhere in the Adriatic Sea and letters showed that he promised to marry her if she left her husband and two children. I took these to Patriarch Gabrie! and he looked at the documents and sent a telegram to the supervisor of the theologi- 442 cal seminary in Montenegro to release Firmilian im- mediately and told me to proceed before the Ec- clesiastical Court. 5133 I traveled by trains and by boat. I took a train from Belgrade to Venice, Italy. Rev. Firmilian did not get on the train with me at Belgrade. I had a 5134 conversation with Firmilian and Metropolitan Joseph in either my office or Metropolitan Joseph’s office. The subject was how I could have a secretary for the 5135 diocese. Metropolitan Joseph saw Patriarch Gabriel and got his permission for me to take Firmilian as my secretary to the United States. I had a con- versation with Firmilian about leaving. The woman who lost her husband and children was chasing him all around and he was afraid to board the train at 5136 Belgrade. Firmilian said he was afraid of this woman who lost her marriage on account of him and the Ecclesiastical Court and he said he would board 5139 at Searapazova an hour and a half from Belgrade. I did board this train several days after my con- 5140 versation with Firmilian. Only Mr. Mijatovich hoarded the train with me in Beigrade. I had seen 5141 this woman two or three times in my office. When 5143 Bishop Firmilian hoarded the train I was in my euber, the second class on the train. I saw him com- ing from the station and I saw the woman get off the train and sav ‘‘Do you mean to zo without me.’’ She bent her hands around his neck and pulled him to her hetween her and her brother-in-law in her com- 5144 partment. I started looking for a policeman on the 5145 train. In Rishon Firmilian’s presence TI spoke with this woman and told her that 7 was on an official mission to America. She said that Firmilian had promised to be with her and he would not go anvy- where without her. Firmilian did not say anythinc. 443 Then we found a policeman and he searched the man, 5146 the brother-in-law and found a gun in his pocket. The policeman put the man off the train at the next station and the woman stayed. I recognized this woman because I had seen her in Belgrade in my 5147 office looking for Stanko, Rev. Firmilian. This is the woman whose husband sued her for divorce and she 5148 lost the case. The letters were written to her in 5149 Bishop Firmilian’s handwriting. The decision of the Ecclesiastical Court was that the lady lost the case and that Rev. Firmilian caused her infidelity to her 5153 husband. There were children. (Offer of proof) I recall what Bishop Firmilian said to this woman in the letters that I saw. He said that he would marry her because he was a widower. (Offer is closed and refused) 5154 I got a conductor who took Firmilian to another room and then put the lady off the train. I showed him my diplomatic passport. The woman stated that 5156 she would find him anywhere he went. PX 28 is the 5158 diplomatic passport that I had. (Court states that the incident concerning Bishop Firmilian in 1939 is so remote in time that it lacks probative value and therefore the Court strikes the entire testimony in- volving the wife and the man and the rest of the 5159 incident. Defense counsel requests that testimony re- main as an offer of proof.) 5162 The court refuses the offer of proof. In 1915 and ’16 I served as a volunteer in the Serbian Army until I was imprisoned in a German 5163 camp. I was a private. I was shot through the legs with a dum-dum bullet. I came to the United States April 15, 1940. After landing in New York I went to Washington to appear 5164 5169 5166 5170 5174 5175 444 before the Ambassador of our country. 1 remember coming to Chicago and holding service in the church on Schiller Street. There was a Diocesan Council meeting in the small hall of our church on Schiller Street. The meeting took place about a month after " came to the United States. DX 30A is minutes of the first convention of the Serbian Orthodox priests and people in America in 1913. I found this book in the archives of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese. It has been under my supervision since I became bishop in 1940. PX 30 is a true and correct translation of PX 30A, the Serbian minutes. The entire minutes of the meeting have been translated. PX 31A is the minutes of the North American-Ser- bian Orthodox priests assembly held in Chicago Octo- ber 5, 1960 which were produced from our archives at counsel’s request. We have an archives where all the documents in the diocese are kept. It is located 7 in our monastery under my supervision. Since April 15, 1940 I have been the keeper of those archives. DX 31 is a true and correct English translation of 31.\. I obtained DX 32A from the archives. DX 32 is a true and correct English translation. DX 33A, 1917 appointment by Russian Bishop Alexander of Father Mardary is dated October 23, 1917. It is in Russian and Serbian. I read and speak Russian, Greek fluently and a little bit of French and German. The translation is correct. I found DX 34A in the archives. 