Thursday, July 5. 2007
The Trial Resumes
Your thoughts about the Kondratick trial, or lack of information about the trial, are welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Mark,
Please correct your editorial to reflect the fact that Fr Kondratick has been told that he is not to appear on Friday because he forfeited his right to a defense when he objected to the courts procedural rules and was held in contempt. He therefore cannot appear even if he wanted to.
(Editor's note: If this is true, why are you (and presumably Fr. Kondratick) only making this known today, and not a month ago when it happened? Before one believes such things, some evidence should be provided.)
Please correct your editorial to reflect the fact that Fr Kondratick has been told that he is not to appear on Friday because he forfeited his right to a defense when he objected to the courts procedural rules and was held in contempt. He therefore cannot appear even if he wanted to.
(Editor's note: If this is true, why are you (and presumably Fr. Kondratick) only making this known today, and not a month ago when it happened? Before one believes such things, some evidence should be provided.)
#1
Anonymous
on
2007-07-05 19:51
Dear Mark,
He did make it known to the Holy Synod and Monk James pointed out being held in contempt in previous posts on a yahoo group. There was no opportunity given by the spiritual court to appeal their decision. Fr Kondratick will be tried in abtensia. Ask Monk James. He will give it to you straight. Ask Fr Speranza.
He did make it known to the Holy Synod and Monk James pointed out being held in contempt in previous posts on a yahoo group. There was no opportunity given by the spiritual court to appeal their decision. Fr Kondratick will be tried in abtensia. Ask Monk James. He will give it to you straight. Ask Fr Speranza.
#1.1
Anonymous
on
2007-07-06 07:13
Fr. Bob and his attorney wanted things their way. The court found them in contempt for their machinations. I have complete faith in the members of the court and pray for God's will to be done! I prayed for all members of the court today - and for Fr. Bob, too, for a spirit of repentance.
God cleanse me a sinner. O Lord, save thy people!
God cleanse me a sinner. O Lord, save thy people!
Dear Anonymous,
As a matter of fact, it is precisely the lack of any official transcript or recording of the proceedings which puts us into a "they said/they said" situation as to why Fr. Kondratick and his lawyer were not present for the body of the trial. Fr. Kondratick, via Monk James, says they were ordered out; the Spiritual Court, via postings on this site, say they walked out, allegedly voluntarily. Since I was not there, I have no direct knowledge of what actually happened.
However, I do not think it likely that Fr. Kondratick or any priest whose ministry means anything to him would willingly leave a Spiritual Court at which he was facing deposition; I certainly wouldn't. On the contrary, and especially if in my own mind I were convinced of my innocence, I would fight fiercely against the charges. And having crossed swords with Fr. Kondratick when he was Chancellor and coming off a tad worse for it, I tend to give more credence to the notion that Fr. Kondratick and his lawyer were ordered to leave.
That the accused could be ordered from the proceedings on the grounds of "contempt of court" (an offence not included in the Sacred Canons or The Statute, by the way) is not without precedent in secular courts. But to boot the accused's lawyer as well and then continue the trial is virtually without precedent in secular civil or criminal law, and offends gravely against both the virtue of justice and the integrity of the system. It gives the impression of Star Chamber proceedings, puts a question-mark over the probative value of testimony given without cross-examination, and renders any verdict suspect.
But the very fact that no one seems quite sure what the rules are, testifies to the abysmal failure of the Holy Synod over the past 37 years to do the duty prescribed for it by Article XI,4,k of The Statute, viz., to establish procedural rules for Spiritual Courts. And the fact that most trials are uncontested is no excuse for that failure. Spiritual Courts are not supposed to and should never have to "make it up as they go along;" that only (and almost inevitably) opens the proceedings to questions and charges of bias.
As far as appealing the Court's procedural rulings to the Holy Synod, I see no authority for that in The Statute. Article XI,4,h, allows only for appeal of the judgment (meaning either the verdict or the penalty), not for procedural appeals during the Diocesan Spiritual Court. Procedural error can form at least part of the basis for the allowable appeal to the Holy Synod, but only after the Diocesan Court has rendered its verdict. That procedural appeals are not provided for during the Diocesan Court may or may not be a failure in the system; I suppose that would depend on how detailed a justice system we choose to have. But at this point, they are not provided for; and that's that.
As for the issue of mismanagment, that is not a canonical offence and, therefore, is not a matter fit for trial before a Spiritual Court. The remedy and penalty for ineffective or stupid or incompetent or wasteful management is firing the offender from his job. Only wrong-doing is rightfully and properly a matter for trial; and given the gravity of the canonical penalty prescribed, such wrong-doing must be rigorously proven, not merely alleged.
Over all, in my opinion, the fact that there can even be a question about the integrity of the process demonstrates how poorly this case is being handled. The bottom line is always that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Otherwise, we may as well let these cases be handled by Roland Friesler in the Volksgericht.
Fr. Philip
(Editor's note: The final reference is to a notorious Nazi judge and his "people's court" in the Hitler era.
That being said, multiple witnesses present at the first session of the court agree that Fr. Kondratick and his lawyer were not "ordered" to leave, but chose to leave when the court would not agree to their conditions for staying.
The second session of the court was held yesterday, again in the voluntary absence of Fr. Kondratick. Testimony from multiple witnesses was heard - including former OCA Treasurer Fr. Dmitri Oselinsky, acting OCA Treasurer Fr. Paul Kucynda, and former Primate of the OCA, Metropolitan Theodosius. The latter is reported to have testified for several hours.)
As a matter of fact, it is precisely the lack of any official transcript or recording of the proceedings which puts us into a "they said/they said" situation as to why Fr. Kondratick and his lawyer were not present for the body of the trial. Fr. Kondratick, via Monk James, says they were ordered out; the Spiritual Court, via postings on this site, say they walked out, allegedly voluntarily. Since I was not there, I have no direct knowledge of what actually happened.
However, I do not think it likely that Fr. Kondratick or any priest whose ministry means anything to him would willingly leave a Spiritual Court at which he was facing deposition; I certainly wouldn't. On the contrary, and especially if in my own mind I were convinced of my innocence, I would fight fiercely against the charges. And having crossed swords with Fr. Kondratick when he was Chancellor and coming off a tad worse for it, I tend to give more credence to the notion that Fr. Kondratick and his lawyer were ordered to leave.
That the accused could be ordered from the proceedings on the grounds of "contempt of court" (an offence not included in the Sacred Canons or The Statute, by the way) is not without precedent in secular courts. But to boot the accused's lawyer as well and then continue the trial is virtually without precedent in secular civil or criminal law, and offends gravely against both the virtue of justice and the integrity of the system. It gives the impression of Star Chamber proceedings, puts a question-mark over the probative value of testimony given without cross-examination, and renders any verdict suspect.
But the very fact that no one seems quite sure what the rules are, testifies to the abysmal failure of the Holy Synod over the past 37 years to do the duty prescribed for it by Article XI,4,k of The Statute, viz., to establish procedural rules for Spiritual Courts. And the fact that most trials are uncontested is no excuse for that failure. Spiritual Courts are not supposed to and should never have to "make it up as they go along;" that only (and almost inevitably) opens the proceedings to questions and charges of bias.
