ROCOR dragging Metropolitan Vitaly to court yet again!

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Lounger
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat 2 November 2002 8:55 pm
Location: ROCE

ROCOR dragging Metropolitan Vitaly to court yet again!

Post by Lounger »

From the editor. As the Lavr clergy are listening to speeches at their
conference in Nyack, NY, about their rosy future that expects them once
they join the MP (the "mother-church), Lavr leaders spare no effort in
trying to send their "brother in Christ," Metropolitan Vitaly, to an early
grave. Below is a court notice ordering M. Vitaly to appear for days of
questioning between Dec. 15, 2003 and Jan. 6, 2004. Please remember that
the Metropolitan is 93 years old and that to answer tricky lawyer's
questions may be difficult even for someone much younger.

Let us pray that God Almighty gives the Metropolitan strength to live
through this humiliation.


SUPERIOR COURT

CANADA
PROVINCE DE QUEBEC
DISTRICT DE BEDFORD

455-17-000144-020

Date: December 3,2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

BY: THE HONOURABLE Martin Bureau j.s.s.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA, a New
York Non-Profit Corporation, having an office at 75 East 93"1 Street, New
York, New York, U.S.A., BISHOP KYRILL, Bishop of Western American Diocese
of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, domiciled and residing at
The Right Reverend Bishop Kyrill, 109 Sixth Avenue, San Francisco,
California, U.S.A., as Representative of Synod of Bishop* of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and Russian Convent of Our Lady of
Vladimir, Inc.; WESTERN AMERICAN DIOCESE OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE
OF RUSSIA, INC., a California Corporation, having an office at The Right
Reverend Bishop KyriU, 109 Sixth Avenue, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.;
RUSSIAN CONVENT OF OUR LADY OF VLADIMIR, INC., a California corporation
having an office at 515 Vermont Street, Moss Beach, California, U.S.A.;
<>

Petitioners

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

ORDER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

[1] HAVING taken cognizance of the Motion;

[2] HAVING heard Petitioners through their attorneys;

[3] GRANT the present Motion;

[4] ORDER that Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow be examined under oath by means
of questions to be asked verbally by Petitioners' attorneys, Ropers,
Majeski, Kohn & Bentley and by defendants' attorneys, Michael B. Bassi,
before any official stenographer licensed for any Quebec judicial district
under the Stenographer's Act (S.R.Q. c. S-33), and that such examination be
held at the Riley House located at 302 Principale Street, in Mansonville,
in the District of Bedford, Province of Quebec, pursuant to the letter
rogatory issued on November 26, 2003 by the Honourable Quentin L. Kopp of
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo,
U.S.A.;

[5] ORDER that Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow be examined up to a maximum of
two hours per day at the dates mentioned hereinafter for a period not to
exceed a total of twelve hours by plaintiffs and twelve hours by defendants
unless the parties agree by stipulation to additional time to depose
Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow;

[6] ORDER that Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow be summoned to appear at such
examination on December 15,2003 at 10:00 a.m., December 16, 2003 at 10:00
a.m., December 18, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., December 19, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.,
December 22, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., December 23, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., December
29, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., December 30 at 10:00 a.m. and January 6, 2004 at
10:00 a.m. and at any subsequent date necessary to complete the respective
examinations of the petitioners' attorneys and of the defendants'
attorneys, in order to testify under oath on the following topics:

  1. Circumstances surrounding the October 2000 Sobor of Bishops, attendance
    and discussions at the October 2000 Sobor, and all documents and epistles
    resulting from the October 2000 Sobor,

  2. Circumstances surrounding Metropolitan Vitaly's retirement from New York
    to Canada;

  3. Circumstances regarding defendants' acceptance under the jurisdiction of
    Metropolitan Vitaly as Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile
    ("ROCIE");

  4. What, if any, actions were necessary, for defendants' acceptance into
    the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Vitaly as Metropolitan of ROCIE;

  5. Metropolitan Vitaly's positions regarding the Moscow Patriarchate;

  6. Any documents authored by Metropolitan Vitaly explaining his position
    regarding the October 2000 Sobor and epistles resulting from the October
    2000 Sobor;

  7. Ali knowledge of ownership of property and title of any monastic
    institution and parish of ROCOR;

  8. Declaration/affidavit of Metropolitan Vitaly dated January 11,2002;

  9. Mansonviile occurrences and Canadian litigation involving Metropolitan
    Vitaly and ROCOR, and/or its related organizations and persons;