34 is a correct translation. I found DX 35A in the archives of the diocese. 35 is a correct translation. DX 326A was in the archives and 36 is a true and correct translation. I found DX 38A in the archives OSES. SCS ERNE. 6 ete 0188 o1s89 0216 o217 5219 5220 445 and 38 is a correct translation. 38A is in Russian. I found DX 389A in the archives and 39 is a true and correct translation. DX 40A was in the archives and it is in English. DX 41A, dated April 9, 1924 was found in the archives and DX 41 is a true and correct English translation. DX 29B is the original contirmation of my election of Vicar Bishop. 29C is a true and correct English translation. DX 45A is the original official paper of the Serbian Orthodox Church dated January 18, 1940. DX 45 is a true and correct English transla- tion. DX 42.\ is a document found in the archives and 42 is a true and correct translation. UX 43A was found in the archives and 43 is a true and correct English translation. DX 44A was in the archives and 44 is a correct English translation. DX 45 is a true and correct English translation of DX 45B a copy of the Serbian Church organ of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of America, pages 3 and 4. DX 46 is an English translation of DX 46A the docu- ment found among the archives of the diocese. DX 47 is an English translation of DX 47A, minutes of the Diocesan Council meeting June 5, 1927. DX 49A is a letter by Archimandrite Mardary ealling for an assembly in September 1927. He was a bishop then. DX 51 is a true and correct transla- tion of DX 51A. I found DX 37A among the archives of the diocese. It is the minutes of the priests con- ference February 21, 1923. DX 37 is a correct Eng- lish translation. DX 50 was found in the archives and it is an English translation of DX 50A. DX 52A is the reply of the Assembly approving the Constitution of the diocese and DX 52 is a true and correct English translation. I found DX 53A in . the archives and 53 is a true and correct translation. 0229 0230 vld2 024s 5246 446 I found DX 54A in the archives and 54 is an English translation. DX 55 was published by the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada in 1953 when I| was the bishop. It was prepared under my direction and supervision by a committee which included Bishop Firmilian, Rev. Burkich and Rev. Balach. The book was prepared by the editorial committee from docu- ments of the diocese and documents from parishes in the diocese, Cross Examination. I became a priest in 1926. 1 was selected by the Brotherhood of the Monastery of Hilenvarion in Mount Athnos and they sent me to Bishop Nicholi to ordain me as deacon and as priest. Bishop Nicholi was a bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Bishop Nicholi was elected by the Holy Bishops Synod and confirmed by King Alexander of the government of the Kingdom and Serbs Slovenes and Kroats. This election was by the Holy Bishops Assembly and con- lirmation by the government. When appointed a bish- op I did not receive a grammata by the Assembly or the Synod. | was elected a Vicar Bishop in Septem- ber or November 1938. Article 100 of the 1931 Ser- hian Urthodox Church Constitution provides that the Patriarch issues a grammata signed by the members of the Holy Synod to newly elected bishops. I did not receive a grammata from the Patriarch of the Holy Synod; I received a grammata from the govern- ment of Yugoslavia. When I first arrived in America I found DX 30A in the archives. At that time it had the note that pages 17 through 38 were missing. I don’t know where the O273 5276 447 pages are. The reference ‘‘they are lost’’ refers to pages which are missing and | do not know where to find them. 1 don’t know who prepared the transla- tion to DX 3s. | was personally acquainted with sev- eral of the people mentioned on page 1 of DX 38. Ail of the laymen therein mentioned are dead. Pages 17 to 38 are biank pages. Something is missing in the sense that the pages are blank. I believe the minutes are true and accurate. The persons listed on page 3 of DX 51 are all dead. 1 wasn’t in America when the minutes were prepared. Bishop Alexander of the Russian Church prepared DX 33A. I spoke with the Russian bishops in New York and they told me that Bishop Alexander prepared it. Mr. Charles Cook prepared the English translation in 1942 or ’43. I directed him to underline the portions which are underlined. The secretary of the Ecclesiastical Court prepared DX 34. He prepared DX 34A and 34. He prepared the original in March 5, 1923. DX 34 is either the original document or a photostated copy that | found in the archives. The reference number 7 reters to the book kept by the secretary, Rev. Dani- lo. DX 35A has the number 1 on it. DX 34 is part of a series of numbers adopted by the Ecclesiastical Court. DX 35 uses a number used by Bishop Mardary. I have a book in the archives that contains a series of letters or reports using numbers. DX 36A is in the same condition as when I