As far as appealing the Court's procedural rulings to the Holy Synod, I see no authority for that in The Statute. Article XI,4,h, allows only for appeal of the judgment (meaning either the verdict or the penalty), not for procedural appeals during the Diocesan Spiritual Court. Procedural error can form at least part of the basis for the allowable appeal to the Holy Synod, but only after the Diocesan Court has rendered its verdict. That procedural appeals are not provided for during the Diocesan Court may or may not be a failure in the system; I suppose that would depend on how detailed a justice system we choose to have. But at this point, they are not provided for; and that's that.
As for the issue of mismanagment, that is not a canonical offence and, therefore, is not a matter fit for trial before a Spiritual Court. The remedy and penalty for ineffective or stupid or incompetent or wasteful management is firing the offender from his job. Only wrong-doing is rightfully and properly a matter for trial; and given the gravity of the canonical penalty prescribed, such wrong-doing must be rigorously proven, not merely alleged.
Over all, in my opinion, the fact that there can even be a question about the integrity of the process demonstrates how poorly this case is being handled. The bottom line is always that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Otherwise, we may as well let these cases be handled by Roland Friesler in the Volksgericht.
Fr. Philip
(Editor's note: The final reference is to a notorious Nazi judge and his "people's court" in the Hitler era.
That being said, multiple witnesses present at the first session of the court agree that Fr. Kondratick and his lawyer were not "ordered" to leave, but chose to leave when the court would not agree to their conditions for staying.
The second session of the court was held yesterday, again in the voluntary absence of Fr. Kondratick. Testimony from multiple witnesses was heard - including former OCA Treasurer Fr. Dmitri Oselinsky, acting OCA Treasurer Fr. Paul Kucynda, and former Primate of the OCA, Metropolitan Theodosius. The latter is reported to have testified for several hours.)
#1.1.2
Igumen Philip (Speranza)
on
2007-07-07 05:18
What could Mark Stokoe mean by 'multiple witnesses'?! In the chancery chapel for the Spiritual Court's first session, there were four priests as judges, Abp Nathaniel as president, Faith Skordinski (accuser) and her attorney Alexandra Makowski, Fr Robert Kondratick (accused), his attorney Harry Kutner and myself. That's ALL.
When we refused to accept the imposition of procedural rules excluded by the OCA Statute (xi.4.k), we asked that the trial not proceed without clarification for the Holy Synod of Bishops. Had the bishops emplaced those procedural rules, we would have continued participating in the trial, but Abp N refused our request, and insisted that the rules -- including the one which forbade making a permanent record of the proceedings -- be enforced. Since we could not agree to proceed under those conditions, Abp N informed us that we were 'in contempt'. Attorney James Perry then told us 'Pack up your things and leave.'
Now, THAT's from somebody who was in the room. Sheeesh!
Monk James
When we refused to accept the imposition of procedural rules excluded by the OCA Statute (xi.4.k), we asked that the trial not proceed without clarification for the Holy Synod of Bishops. Had the bishops emplaced those procedural rules, we would have continued participating in the trial, but Abp N refused our request, and insisted that the rules -- including the one which forbade making a permanent record of the proceedings -- be enforced. Since we could not agree to proceed under those conditions, Abp N informed us that we were 'in contempt'. Attorney James Perry then told us 'Pack up your things and leave.'
Now, THAT's from somebody who was in the room. Sheeesh!
Monk James
#1.1.2.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-07 10:43
Monk James,
Could you please clarify for us if the Church Court procedures and rules were made clear to Fr.RSK prior to the first session?
Thank You.
Michael
Could you please clarify for us if the Church Court procedures and rules were made clear to Fr.RSK prior to the first session?
Thank You.
Michael
#1.1.2.1.1
Michael Geeza
on
2007-07-07 18:14
Although we were provided with a list of the spiritual court's 'procedural rules' just a few days prior to the court's first scheduled session, and although James Perry (Met. Herman's attorney) told us that our objections, if any (we were unable to accept two of them in particular) had to be received by him in writing by Friday 8 June, Mr Perry informed us that afternoon (in a telephone conversation with Fr Robert Kondratick's attorney) that we actually DID NOT need to submit our objections in writing on that day.
Instead, Mr Perry told us that we would have an opportunity to discuss and clarify the 'procedural rules' on the morning of Monday 11 June before the formal convocation of the court.
When we objected vigorously to a couple of them, primarily the rule against minuting or transcribing the proceedings, we also pointed out that -- by their very nature -- ALL these 'procedural rules' violated Article xi.4.k of the OCA's Statute, which provides that any and all such rules not already expressed in the Statute must be approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops.
As a result, we asked the court to delay the proceedings until the Bishops either confirmed, eliminated, or modified the 'procedural rules', and (even under protest) we would indeed have followed the bishops' directives; Abp Nathaniel unfairly, unreasonably, and illegally denied our request.
Excluding anyone but FrRK from responding to his question, AbpN then demanded to know if FrRK would proceed or not under the terms of the 'procedural rules' which the court was intent on imposing in spite of our objections and in spite of their statutory illegality.
When FrRK told AbpN that he could not proceed under such conditions, he (and we) were declared 'in contempt' and ordered from the room.
We did NOT withdraw voluntarily.
Clear enough?
Monk James
Instead, Mr Perry told us that we would have an opportunity to discuss and clarify the 'procedural rules' on the morning of Monday 11 June before the formal convocation of the court.
When we objected vigorously to a couple of them, primarily the rule against minuting or transcribing the proceedings, we also pointed out that -- by their very nature -- ALL these 'procedural rules' violated Article xi.4.k of the OCA's Statute, which provides that any and all such rules not already expressed in the Statute must be approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops.
As a result, we asked the court to delay the proceedings until the Bishops either confirmed, eliminated, or modified the 'procedural rules', and (even under protest) we would indeed have followed the bishops' directives; Abp Nathaniel unfairly, unreasonably, and illegally denied our request.
Excluding anyone but FrRK from responding to his question, AbpN then demanded to know if FrRK would proceed or not under the terms of the 'procedural rules' which the court was intent on imposing in spite of our objections and in spite of their statutory illegality.
When FrRK told AbpN that he could not proceed under such conditions, he (and we) were declared 'in contempt' and ordered from the room.
We did NOT withdraw voluntarily.
Clear enough?
Monk James
#1.1.2.1.1.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-09 07:24
Monk James,
Not really.
Don't you fellows realize how silly you appear?
If the accused was truly innocent, wouldn't he be screaming from the rooftops of his innocence?
Would he really care that the synod perhaps didn't actually formally approve the rules and procedures prior to the session?
Would he really care that a transcript wasn't being made?
No Monk James. He would not. He would not look for any trivial reason to delay things further. He would go on and defend himself with the truth and facts to back it up.
Perhaps the tactic already used is the only thing which delay's the inevitable from happening? Perhaps there is absolutely no defense possible for the accused's actions?
We would love to know.
Michael
Not really.
Don't you fellows realize how silly you appear?