  10. Mansonville occurrences and New York litigation involving Metropolitan
    Vitaly and ROCOR, and/or its related organizations and persons;

before the attorneys for plaintiffs, Ropers, Majeski, Cohn, Bentley and the
attorneys for defendants, Michael B. Bassi;

[7] ORDER that Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow be allowed to rest during each
deposition session and be allowed to be accompanied by an aide of his choosing;

[8] ORDER that the deposition of Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow be
transcribed by the official Stenographer who will certify that the
transcription of the evidence given by Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow is true
and accurate;

[9] ORDER that the deposition of Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow recorded by
videotape;

[10] ORDER, in the event Metropolitan Vftaly Oustinow voluntarily produces
documents books papers or other articles, that the official stenographer
marks them as plaintiffs' Exhibits;

[11] ORDER that the official stenographer be named commissioner for the
purpose of the deposition pursuant to the letter rogatory;

[12] ORDER that the service of the subpoena shall serve as the notice of
examination referred in section 13 of the Special Procedure Act (R.S.Q. c.
P-27);

[13J ORDER the return to the Clerk of the San Mateo County Superior Court
at 400 County Center, Redwood City, California, 94063, U.SA, of the
transcript and record of the deposition and any exhibits in a sealed
envelope endorsed with the caption of the action as it stands in the
Superior Court of the State of California County of San Mateo and marked
"Deposition of Metropolitan Vitaly Oustinow";

[14] GIVE EFFECT to the surety of $730.00 US and to the surety of Woods &
Partner offered in the present Motion;

[15] ALLOW the service of the subpoena in a delay shorter than required by law;

[16] THE WHOLE without costs, unless contestation.

(signed)
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Russian language text located at: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-334.htm

zlata
Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat 15 November 2003 6:55 pm

Post by zlata »

And let us pray that God forgive us our sins

хорист
Jr Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri 22 August 2003 4:43 pm

Post by хорист »

Let's say you own your house. The people who rent it from you to run their affairs decide they own the house. You think you just may have a valid legal case to keep your own house.

The head office which oversees those who claim the house as their own, however, is led by someone who is aged and infirm.

So, you:

a) proceed with the case anyway; or,

b) abandon your house out of compassion to the person is infirm, despite the fact that it is the tenants who are acting as squatters.

Let me know what you will do when your tenants decide they own your property.

Daniel
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 9:00 pm

Post by Daniel »

But what do Met. Vitaly's opinions of the MP have to do with the ownership of a convent??? I really have a hard time seeing how that fits into this case.

хорист
Jr Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri 22 August 2003 4:43 pm

Post by хорист »

Daniel wrote:

But what do Met. Vitaly's opinions of the MP have to do with the ownership of a convent??? I really have a hard time seeing how that fits into this case.

It's all part of the same case relating to ownership of the convent. In ROCiE's own words:

http://www.rocie.org/articles/96/1.html

Note that according to this account, ROCOR people including Metropolitan "Lavra" [sic] were also "deposed."

Daniel
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 9:00 pm

Post by Daniel »

хорист wrote:
Daniel wrote:

But what do Met. Vitaly's opinions of the MP have to do with the ownership of a convent??? I really have a hard time seeing how that fits into this case.

It's all part of the same case relating to ownership of the convent. In ROCiE's own words:

http://www.rocie.org/articles/96/1.html

Note that according to this account, ROCOR people including Metropolitan "Lavra" [sic] were also "deposed."

By deposed they mean 'gave a deposition'.

But still, that doesn't answer why Met. Vitaly's possition on the MP needs to be brought up in a property dispute.

I know this case is supposed to deside who legally owns the convent, but just would assume that the sisterhood would have the rights to the propery. But it sounds like the Synod sees itself as the convent and not the mothers and sister who live there. That I find confusing.

John the Russian
Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed 19 November 2003 11:40 am

Post by John the Russian »

They are trying to do to Met. Vitaly the same thing they did to the nun. Put him in the hospital or kill him which ever comes first. I cannot for the life of me see this as orthodox behavior from bishops. How can they stand inside the alter and face God then give blessings to the laity as God's representatives with a clear conciense? It just goes to show that evil has taken the place of grace in ROCOR. If they want to join the devil along with the MP, by all means go ahead. But leave those who want to stay with God and follow the truth alone.

Post Reply