discovered it in the archives. The translation was prepared by me and my teacher, Mv, Cook, from Bradley School, in 1942 or 1943. DX 37 is a translation of the longhand por- tion of DX 37A. When I came to the United States some of the clerics who are listed on DX 37 were deceased. They are all deceased now. The last three pages of DX 37A 0255 0289 0310 9313 o3l4 o324 0532 9333 0334 5338 5339 448 are in the same condition now as when I found them in the archives. The translation was made by my teacher and I in 1942 or °43. The translation to DX 383A was made by my teacher and I in ‘42 or ‘43. My teacher died in 1956 or ’57. The same is true of DX 39. Direct Examination. I arrived in the United States in April 15, 1940. I was confirmed as the bishop on January 18, 1940 as indicated in DX 48A. Article 99 of the Serbian Or- thodox Church Constitution is referred to in this article about my confirmation. Article 99 says elec- tion of Vicar and Diocesan Bishops is confirmed by the King’s Decree upon recommendation of the minister of justice. I do not know where the original to DX 29 is. I only received this copy. Exhibit 29A is something I received in January of 1940 and submitted it in 1944 for confirmation of the consul general of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Chieago. I never had the original of this document in my possession. This document is our grammata given by the government because the Holy Synod did not give a grammata at that time. I was ap- pointed a Vicar Bishop to the Patriarch in 1938 and, between that time and April of 1940 when I left Bel- grade to come to the United States, I was at the Patriarchal Palace where my duties required me to remain. As Vicar Bishop to the Patriarch I per- formed duties he prescribed, mostly to supervise the KNeclesiastical Court and maintain discipline among the priests or over the Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovci. I was not stationed at the Patriarcha! Palace prior to August of 1938, but was at the monas- tery near the Albanian border. During the time that 449 1 was at the Patriarchal Palace, a period of about a year and a half, 1 was aware of the rule which per- mitted only bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church to have access to the original documents contained in the archives at the Patriarchal Palace. The Holy 5340 Synod and the Bishops Assembly were at all times 0341 5342 5344 o346 5348 5351 5304 5398 obliged to give information and transcripts of minutes of their meetings to the government. Priests and clerics in the place did not have access to these documents. Prior to leaving for the United States I familiarized myself with the diocese here through an examination of the file in the archives of the Holy Synod. In the course of reviewing documents in Bel- grade | found complaints with reference to my com- ing to this country as bishop. After I arrived in this country, 1 called the Diocesan Council meeting to acquaint myseli with the persons with whom I would have to work. I met with the ambassador in Wash- ington and the Consul General in Chicago and all officials of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. We first lived in Chicago and at that time only a monk was in resi- dence during the summer in Libertyville. During my first year 1 made an examination of the records of the diocese. I studied English as I did not speak it when I arrived here and part of my lesson was to translate documents in the archives. The previous bishop, Bishop Damaskin, left approximately a year before I arrived. Prior to Bishop Damaskin an ad- ministrator ran the diocese. DX 55A is an article entitled ‘‘Serbian Immigrants’’ which I wrote. Con- cerning immigration to this country after World War II, I was president of the committee for our immigra- tion Serbs and | sent a circular to all of our priests telling them to bring as many as they could from the 450 5359 different prison camps. In all we brought around 20,000 people. I wrote the article marked DX 55 which is a history of the diocese from the beginning entitled ‘‘Thirty Years since the founding of St. Sava Monastery and 60 years from the start of the Serbian 5363 Orthodox Chureh in America.’’ VERBATIM TESTIMONY (5363) &. From your study of the history of the Serbian Church in the United States, can you tell us when the first church was erected and where it was erected in this country? (5364) ; mendation of Father Burkich and removed him. This priest trom Indianapolis who was discharged upon the recommendation of Father Burkich, also made charges against me in the indictment. I read the 2 paragraphs toward the bottom of page 24, where it says ‘‘Bishop Dionisije is a mental case’’, [ have seen Stojan Lazarevich several times. lL don’t know whether he is a physician or psychiatrist. 