If the accused was truly innocent, wouldn't he be screaming from the rooftops of his innocence?
Would he really care that the synod perhaps didn't actually formally approve the rules and procedures prior to the session?
Would he really care that a transcript wasn't being made?
No Monk James. He would not. He would not look for any trivial reason to delay things further. He would go on and defend himself with the truth and facts to back it up.
Perhaps the tactic already used is the only thing which delay's the inevitable from happening? Perhaps there is absolutely no defense possible for the accused's actions?
We would love to know.
Michael
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1
Michael Geeza
on
2007-07-10 06:28
Once it appeared that Met. Herman had reclaimed ecclesial jurisdiction over Fr Robert Kondratick (this didn't actually happen -- it just looked that way because our (somehow intimidated) bishops let MH bully them into compliance and FrRK into a shocked silence in the Synod), MH set up this farce of a 'spiritual court'.
Having kept a dignified -- not evasive or guilty -- silence all these months, FrRK (perhaps naively) hoped that the court would provide him an opportunity to clear his name.
Then, every effort on our part to get him a fair hearing was rebuffed and denied by MH in writing and by Abp Nathaniel in person, neither of whom seems to know anything about the canonical traditions of the Church or even about our OCA Statute. All they know is what THEY want, canons, statutes, common sense, fair play and Christian ethics be damned!
Now, I was there at the center of these events from the beginning, and I'm still there, God bless me, and Michael Geeza is not. His misinterpretations of such facts as he's been able to glean are exceeded only by his imaginative constructions of possible scenarios which never occurred, and it would be helpful for his own mental and spiritual health to cease such idle speculation.
It would be reasonable at this juncture to expect the Holy Synod to convoke a spiritual court to examine MH after the bishops hear FrRK's anticipated appeal of this jerry-rigged court -- if the bishops even accept its conslusions and recommendations.
And when MH is tried for his moral and canonical transgressions and for all the damage he's done to our church, I promise you FrRK and many others will 'shout from the rooftops what they have said in secret', that 'the books will be opened and hidden things revealed, and the river of fire will flow' right through our OCA.
Monk James
Having kept a dignified -- not evasive or guilty -- silence all these months, FrRK (perhaps naively) hoped that the court would provide him an opportunity to clear his name.
Then, every effort on our part to get him a fair hearing was rebuffed and denied by MH in writing and by Abp Nathaniel in person, neither of whom seems to know anything about the canonical traditions of the Church or even about our OCA Statute. All they know is what THEY want, canons, statutes, common sense, fair play and Christian ethics be damned!
Now, I was there at the center of these events from the beginning, and I'm still there, God bless me, and Michael Geeza is not. His misinterpretations of such facts as he's been able to glean are exceeded only by his imaginative constructions of possible scenarios which never occurred, and it would be helpful for his own mental and spiritual health to cease such idle speculation.
It would be reasonable at this juncture to expect the Holy Synod to convoke a spiritual court to examine MH after the bishops hear FrRK's anticipated appeal of this jerry-rigged court -- if the bishops even accept its conslusions and recommendations.
And when MH is tried for his moral and canonical transgressions and for all the damage he's done to our church, I promise you FrRK and many others will 'shout from the rooftops what they have said in secret', that 'the books will be opened and hidden things revealed, and the river of fire will flow' right through our OCA.
Monk James
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-10 09:11
Yes, Monk James, you certainly are there, right in the thick of things. But many of us wonder, why? Nobody can seem to figure out just what your role in this whole defense is.
You have a way of distorting things, telling us how innocent Fr. Bob is and now that he will shout from the rooftops when all is said and done.
What will he tell us Monk James? That he didn't use church funds for personal expences? Do the words AMEX, jewelry or hair salons ring a bell? That it wasn't his signature on credit card bills?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you yourself said in a prior post that he was "fundamentally guilty". Just what does that mean? Either he is or he isn't.
I'll say one thing, you would certainly make a good politician.
It appears we are dealing with someone who is in serious denial here. And although I am not there as you stated, the fact remains, he has been accused of certain things, terrible things.
Why not for once, address the accusations in and of themselves and nothing else.
No spin, No twisting, No rhetoric, No trivial technicality, No laying blame elsewhere, No distortion, etc. etc.
Let's hear more about what you mean by "fundamentally guilty".
Inquiring minds would like to know.
You have a way of distorting things, telling us how innocent Fr. Bob is and now that he will shout from the rooftops when all is said and done.
What will he tell us Monk James? That he didn't use church funds for personal expences? Do the words AMEX, jewelry or hair salons ring a bell? That it wasn't his signature on credit card bills?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you yourself said in a prior post that he was "fundamentally guilty". Just what does that mean? Either he is or he isn't.
I'll say one thing, you would certainly make a good politician.
It appears we are dealing with someone who is in serious denial here. And although I am not there as you stated, the fact remains, he has been accused of certain things, terrible things.
Why not for once, address the accusations in and of themselves and nothing else.
No spin, No twisting, No rhetoric, No trivial technicality, No laying blame elsewhere, No distortion, etc. etc.
Let's hear more about what you mean by "fundamentally guilty".
Inquiring minds would like to know.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
Michael Geeza
on
2007-07-11 13:06
As far as I recall, I've never used the phrase 'fundamentally guilty', so I have no idea what Michael Geeza might have in mind by mentioning such an idea. Perhaps someone will refresh my memory?
In addition, there are many things to which he alludes only briefly here, but which are absolutely false. Why does Mr Geeza believe only the bad things, the lies told by Met. Herman & Co., attributed to Fr Robert Kondratick, who has never been given an unbiased venue in which he might clear his name?
I am where I am and doing what I do by virtue of monastic obedience and by its implications and consequences, in spite of how difficult that might be for people to understand. I didn't volunteer for this gig! This is what God gave me to do, and I accept it.
Anyone who wants to dispute this will have to do it with someone other than my poor self.
Monk James
In addition, there are many things to which he alludes only briefly here, but which are absolutely false. Why does Mr Geeza believe only the bad things, the lies told by Met. Herman & Co., attributed to Fr Robert Kondratick, who has never been given an unbiased venue in which he might clear his name?
I am where I am and doing what I do by virtue of monastic obedience and by its implications and consequences, in spite of how difficult that might be for people to understand. I didn't volunteer for this gig! This is what God gave me to do, and I accept it.
Anyone who wants to dispute this will have to do it with someone other than my poor self.
Monk James
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-11 19:21
"Fr Robert Kondratick, [who] has never been given an unbiased venue in which he might clear his name".
I don't believe this is true, Monk James. This website is actually very close to a definition of an unbiased venue since it provides space for a free forum, in which all parties have a chance to speak up (including yourself, and former Bp. Tikhon of the West, among others). And that space is provided in every category, not just in the Comments section - if you go through the Reflections page, you will find that people who are represented their are not always arguing the same point of view - far from it!
Fr. Bob is completely free - and welcome (correct me Mark if I am wrong) - to write a "Kondratick Report" counteracting each and every accusation agains his person, and submit it to this site for all the inquisitive world to see. What other "unbiased venue" is he looking for? The New York Times? The Congress hearings?