1 don’t know where he is now. He was a student when I was a Protessor of Theology in Yugoslavia. Ile came to the United States later on. He conducted the choir in the church congregation in Gary, Indiana. ile is a musician, not a musical doctor. Steven Pros- tran died several years ago. He is not a medical doc- tor. Dr. Seferovich mentioned on page 25 has never been my physician. He served on the Diocesan Coun- cil as member and vice-president. I have never had occasion to go to him for treatment, and he has never viven me any type of physical or mental examination. [ have never, to my knowledge, suffered from any type of mental disorder. I have never consulted a 82936 psychiatrist. My physician is Dr. Lawrence Day in yo- Sei Libertyville. He has been my physician for ten or fifteen vears. The charges are false. (Counsel notes $239 8240 5241 S242 8243 8244 8249 8246 8247 571 that the next pages of the indictment are conclusions attributed to various persons and there is nothing that the Bishop can either affirm or deny.) I know of no Reverend Prostran other than the one | have mentioned who is dead. Reverend Paul Zelich, mentioned on page 25 is dead. I don’t know of another Stojan Lazarevich other than the man I have mentioned. | know Momchilo Djuich. He was a priest who decided to become a lay person when he was a Chetnik or something like that. He was a priest in Dalmatia in Yugoslavia, and never a priest in America. I had personal contact with him until 1956 or 1907. His organization supported our fight against the Regime in Yugoslavia. 1 may have had contact with him in the beginning of 1963. At that time he renounced King Peter and accepted his brother, Tom- islav, as the King of Yugoslavia. In April or March, 1965 he came with some group of people to throw us out of the Diocesan Council meeting and take the diocese into his own hands. He published his change of allegiance in his newspaper. PX 216 and 216a are my circular letter dated June 1, 1962. This is the letter which is referred to at the top of page 30 of the indictment. (DX 216 and 216A are admitted in evidence). I never wrote any article of separation of the Ser- bian Orthodox Chureh and the Canadian Srbobran as charged on page 20. I wrote an article about the ar- rival of the delegation and recommended receiving the delegation all over the United States. The charge that I wrote an article announcing a split in the church is false. The charge that I behaved toward the delegation with sarcasm and calculation is not true. It is not true that I criticized them publicly and pri- 572 S248 vately. 1 did not issue orders that the delegation be treated other than cordially and proper. 1 did not issue any leaflets against the delegation. 1 did say openly in a few gatherings that we as American citi- zens and the American Diocese are not obliged to listen to the Government of Yugoslavia. We respect our chureh over there and our delegation who are ar- riving here, but we are free and loving people, and obedient to our Constitution. 1 went with the delega- $249 tion to the Chicago airfield, brought the tickets to them and | paid for their baggage and said goodbye, and that’s all. I did not say ‘‘let them go to their ‘Tito’’. [ was never in New York with them. (Counsel stipulates that PX 195 is the report of Metropolitan Damaskin produced by Bishop Fir- tilian after a trip to Yugoslavia). The first time that 1 saw the report of Metropolitan Damaskin is today. Ll have not had a chance to read it. (DX 217, S253 the English translation of PX 195, Damaskin’s re- port, is admitted into evidence). The June 3rd letter 5254 referred to on page 30 of the indictment is the letter which has already been admitted as PX 71 and PX 55 S4b. PX 74 is the letter of May 25 referred to in the Indictment on page 30. These two exhibits, PX 71 S258 and PN 74, set forth my position with reference to the ijlegal and uncanonical decisions of the Assembly. PX 78 is my letter of June 28 which is referred to in the indictment. In this letter I explained how they arrived to ordain Reverend Lastivika for Bishop and ‘ater on to investigate some charges against me. I see 610 the charge in the middle of page 31 regarding the de- £96] cision of suspension. PX 78 is the letter to which the indietment charge refers. I declared to the Investi- S202 gatine Committee on July 5 that I am not the Bishop te > w! —_ 5203 S264 206 8267 8268 073 of the Midwest Diocese and I would not sign any minutes which they were preparing in that respect. i did not release my duty to Reverend Firmilian on June 6, because the Diocesan Plenum decided not to relinquish the Diocese until the Assembly in Septem- ber. 1 discharged Firmilian from his duties on June ¢. On June 12 | discharged Reverend Burkich. I also discharged Reverend Klippa. They were dis- charged because they abandoned our Diocese and they violated the Holy Canons. They had to be loyal to our Diocese and to me until a trial could be com- pleted against me. These three priests violated Canon 13 (DX 199) of the Pedalion. On June 6 there was a meeting of the Plenum of the American-Canadian Diocese in Libertyville. I am familiar with the actions taken by the Plenum on that date. The discharge of these three priests was be- cause they renounced me as Bishop. DX 215 and 218a is the report that I