The truth is, all that we are hearing from his camp are vague threats and "just wait, we'll tell all". Well, go ahead, tell all! The truth has a way of asserting itself. If your "all" is true and all the facts check out, then we may have a chance to begin closure on this scandal and move to other, better things, no?
I don't believe this is true, Monk James. This website is actually very close to a definition of an unbiased venue since it provides space for a free forum, in which all parties have a chance to speak up (including yourself, and former Bp. Tikhon of the West, among others). And that space is provided in every category, not just in the Comments section - if you go through the Reflections page, you will find that people who are represented their are not always arguing the same point of view - far from it!
Fr. Bob is completely free - and welcome (correct me Mark if I am wrong) - to write a "Kondratick Report" counteracting each and every accusation agains his person, and submit it to this site for all the inquisitive world to see. What other "unbiased venue" is he looking for? The New York Times? The Congress hearings?
The truth is, all that we are hearing from his camp are vague threats and "just wait, we'll tell all". Well, go ahead, tell all! The truth has a way of asserting itself. If your "all" is true and all the facts check out, then we may have a chance to begin closure on this scandal and move to other, better things, no?
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Inga Leonova
on
2007-07-12 11:56
"I allude to things which are absolutely false"? Based on what? That you say they are?
Perhaps if you and your cronnies had stayed for the trial you would then know that what I "allude to" is indeed factual.
It has already been established in writing that the accused previously used church funds for personal expenses.
Did the accused or did he not receive an outline explaining in explicit detail what the charges were against him?
Are you still going to sit there and dispute this? Facts are facts.
The accused was already given an opportunity to defend himself, but yet, he and his team of advisors chose not to based on technicalities which have NO bearing on whether or not the allegations are true or false. Don't you realize that you are more intent on looking for reasons why things should not progress as opposed to rebutting the accusations. Where is the defense? Is there even a reasonable defense?
Are you not concerned for the accused's spiritual well being and salvation? I'm beginning to wonder.
When oh when will someone on your side finally admit that they did something wrong? I will repeat, facts are facts.
Enough excuses already. Why is he not accountable for anything? Sheeeesh.
Perhaps if you and your cronnies had stayed for the trial you would then know that what I "allude to" is indeed factual.
It has already been established in writing that the accused previously used church funds for personal expenses.
Did the accused or did he not receive an outline explaining in explicit detail what the charges were against him?
Are you still going to sit there and dispute this? Facts are facts.
The accused was already given an opportunity to defend himself, but yet, he and his team of advisors chose not to based on technicalities which have NO bearing on whether or not the allegations are true or false. Don't you realize that you are more intent on looking for reasons why things should not progress as opposed to rebutting the accusations. Where is the defense? Is there even a reasonable defense?
Are you not concerned for the accused's spiritual well being and salvation? I'm beginning to wonder.
When oh when will someone on your side finally admit that they did something wrong? I will repeat, facts are facts.
Enough excuses already. Why is he not accountable for anything? Sheeeesh.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2
Michael Geeza
on
2007-07-12 12:05
Monk James,
I stand to be corrected. You are absolutely right. You never said, "fundamentally guilty". I am sorry for putting words in your mouth.
Instead, you were quoted as saying, "While the substance of most of the accusations is true, the notion that FrRK (Kondratick) is the responsible party is not."
Isn't he the only one who is on trial here?
If he has been accused of certain things, why do you twist it around and say the "notion" that he is responsible is not?
Here we go once again with the old political spin.
That reminds me of one former President who asked under oath, "that all depends on what the definition of is, is."
Either he is or he isn't. Since he has been the only person accused of anything, many of us are confused by your comments to the contrary.
Has anyone else been formally accused of any wrongdoing? Did anything like that come out in the court trial? Oh, I forgot. You guys weren't there long enough to hear.
I stand to be corrected. You are absolutely right. You never said, "fundamentally guilty". I am sorry for putting words in your mouth.
Instead, you were quoted as saying, "While the substance of most of the accusations is true, the notion that FrRK (Kondratick) is the responsible party is not."
Isn't he the only one who is on trial here?
If he has been accused of certain things, why do you twist it around and say the "notion" that he is responsible is not?
Here we go once again with the old political spin.
That reminds me of one former President who asked under oath, "that all depends on what the definition of is, is."
Either he is or he isn't. Since he has been the only person accused of anything, many of us are confused by your comments to the contrary.
Has anyone else been formally accused of any wrongdoing? Did anything like that come out in the court trial? Oh, I forgot. You guys weren't there long enough to hear.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3
Michael Geeza
on
2007-07-12 14:37
Mr Geeza, please tell me your just adding some comic relief to the siutation?
"Don't you fellows realize how silly you appear? If the accused was truly innocent, wouldn't he be screaming from the rooftops of his innocence?"
Let's see here, it's already a known fact that Syosset is "building the infamous wall around the Metropolitan." The decisions coming out of Syosset for the last year at the very least prove irrational and idiotic at best. So, for you to actually make a comment about Fr Bob being silly in appearance because he's not screaming from the rooftops is too....irrational. Fr Bob is protecting himself from the trainwreck in NY. ANYONE in his place would do the exact same thing based on their knowledge of how the decision process works in Syosset. Yes, you too!
"Would he really care that the synod perhaps didn't actually formally approve the rules and procedures prior to the session?
Would he really care that a transcript wasn't being made?"
Absolutely he would. Would you enter into an environment like that without knowing the rules? Nope, you wouldn't. Even better yet, if you knew that you were being scapegoated for everything, wouldn't you wanted an official transcript? Yep, you would too.
For you to actually say that it's just an excuse to delay the process is pretty funny. Put yourself in his place Mr Geeza, knowing everything that the laity now know. You would do the same, nice try though!!
"Don't you fellows realize how silly you appear? If the accused was truly innocent, wouldn't he be screaming from the rooftops of his innocence?"
Let's see here, it's already a known fact that Syosset is "building the infamous wall around the Metropolitan." The decisions coming out of Syosset for the last year at the very least prove irrational and idiotic at best. So, for you to actually make a comment about Fr Bob being silly in appearance because he's not screaming from the rooftops is too....irrational. Fr Bob is protecting himself from the trainwreck in NY. ANYONE in his place would do the exact same thing based on their knowledge of how the decision process works in Syosset. Yes, you too!
"Would he really care that the synod perhaps didn't actually formally approve the rules and procedures prior to the session?
Would he really care that a transcript wasn't being made?"
Absolutely he would. Would you enter into an environment like that without knowing the rules? Nope, you wouldn't. Even better yet, if you knew that you were being scapegoated for everything, wouldn't you wanted an official transcript? Yep, you would too.
For you to actually say that it's just an excuse to delay the process is pretty funny. Put yourself in his place Mr Geeza, knowing everything that the laity now know. You would do the same, nice try though!!
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2
Michael Livosky
on
2007-07-10 10:13
It seems that james silver can't even get his misinformation correct. First he list ALL of the persons present at the initial part of the trial and then he ends up his statement by stating that Jim Perry, not one of the persons listed as in attendance, as giving the order to vacate. C'mon silver, get your story straight before you publish. In any case, even if Perry was there and he did tell them to beat it, his actions certainly do not constitute the actions of the spiritual court. Since when does Perry decide on who attends and who does not attend sessions of the court? Seems like RSK et al are grasping for straws.