sent to the Synod regarding the visit of Damaskin delegation in 1962. DX 218 is the English translation. I waited for Metropolitan Damaskin to make a joint declara- tion but he declined so I prepared my own at the end of December, 1962. (DX 218 and 218a are admitted). (Counsel for plaintiffs stipulate that the ‘‘Rudder’’ is an authentic compilation of Canon Law). (DX 199, Canon 15 is admitted in evidence). DX 199 is a Xerox copy of pages 469 and 470 of the ‘‘Rudder’’, a com- pilation of all the sacred and divine canons of the Orthodox Church. I have the bottom of page 32 of the indictment be- fore me. I testified about this alleged meeting with Bishop Hrisostomos before. I was never called by him for any conference. The top of page 33 there is oT4 4290 a reference to Reverend Petrovich. He is a priest at the present time in Cincinnati, Ohio. He first came to our diocese five or six years ago. He brought docu- ments that he had been a priest in Europe. Thi: is not S201 the only priest that I have accepted into my Diocese from Kurope since I have been Bishop of this Diocese. S292 | have accepted approximately 35 ordained priests in the 23 year period from 1940 to 1963. I see the 8293 paragraph on page 3J referring to my oath. | did $294 not violate my Bishop’s oath. DX 219 is a correct 8295 English translation of the oath 1 gave when | was elevated to the rank of Bishop. PX 37a is in the old S302 Slavic language and it is in my handwriting. DX 219 S304 is my English translation. (DX 219 is admitted). S306 Prior to the decision of July 27, 1963 wherein the Holy Assembly declared that 1 had broken my oath, there had not been any trial of the charges that were pending against me. There weren’t any hearings. I S307 received the indictment sometime in October. I did S309 not receive any supplement to the indictment. I did request the enclosures and that was denied. (Counsel notes that the paragraphs on page 15 of the Judgment numbered 6,7, and 8 are mentioned for the first time in the Judgment and do not appear in the Indietment) S312 (Counsel notes that the allegations on pages 18 and 19 of the Judgment do not appear in the Indictment * . ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED As Bishop of the Diocese I must recognize the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I was elected by the Assembly with the agreement of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. At the present time I don’t know if the Bishop’s Assembly or Religious Com- mittee for Affairs, or Special Committee elects the Bishops. VERBATIM TESTIMONY (8639! By Mr. Karacie: Q. Did you ever have oceasion, your Grace, to review the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution as amended from 1957? Mr. Holmquist: Till when? By Mr. Karacic: Q. To date. Did you ever have oceasion to look at that Constitution? 603 Mr. Holmquist: Well, now, just a minute. [8640] I’m going to— The Witness: I really didn’t— Mr. Holmquist: Just a minute, your Grace. Just a minute. I don’t think it’s been established that this wit- ness has had access to any of the documents in Bel- grade at least since March of 1964 when he was de- frocked. Mr. Karaciec: From 1957 to 1964. Mr. Smith: There is no such document. There isn’t anything like that. The one he described doesn’t exist. Mr. Holmquist: Are you referring to some docu- ment now? Mr. Karaciec: I’m referring to Exhibit 68. Mr. Smith: No, that’s not what he referred to. Mr. Holmquist: Do you know what document 68 is, your Grace? May I see what you’re referring to, counsel? Where is it? Mr. Karacie: Isn’t it in that book? It’s already in evidence, I believe, as the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the 1957 edition. Mr. Holmquist: All right. The 1957 edition. Now, what is your question? [8641] By Mr. Karaciec: Q. Have you ever had occasion, your Grace, to see this document which is being put before you by Mr. Holmquist? Mr. Crown: I’m also putting before him 68-B, which is the Serbian, of which that 68 is a translation. The Witness: I am only familiar with the Con- stitution of 1947. 8647 R648 8649 8652 SH 8658 8699 8660 By Mr. Karacic: Q. 19 what, sir? A. 1947, when it was revised, and the Patriarch Gabriel with the Holy Bishop’s Assembly made a revision of the Constitution in 1947, so that one I know. This one I don’t know. Q. You never saw this edition of the Constitution? A. I saw that book, but it never was sent to me. Officially I never used it. ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED 1 am not familiar with the 1957 edition to the Constitution. I am familiar with the 1947 edition. The people have tried to amend Article 9 of the Diocesan Constitution several times and the Synod has refused the amendment. Our Church National Assembly made amendments to change Article 9. The amendments have not been approved by the Assembly to the present time. 7 The 1947 Constitution was announced in the Glaznik with the provision that the Constitution be presented to the Patriarch Council for approval. I don’t know if the 1957 edition is the same as the 1947 edi- tion. T was under an obligation as Bishop of the American-Canadian Diocese to file an annual report to the Assembly. (Offer of Proof) A Bishop’s re- port is referred to in the Diocesan Constitution in Article 10. (The Offer of Proof is refused!) I believe that God alone knows who is my successor in the event of my death. Prior to the split in my opinion the people and clergy of this Diocese would make a recommendation to the Patriarch regarding a successor-Bishop. In the present situation we must first have the establishment of justice in the court 8660 8666 8667 8668 8674 8675 2676 8677 8678 8700 605 and the mistakes of the Assembly of 1963. Then we would see what we may do for the next Bishop. I was under an obligation until May, 1963 to mention the Patriarch’s name. | was president of the Serbian Orthodox Christian Unity, an organization approved by the Serbian Orthodox Church while I was in Yugoslavia. Not all religious organizations must be approved by the Assembly. 1 approved the By-Laws of the Clergy Association and they sent them to the Bishop’s Council where they were approved. I wrote letters every year to the Assembly and did not attend the meetings from World War II until 1962. My reason for not attending is this: Since 1946 Com- munist papers have proclaimed me traitor to the state of Yugoslavia and they asked .or my removal. I thought I had better not go there because they would treat me like a traitor and put me in jail. I did put that in my answer to the Holy Synod; in one letter to them [ said I am considered over there as a trai- tor of the state how could I be safe if I came. Patri- arch German wrote and said that I shouldn’t worry but I said to myself ‘‘better not go.’’ I sent my congratulations to Patriarch German when he was elected. I announced his election to the clergy in the diocese. (PX 218, 218A, 219 and 219A are admitted as evidence.) I was invited to the °59 Sabor and gave the Patriarch my proxy. We in- tended to help our chureh over there morally and materially as much as we could. I gave Patriarch my proxy in some cases but not for the Macedonian Church. I forwarded the bylaws of the clergy asso- ciation of the diocese to the Synod for approval. (PX 220 is refused.) 606 VERBATIM TESTIMONY (5678; Q. Your Grace, you testified earlier that you had torwarded to the Holy Synod for approval the by-laws of the Clergy Association of the Diocese here in this country. | ask you to look at Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 49. Mr. Crown: 49-A. Mr. Karacic: 49-A. Q. Is that what you have reference to in that let- ter, sir? Is that the Clergy Association you are talking about? A. This is reference to Clergy Association, but nothing else. Q. Is that your signature on the bottom of 49-A, your Grace? A. Yes. Q. And are these the by-laws of the Clergy Asso- ciation of this Diocese that you forwarded to the '8679| Holy Synod for approval? A. Providing if that is in the spirit of the Con- stitution of our church and Paragraph 12 and so on, from our side, and in the spirit of 69 of the Consti- tution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, we think it eould be approved. Q. Now, your Grace, in that letter you speak of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Serbian Ortho- dox Church. A. Yes. Q. What edition of the Constitution have you reference to, do you know? A. Let me look at it again. Which was this one? Mr. Crown: 49. 607 Mr. Karacic: May | help you? The Witness: Then Article 12 of our Constitu- tion of our Diocese. By Mr. Karacic: Q. That’s the Diocese Constitution. A. And 69. Q. But you speak of 69. A. But 69 of the Constitution of the Serbian Or- thodox Church. {8680} Q. Yes, your Grace, and I ask you what edition of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church have you reference to in that letter? A. Well, I could not tell you until I look at the Constitution itself. Q. Well, if the letter is dated in ’60, vour Grace, isn’t it a fact you have reference to the last edition of the Serbian Constitution published? | A. See, I said in here, ‘‘but if that is in the spirit | of 69 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, then should be adopted and approved by the Holy Bishop’s Synod.’’ I said that here. Q. Well, they approved the by-laws, did they not? Do you know, your Grace, if they approved the Cler- gy Association by-laws? A. I think they approved. | Q. Your Grace, I show you what has been marked | as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 68-B, and ask you to look at Article 69.24. Mr. Holmquist: What is it? Mr. Karacic: 69.24. The Witness: Yes. By Mr. Karacic: Q. Is that the provision you had reference to, [8681] your Grace? A. I believe, yes. ee « 608 Q. Then, your Grace, when you had reference to that paragraph, were you speaking of the 1957 edi- tion of the Serbian Orthodox Constitution? A. I’m speaking of the Constitution of 1931. Q. Your Grace, I show vou the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution as passed originally in 1931, and ask you to look at