#1.1.2.1.2
nicholas skovran
on
2007-07-07 19:52
Fr. Philip seems to be right about the unavailability of interlocutory appeals. I shall write elsewhere as well to confess error on this point.
#1.1.2.2
Edmund Unneland
on
2007-07-07 11:32
Quoted from the audit report released by Fr. Paul...
"The Church believes a former employee owes the Church for personal credit card charges paid
by the Church totaling approximately $137,000. Conversely, the employee alleges that they are
due reimbursement for certain improvements to Church-owned fixed assets paid for by them
during their employment. These improvements totaled $109,523, plus estimated accrued interest,
for a total estimated claim of $240,000. No amounts have been accrued in the financial
statements for the estimated receivable or the claim due to uncertainties as to the collectibility of
the receivable and the validity of the claim."
At a minimum, Fr. Kondratick is guilty of extremely poor financial management. At most, he is guilty of personally deciding what the church owed him for his service.
Based on the information above, Fr. Kondratick is responsible for 137k of the churches 1.7M debt. The balance of mismanagement must be from the Synod, and the Met. Coucil, and the administration. Mismanagement is a far easier pill to swallow than graft, but it'd be easier to swallow if everyone just stepped up to the plate a bit more and said "We mismanaged", and we could move forward.
The investigation will shed light on the assumptions we are forced to make.
Maybe the 500 grand we spent to show that Fr. K spent 137 grand of our money might be worth it if it was the only way.
The biggest question is who will take ownership of the 1.5M balance? So far, noone has, and the only way we'll understand what's right is via the report.
If the Synod isn't at all responsible, that'd include Met. Herman by default that he is an equal in my book. If the MC is responsible, there should have been resignations aplenty long ago.
The trial of Fr. K really won't answer much, the investigation might answer some.
Patience for a few more months is important.
It would be good to hear from the Metropolitan and Fr. Paul on how to resolve the audit qualifications and the expectations for the 2007 audit.
"The Church believes a former employee owes the Church for personal credit card charges paid
by the Church totaling approximately $137,000. Conversely, the employee alleges that they are
due reimbursement for certain improvements to Church-owned fixed assets paid for by them
during their employment. These improvements totaled $109,523, plus estimated accrued interest,
for a total estimated claim of $240,000. No amounts have been accrued in the financial
statements for the estimated receivable or the claim due to uncertainties as to the collectibility of
the receivable and the validity of the claim."
At a minimum, Fr. Kondratick is guilty of extremely poor financial management. At most, he is guilty of personally deciding what the church owed him for his service.
Based on the information above, Fr. Kondratick is responsible for 137k of the churches 1.7M debt. The balance of mismanagement must be from the Synod, and the Met. Coucil, and the administration. Mismanagement is a far easier pill to swallow than graft, but it'd be easier to swallow if everyone just stepped up to the plate a bit more and said "We mismanaged", and we could move forward.
The investigation will shed light on the assumptions we are forced to make.
Maybe the 500 grand we spent to show that Fr. K spent 137 grand of our money might be worth it if it was the only way.
The biggest question is who will take ownership of the 1.5M balance? So far, noone has, and the only way we'll understand what's right is via the report.
If the Synod isn't at all responsible, that'd include Met. Herman by default that he is an equal in my book. If the MC is responsible, there should have been resignations aplenty long ago.
The trial of Fr. K really won't answer much, the investigation might answer some.
Patience for a few more months is important.
It would be good to hear from the Metropolitan and Fr. Paul on how to resolve the audit qualifications and the expectations for the 2007 audit.
#2
Daniel E. Fall
on
2007-07-05 21:53
Dan,
The financial shenanigans were going on before 1999 and the arrival of the $5M ADM money, and they continued at least until this website got things out into the open. Don't get buried in the $137k Kondratic expenses, the $1.7 million loan, or even the $5M ADM money. The only thing it shows is consistently bad management! The word BAD is unjust. These characters can't run a tax exempt, non-profit organization.They received faithful donations and then squandered the money. They'd be run out in the corporate world and we should have recognized that long ago.
As l just posted on the last reflection, go look to the financial report presented at the 2005 AAC http://www.oca.org/PDF/14thAAC/FinReport.pdf The operating losses for 2002, 2003 and 2004 total $1.9 million! Yes, nearly $2 million in 3 years. And what was the proposed budget for 2005? You got it; worse than the government - let’s increase the operating expenses by another $900,000 for 2005. And just like the government, you and your kids will be taxed to pay for the waste in the form of higher assesments or less services. We wont know what happened in 2005, since the Treasurer is missing financial information and can’t formulate the report. Was it just Fr. Bob watching over these transactions? Could any parishes operate like this? Honestly, with the losses involved, the $1.7 million loan could not cover us, unless there are unreported donations. Does anyone have access to old financial reports from previous AAC's? I'd be interested to see how we were reporting the finances since 1995.
Ken Kozak
The financial shenanigans were going on before 1999 and the arrival of the $5M ADM money, and they continued at least until this website got things out into the open. Don't get buried in the $137k Kondratic expenses, the $1.7 million loan, or even the $5M ADM money. The only thing it shows is consistently bad management! The word BAD is unjust. These characters can't run a tax exempt, non-profit organization.They received faithful donations and then squandered the money. They'd be run out in the corporate world and we should have recognized that long ago.
As l just posted on the last reflection, go look to the financial report presented at the 2005 AAC http://www.oca.org/PDF/14thAAC/FinReport.pdf The operating losses for 2002, 2003 and 2004 total $1.9 million! Yes, nearly $2 million in 3 years. And what was the proposed budget for 2005? You got it; worse than the government - let’s increase the operating expenses by another $900,000 for 2005. And just like the government, you and your kids will be taxed to pay for the waste in the form of higher assesments or less services. We wont know what happened in 2005, since the Treasurer is missing financial information and can’t formulate the report. Was it just Fr. Bob watching over these transactions? Could any parishes operate like this? Honestly, with the losses involved, the $1.7 million loan could not cover us, unless there are unreported donations. Does anyone have access to old financial reports from previous AAC's? I'd be interested to see how we were reporting the finances since 1995.
Ken Kozak
#2.1
Ken Kozak
on
2007-07-06 11:38
Agreed. But Ken, who is responsible?
All the Synod
All the Administration(s)
All the Metropolitan Council
That's right, it isn't just the Metropolitan's. It is everybody involved. The reason Kondratick is on the top of the list is because it seems he was the worst of the bunch and my post reflects the facts presented by the administration and the auditors. That is Fr. K is responsible for 137K. The balance is the list above Ken. ...and probably losses in the stock exchange on investments, etc...
All the Synod
All the Administration(s)
All the Metropolitan Council
That's right, it isn't just the Metropolitan's. It is everybody involved. The reason Kondratick is on the top of the list is because it seems he was the worst of the bunch and my post reflects the facts presented by the administration and the auditors. That is Fr. K is responsible for 137K. The balance is the list above Ken. ...and probably losses in the stock exchange on investments, etc...
#2.1.1
Daniel E. Fall
on
2007-07-06 18:52
Dan,
Sorry, but from what I see, I don't think all of those people are responsible. It appears to me that this scandal probably only involves a small handful of perpetrators. They are good at what they have done, but the ball is unravelling. Do I really think that the lay representative to the Met. Council from the Albanian Diocese(use any diocese) is responsible? I doubt it. Based on the insight provided from a well respected priest, Fr. Berzonsky, who is chastised for mentioning the lingering issues, I don't think many lay representatives would even speak up at a meeting with the Metropolitan. Perhaps you say they should have been bold enought to speak up. Well, let's look at Greg Nescott. He spoke up and what happened? He was reprimanded, shutdown and shotdown, not only recently but also in the past. (Oh, no, I'm sorry, that was just a simple misunderstanding - Is there any way we can believe that it was just a misunderstanding? I previously thoght this was a minor issue, but as I continue to reflect I'm beginning to think it is quite symbolic.)
No, not all the Bishops or MC members are responsible. Just like Enron, not all of the management was bad. In the OCA administration, there were only a small number of people with real access to the funds and with moral corruptness that could lead to back door dealings and theft. It can't be done by one person, and that's why these types of schemes end up failing - someone gets greedy. Unfortunately, as in our case it has taken a long time. This case involved our faithful leaders, representatives of our Lord, who held our trust.
Much time has passed and the paper trail may be covered, but the only chance we have in knowing what happened is to let the Special Commission (or Fed's) do it's work - uninhibited!
Concerning the trial, and the reported long testimony of Met. Theodosius, I had been told that he was suffering from Alzheimers. Anyone with knowledge of that?
Ken Kozak
Sorry, but from what I see, I don't think all of those people are responsible. It appears to me that this scandal probably only involves a small handful of perpetrators. They are good at what they have done, but the ball is unravelling. Do I really think that the lay representative to the Met. Council from the Albanian Diocese(use any diocese) is responsible? I doubt it. Based on the insight provided from a well respected priest, Fr. Berzonsky, who is chastised for mentioning the lingering issues, I don't think many lay representatives would even speak up at a meeting with the Metropolitan. Perhaps you say they should have been bold enought to speak up. Well, let's look at Greg Nescott. He spoke up and what happened? He was reprimanded, shutdown and shotdown, not only recently but also in the past. (Oh, no, I'm sorry, that was just a simple misunderstanding - Is there any way we can believe that it was just a misunderstanding? I previously thoght this was a minor issue, but as I continue to reflect I'm beginning to think it is quite symbolic.)
No, not all the Bishops or MC members are responsible. Just like Enron, not all of the management was bad. In the OCA administration, there were only a small number of people with real access to the funds and with moral corruptness that could lead to back door dealings and theft. It can't be done by one person, and that's why these types of schemes end up failing - someone gets greedy. Unfortunately, as in our case it has taken a long time. This case involved our faithful leaders, representatives of our Lord, who held our trust.
Much time has passed and the paper trail may be covered, but the only chance we have in knowing what happened is to let the Special Commission (or Fed's) do it's work - uninhibited!
Concerning the trial, and the reported long testimony of Met. Theodosius, I had been told that he was suffering from Alzheimers. Anyone with knowledge of that?
Ken Kozak
#2.1.1.1
Ken Kozak
on
2007-07-07 10:33
Dear Ken: Looking at the 2 of the numbers right next to each other in the 2004 actuals, I couldn't help but think how much better a church we would have if we spent $657,000 on evangelization and $12,000 on external affairs, and not the other way around.
#2.1.2
Michael Strelka
on
2007-07-14 10:55
Mark,
It is still uncertain how many charges will stay or fall, following VRFRS Kondratick's response. It is not clear who made the rules for this court, as long as the knowledge of some to the tribunal people regarding the canons and church law is very poor. Everyone hopes that VRFRS Kondratick will use in his defense everything he has in his possesion. It is still time for thinking of having a good ending of this trial.
It is absurd to think about not having everything on records and especially in this case where everyone think that it will end in the civil court.
By the way, is it not true that Archb Nathaniel is the defendant in a civil lawsuit brought against him and the roea and one of the dean of the roea, in Chicago, IL ... being sued by the former priest of St Mary's Romanian Orthodox Church in Chicago, IL?
It is the appearance that a website was set in these regards and everyone can access www.rocpnews.blogspot.com and find out something about Archb Nathaniel. How can he be a president of this church tribunal while he is involved in this civil lawsuit which started in April, 2005? Who can trust him?
It is about time to think that VRFRS Kondratick is only the scapegoat, and the kingpins are still hoping to come out clean. Is it anyone who do not hope that big moguls can be decapitated? Don't you think that even the presiding officer of this trivial tribunal is muddy to some degrees?
Just go and read the materials posted on the internet at the site mentioned above and think about who is going to serve NOT for JUSTICE in the VRFRS Kondratick trial.
Hopefully the Kondratick team will be on duty and ready to act within the civil court. It is appropriate for VRFRS Kondratick to blow up the entire Syosset by his info which everyone expects to hear them.
In case no records can be recorded on tape and in writing by the parties involved in this trial there is no credibility that justice is served. In case it is custumary for the Syosset to operate without records, then time is up when the Robert's Rules of Orders provisions MUSt be in place. Nothing cannot be done without observing the rules mentioned previously. Nobody can trust the president of this false tribunal.
Look attentively at the entire materials posted on the site presented above and reflect on the moral character, integrity, conduct and so on of the presiding officer at the VRFRS Kondratick trial. +MH cannot be happy with a mistrial. +MH must pay the big tag price for his wrong doings too. Let us see and hope that justice will be finally served under God's watching proceedings.
Sincerely,
John Reeve, a convert to Orthodoxy, 07/06/07
(Editor's note: The website the author refers to has been established by a former priest of the Romanian Episcopate, Fr. Vasile Susan, to explain the unusual circumstances surrounding his dismissal from St. Mary's parish in Chicago two years ago. Fr. Susan is currently in litigation with the Archbishop over his dismissal, and many of the documents relating to the case are available on the website. The website's address is http://www.rocpnews.blogspot.com.)
It is still uncertain how many charges will stay or fall, following VRFRS Kondratick's response. It is not clear who made the rules for this court, as long as the knowledge of some to the tribunal people regarding the canons and church law is very poor. Everyone hopes that VRFRS Kondratick will use in his defense everything he has in his possesion. It is still time for thinking of having a good ending of this trial.
It is absurd to think about not having everything on records and especially in this case where everyone think that it will end in the civil court.
By the way, is it not true that Archb Nathaniel is the defendant in a civil lawsuit brought against him and the roea and one of the dean of the roea, in Chicago, IL ... being sued by the former priest of St Mary's Romanian Orthodox Church in Chicago, IL?
It is the appearance that a website was set in these regards and everyone can access www.rocpnews.blogspot.com and find out something about Archb Nathaniel. How can he be a president of this church tribunal while he is involved in this civil lawsuit which started in April, 2005? Who can trust him?