Article 69 in that Constitu- tion, which speaks of Secretaries of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Court and Clerks, and has no refer- ence at all to any Clergy Associations, and I’ll show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 68-B again, .24. Your Grace, I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 68-B, Article 69. A. Maybe that is. Maybe that is which I men- tioned. Q. Then you had reference to 68-B and not to the °31 Constitution; is that right? A. No. It has it somewhere. Q. Maybe I can help you, your Grace. If you’re looking for 69, as it appears in the °57 Constitution, in °31, you'll find it under— Mr. Holmquist: Article 63. (8682) Mr. Karacie: 63.27. Q. 63.27 of the 1931 Constitution. Do you see that there? A. Yes, this is the same meaning here. Q. Right. But in your exhibit, in your letter of April 1960, your Grace, which is marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 49, vou speak of Article 69 of the Serbian Orthodox Church Constitution, and in 69 it speaks of the Clergy Association, but of the °57 edition of the Constitution. A. Yes. Well, that’s a mistake. This is correct here. It should be quoted here 63.27. 609 Q. Then you are now testifying, your Grace, that your letter of April 1960 is a mistake— Mr. Holmquist: No, that isn't what he said. By Mr. Karacic: Q. —as to the paragraph of the Constitution? Mr. Holmquist: That isn’t what he said. You're just arguing and badgering the witness. Mr. Karacic: I’m not arguing with this witness. Mr. Holmquist: Th letter is there. It refers to Article 69. He pointed out that that’s in the 1957 Constitution. Now, what more do you want? Mr. Karacic: I'd like the witness to say that. The witness says now it’s a mistake. {8683} Mr. Holmquist: He said that once, that appar- ently that’s what it was, that it was from the 1957 Constitution. Mr. Karacic: I'll accept that answer. ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED 8701-A_ I got to the 1940 Diocesan Council meeting about 9:00 or 10:00. Dushan Siliski was the legal advisor. $706 I told Siliski that I was the new bishop. Siliski said 8707 ‘‘wait a minute let’s see whether we accept you.’’ At that time I recognized the right of people to par- ticipate in the election of bishops in the governing 8708 of the diocese. I told him I would do my duty if they 8709 accepted me and if they decided not to I would go back to Belgrade. | don’t know if Firmilian stayed inside the meeting while I stepped out. Later Siliski 8710 told me I was accepted. VERBATIM TESTIMONY (8710} And at that time, your Grace, you state that you recognize that the laymen had a right to elect bish- ops? 610 Mr. Holmquist: Objeeted to, been asked and an- swered already. He said he recognized it. The Witness: Rights. Rights of the people to participate in the life of the church. Mr. Council— Mr. Holmquist: Just a minute, there’s no ques- tion pending. By Mr. Karacic: | Q. Your Grace, had you called this meeting on that date? A. Yes, I call that meeting. Q. As the Bishop of the Diocese? A. Well, I signed myself Bishop of the Ameri- '8711)| can-Canadian Diocese because was my title by ap- pointment. ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED S712. =‘The term Serbian Episcopate refers to the bishops of the Serbian Chureh—one part of the church is 8713 bishops, one part clergy and another is people. Episcopate oi the Serbian Church refers to the bish- ops of the Church. Episcopate in the plural means several bishops. I believe I proposed a creation of an episcopate abroad to create bishops independent of each other. | proposed a Metropolitanate system as the Greeks and Russians have. I opposed three independent bishops. My proposal did not include 8718 removing people and clergy from participation in the 8720 election of the bishops. I did not agree with Bishop 8721 Nicholi’s proposals. I wanted to keep the integrity, that is the unity of the Serbian Orthodox Church. 8722 The Patriarchate is not the Church. I wanted every- one to be united with the Serbian Church. Bishop Nicholi wanted the church in America to be a sep- arately organized church. a ain ee pnt 611 VERBATIM TESTIMONY (8721) By Mr. Karacic: Q. Now, your Grace, ** Diaspora’’, can you advise us What is meant by that word? A. ‘‘Diaspora’’ is a Greek term, means the peo- ples’ is seattered in different parts of the world. This meais ‘‘ Diaspora.”’ {8725} A. That’s generally saying means whether is or- ganized diocese or not organized diocese. With out- side of the State of Yugoslavia or Serbia, which kind of state— (). Well, the diocese in the United States is not considered Diaspora? A. That’s looking from general meaning of it. Diaspora is everything what is outside of Yugo- slavia, all Serbs outside, they are in Diaspora. Or- ganized or not organized. Q. You cannot—you would not consider an area that is under an organization under a dioecse or- ganization as a Diaspora, would you, your Grace? A. 1 consider it every church community or dio- cese outside of Yugoslavia as Diaspora. Q. Who has jurisdiction over Diaspora territory? Patriarch, sir? A. In different times. Q. At present, your Grace, at present. A. At present, by the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, was the Patriarch. Q. Well, your Grace, did you have occasion to make certain recommendations to the Patriarch con- {8726} cerning Diaspora territory? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you know when that was? 612 A. I could look my files and bring my correspon- dence. I’ve got of that. Q. Do you know what your recommendations were pertaining to the Diaspora territory, your Grace? A. I am recommending Metropolitan system. Metropolitan system, not autocephalous churches. Not independent dioceses, but Metropolitan system as the Greek, they having here, the Russian, they having here too. I’m recommending that, because it keeps unity with the Mother Church also and keeps together the people which is in different states and countries. Q. Well, your Grace, when vou spoke of the Met- ropolitan system, what area were you speaking of, the United States and Canada? A. Well— Q. To Australia? A. Iam speaking for outside of Yugoslavia, for all territories wherever the Serbian people is living. . In other words, your Grace, your recommen- dation was for a Metropolia of the Serbian Church outside of Yugoslavia, all the areas. (8727! A. Maybe several metropolias, maybe two or three. Q. I’m asking you what did you recommend? One metropolia or several? A. I recommended two or three. One for here, one for United States of America and one for Aus- tralia and other parts. I recommended two or three. (). And these metropolias would be presided over by whom? A. By a Metropolitan who would recognize the Patriarch. ee ee 613 Q. Would he be elected by the Holy Assembly of Bishops? A. He would be elected by the people and by the bishops of that Metropolia of that region and recog- nized by the Patriarch. Q. If you were first going to establish a Metro polia in parts of the world that didn’t have bishops, how would the Metropolitan be elected by that area? A. Well, I will tell vou that our Church National Assembly in 1939 made the proposition to the Holy Bishops Assembly that this diocese be elevated to the rank of Metropolia in 1939 and to have one bish- op and two or three bishops. {8728} Q. Was that for the world? A. For the United States and Canada at that time it means, and then maybe spread farther then. Q. At that time, your Grace, the presiding bishop would then be a Metropolitan, is that it? A. Yes. Q. And who would have elected him? A. According to my opinion he should be elected by the bishops of that Metropolia. Q. Well, at that time, in 1939, there were no bish- ops here in America and Canada. A. Was bishop, was not Metropolitan. It must be agreement between the people here and the Holy Synod. Q. Your Grace, who would have elected the Met- ropolitan that you are suggesting in 1939, would it not have been the Holy Bishops Assembly, sir? A. No. Q. It would not? A. They just had to recognize him which elected by the people and by the treasury and by the bishops. 614 Q. And that at that time then, your Grace, would certainly have been contrary to the church Constitu- tion, wowd it not? A. How many times that church Constitution was (8729) changed? Contrary to one time, not contrary to other times. Q. And would that not be contrary to the canons of the orthodoxy of the Serbian Orthodox Church? A. Would not be. Q. Would that Metropolia would then be auto- cephalous of the Serbian Orthodox Church or not? A. That depends of the people over there. For instance— Q. Over where, sir? A. Of that region. Of that region. Q. That region could then declare its autocephal- ity? A. With the Metropolia. Q. I show you what is marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 44 in evidence and I ask you— A. Yes, I read it. Q. In having read Plaintiff's Exhibit 44, your Grace, and having refreshed your memory, in 1952 did you request to assist in the administration of a diaspora? A. 1 just knew a question about who is governing the diaspora because Patriarch Gabriel gave it to me in 1948 with the Holy Synod then. ‘S$730} (. Were vou returning it, your Grace? A. On the request of the Patriarch Vikentije I returned it to him. Q. And with the—now, at that time, your Grace, vou speak of a—the diaspora in Western Europe could be entrusted with a suffragan bishop with the see of London. There yv.as not a Western Diocese. A. Was not as yet formed at that time. 615 Q. You stated that Patriarch Gabriel entrusted to you the care of the diaspora. A. Yes. Q. What area in particular was that, your Grace, that he entrusted to you? It was not the United States and Canada, right? A. No, it was area all over the world where Serbs immigrated and settled. Q. Was it all over the world or was it South America and South Africa? A. Was all over the world. Q. Did you ask permission to return the area of the diaspora that was entrusted to you to the Patri- arch, do you recall that, sir? A. I believe my Diocesan Council asked that. Q. The Council? (8731]