It is about time to think that VRFRS Kondratick is only the scapegoat, and the kingpins are still hoping to come out clean. Is it anyone who do not hope that big moguls can be decapitated? Don't you think that even the presiding officer of this trivial tribunal is muddy to some degrees?
Just go and read the materials posted on the internet at the site mentioned above and think about who is going to serve NOT for JUSTICE in the VRFRS Kondratick trial.
Hopefully the Kondratick team will be on duty and ready to act within the civil court. It is appropriate for VRFRS Kondratick to blow up the entire Syosset by his info which everyone expects to hear them.
In case no records can be recorded on tape and in writing by the parties involved in this trial there is no credibility that justice is served. In case it is custumary for the Syosset to operate without records, then time is up when the Robert's Rules of Orders provisions MUSt be in place. Nothing cannot be done without observing the rules mentioned previously. Nobody can trust the president of this false tribunal.
Look attentively at the entire materials posted on the site presented above and reflect on the moral character, integrity, conduct and so on of the presiding officer at the VRFRS Kondratick trial. +MH cannot be happy with a mistrial. +MH must pay the big tag price for his wrong doings too. Let us see and hope that justice will be finally served under God's watching proceedings.
Sincerely,
John Reeve, a convert to Orthodoxy, 07/06/07
(Editor's note: The website the author refers to has been established by a former priest of the Romanian Episcopate, Fr. Vasile Susan, to explain the unusual circumstances surrounding his dismissal from St. Mary's parish in Chicago two years ago. Fr. Susan is currently in litigation with the Archbishop over his dismissal, and many of the documents relating to the case are available on the website. The website's address is http://www.rocpnews.blogspot.com.)
#3
John Reeve
on
2007-07-06 01:09
This is very sad for us Orthodox faithful people. Who can trust this court? I have been told by observers at ROEA congress last week that Archb Nathaniel does not answer real questions especially about money. THe answers are vague. Many of the accounts say "restricted" and they do not tell "restricted" to what. Even more bad, they say that members of the nominating committee for Episcopate Council left from the meeting very angry, said to be because Archb Nathaniel changed their proposal list without them knowing about it. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE I ASK YOU? We come to America to leave this kind of corrupt system and we find it here too. The one who said here before that the old bishops must go was corect. GOD HELP US!
#3.1
Anonymous
on
2007-07-09 22:39
Mark, what is the outcome of this, so called trial?
(Editor's note: Please see my reply to Fr. Phillip for the latest on the trial.)
(Editor's note: Please see my reply to Fr. Phillip for the latest on the trial.)
Elsewhere on the internet, there has been a discussion of some of the procedural problems with Skordinski v Kondratick. More conspiratorial types might say that it was done on purpose. They would suggest the following steps are on the way:
Fr. Kondratick is tried and punished by the tribunal. The verdict of the tribunal is presented as the end of the scandal and we are instructed like sheep to move onto different pastures.
The Holy Synod points to the procedural problems, reverses the verdict and the punishment, says that the OCA statute prohibits trying someone a second time, and lets Fr. Kondratick go back to the parish in Venice.
I don't believe the above to be true (or to even be a correct understanding of the double jeopardy clause of the OCA statute), but the lack of trust (with a very good basis in fact) is quite profound.
The relationship between a bishop or a priest and the community has been likened to a marriage. As it stands right now, the communities of the OCA have been terribly abused by many of its priests and bishops. Despite the efforts to date, the person in the pew will see mostly the same set of faces taking their money and telling them "just give me another chance." It is the people that have endured the "righteous suffering" at the hands of the abusers in a relationship that has become terribly dysfunctional.
Fr. Bobosh's analogy (written elsewhere) to "Old Maid" is a good one. I keep wondering what is the real story. I have said it before, all the problems have to be revealed. Who is, ahem, "great and good friends" with whom? Who grabbed the money and ran? How did the neo-papalist ecclesiology get into the OCA? When did we forget that those who would be first must be the servant of all?
Even our language has become corrupted. Our reference to "Central Church Administration" represents precisely the opposite of what should be the situation. Offices attached to the Metropolitan should simply be supportive of what happens in the dioceses. They do not exist to issue top-down directives to the field.
The relationship has become so profoundly abusive, for so long, and in such secrecy, that a limited, modified, bowdlerized disclosure will not suffice any longer. The relationship has to be reconstructed from the beginning.
Fr. Kondratick is tried and punished by the tribunal. The verdict of the tribunal is presented as the end of the scandal and we are instructed like sheep to move onto different pastures.
The Holy Synod points to the procedural problems, reverses the verdict and the punishment, says that the OCA statute prohibits trying someone a second time, and lets Fr. Kondratick go back to the parish in Venice.
I don't believe the above to be true (or to even be a correct understanding of the double jeopardy clause of the OCA statute), but the lack of trust (with a very good basis in fact) is quite profound.
The relationship between a bishop or a priest and the community has been likened to a marriage. As it stands right now, the communities of the OCA have been terribly abused by many of its priests and bishops. Despite the efforts to date, the person in the pew will see mostly the same set of faces taking their money and telling them "just give me another chance." It is the people that have endured the "righteous suffering" at the hands of the abusers in a relationship that has become terribly dysfunctional.
Fr. Bobosh's analogy (written elsewhere) to "Old Maid" is a good one. I keep wondering what is the real story. I have said it before, all the problems have to be revealed. Who is, ahem, "great and good friends" with whom? Who grabbed the money and ran? How did the neo-papalist ecclesiology get into the OCA? When did we forget that those who would be first must be the servant of all?
Even our language has become corrupted. Our reference to "Central Church Administration" represents precisely the opposite of what should be the situation. Offices attached to the Metropolitan should simply be supportive of what happens in the dioceses. They do not exist to issue top-down directives to the field.
The relationship has become so profoundly abusive, for so long, and in such secrecy, that a limited, modified, bowdlerized disclosure will not suffice any longer. The relationship has to be reconstructed from the beginning.
#5
Edmund Unneland
on
2007-07-07 08:14
Ed,
Does anyone know if the Church Court has the right to establish the rules prior to the actual trial?
I thought I read somewhere in the Statute that they do indeed have that right. Also, there have been other church court situations previous to this one and I thought it was clear that the court reserves the right to establish the rules.
If that is the case, then I would assume Fr. RSK knew darn well what the rules were before he entered the session. I honestly couldn't see him arriving and not knowing what the rules were.
It would appear that he and his team appeared before the Court with the intent on trying to change the rules already established before the case was heard.
Whether they were asked to leave or not and whether an official record of the proceedings was allowed to be made, is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is, he had every right to stay, listen and then present his case. He and his team chose not to for whatever reason. Remember, they could have stayed and abided by whatever rules were established. It's not like they didn't have that opportunity.
If the rules were pre-established, then why would they have even bothered to show up for the first session if they didn't agree to them? Did they think the court would cave into their demands and wishes?
It just doesn't make sense.
Michael
Does anyone know if the Church Court has the right to establish the rules prior to the actual trial?
I thought I read somewhere in the Statute that they do indeed have that right. Also, there have been other church court situations previous to this one and I thought it was clear that the court reserves the right to establish the rules.
If that is the case, then I would assume Fr. RSK knew darn well what the rules were before he entered the session. I honestly couldn't see him arriving and not knowing what the rules were.
It would appear that he and his team appeared before the Court with the intent on trying to change the rules already established before the case was heard.
Whether they were asked to leave or not and whether an official record of the proceedings was allowed to be made, is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is, he had every right to stay, listen and then present his case. He and his team chose not to for whatever reason. Remember, they could have stayed and abided by whatever rules were established. It's not like they didn't have that opportunity.
If the rules were pre-established, then why would they have even bothered to show up for the first session if they didn't agree to them? Did they think the court would cave into their demands and wishes?
It just doesn't make sense.
Michael
#5.1
Michael Geeza
on
2007-07-08 08:33
MARK: This response properly belongs HERE rather than after Michael Geeza's earlier question to me. You could post it twice if it does no great damage, and it seems I have to keep repeating myself anyway. --James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although we were provided with a list of the spiritual court's 'procedural rules' just a few days prior to the court's first scheduled session, and although James Perry (Met. Herman's attorney) told us that our objections, if any (we were unable to accept two of them in particular) had to be received by him in writing by Friday 8 June, Mr Perry informed us that afternoon (in a telephone conversation with Fr Robert Kondratick's attorney) that we actually DID NOT need to submit our objections in writing on that day.
Instead, Mr Perry told us that we would have an opportunity to discuss and clarify the 'procedural rules' on the morning of Monday 11 June before the formal convocation of the court.
When we objected vigorously to a couple of them, primarily the rule against minuting or transcribing the proceedings, we also pointed out that -- by their very nature -- ALL these 'procedural rules' violated Article xi.4.k of the OCA's Statute, which provides that any and all such rules not already expressed in the Statute must be approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops.
As a result, we asked the court to delay the proceedings until the Bishops either confirmed, eliminated, or modified the 'procedural rules', and (even under protest) we would indeed have followed the bishops' directives; Abp Nathaniel unfairly, unreasonably, and illegally denied our request.
Excluding anyone but FrRK from responding to his question, AbpN then demanded to know if FrRK would proceed or not under the terms of the 'procedural rules' which the court was intent on imposing in spite of our objections and in spite of their statutory illegality.
When FrRK told AbpN that he could not proceed under such conditions, he (and we) were declared 'in contempt' and ordered from the room.
We did NOT withdraw voluntarily.
Clear enough?
Monk James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although we were provided with a list of the spiritual court's 'procedural rules' just a few days prior to the court's first scheduled session, and although James Perry (Met. Herman's attorney) told us that our objections, if any (we were unable to accept two of them in particular) had to be received by him in writing by Friday 8 June, Mr Perry informed us that afternoon (in a telephone conversation with Fr Robert Kondratick's attorney) that we actually DID NOT need to submit our objections in writing on that day.
Instead, Mr Perry told us that we would have an opportunity to discuss and clarify the 'procedural rules' on the morning of Monday 11 June before the formal convocation of the court.
When we objected vigorously to a couple of them, primarily the rule against minuting or transcribing the proceedings, we also pointed out that -- by their very nature -- ALL these 'procedural rules' violated Article xi.4.k of the OCA's Statute, which provides that any and all such rules not already expressed in the Statute must be approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops.
As a result, we asked the court to delay the proceedings until the Bishops either confirmed, eliminated, or modified the 'procedural rules', and (even under protest) we would indeed have followed the bishops' directives; Abp Nathaniel unfairly, unreasonably, and illegally denied our request.
Excluding anyone but FrRK from responding to his question, AbpN then demanded to know if FrRK would proceed or not under the terms of the 'procedural rules' which the court was intent on imposing in spite of our objections and in spite of their statutory illegality.
When FrRK told AbpN that he could not proceed under such conditions, he (and we) were declared 'in contempt' and ordered from the room.
We did NOT withdraw voluntarily.
Clear enough?
Monk James
#5.1.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-09 07:30
I think Fr. Kondratick and his team should have stayed and done their best. It would have been better if a little more forethought was used by the OCA and provision were made for a court reporter. When I was at Baruch College, contested disciplinary hearings always had a court reporter. This way, there is a real record that a reviewing court can refer to. (My work on the disciplinary committee was ultimately subject to Article 78 proceedings in NY Supreme Court.)
Rules of procedure are supposed to be established by the Holy Synod, per Art XI (4) (k). I guess in default of such rules the best a panel can do is to use the civil procedures that are in force in the state where the panel is sitting. (In another place I used the analogy of Conflict of Laws.)
Rules of procedure are supposed to be established by the Holy Synod, per Art XI (4) (k). I guess in default of such rules the best a panel can do is to use the civil procedures that are in force in the state where the panel is sitting. (In another place I used the analogy of Conflict of Laws.)
#5.1.2
Edmund Unneland
on
2007-07-09 11:11
Michael,
where can one read the Statues? Are they accesible to the people? If you can help out on finding them please let me know!
Also, what other hearings was it acceptable to change the rules and for what reason? Why even have rules then?
These are question I hope you can answer for I have little knowledge of the issue.
Thank you
where can one read the Statues? Are they accesible to the people? If you can help out on finding them please let me know!
Also, what other hearings was it acceptable to change the rules and for what reason? Why even have rules then?
These are question I hope you can answer for I have little knowledge of the issue.
Thank you
#5.1.3
wondering?
on
2007-07-09 17:44
Here is a link to the pertinent Statute section:
http://www.oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=11
http://www.oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=11
#5.1.3.1
Brad M
on
2007-07-10 05:25
the entire Statute of the OCA can be found here:
http://www.oca.org/DOCindex-statute.asp?SID=12
http://www.oca.org/DOCindex-statute.asp?SID=12
#5.1.3.2
Michael Strelka
on
2007-07-10 12:26
My thoughts go to a conviction of Fr. Kondratick and the inevitable consequences (sentence) following the trial. At the very least, it would seem appropriate to remove, from Father Kondratick, the right to publicly represent himself as a priest. However, this result might not be forthcoming. Considering that he has been tried for misappropriating funds intended for the sick, for the homeless, for widows, for orphans, and for the hungry, it might be fitting to sentence him as a priest and as a life-long obedience to working among AIDS patients, terminal cancer patients, in a shelter for the homeless, facilitating support groups for grieving spouses, and in soup kitchens. That might give us all peace we seek and Father Kontratick an opportunity to take responsibility for his deeds.
#6
Kathy D.
on
2007-07-07 13:09
Why do I keep getting this sickly, slimy, revolting feeling to my stomach when I see Fr. Bob is getting tried in a spiritual court for what has happened at Syosset, but no one else?
Patty Schellbach
Patty Schellbach
#7
Patty Schellbach
on
2007-07-07 20:18
If Fr. Bob receives his "trial" in this life, and repents, he is far more blessed than anyone who "avoids trial" in this life and faces the Judge in there hereafter without having repented ASAP.
Lord, have mercy!
Rdr. Alexander Langley
Lord, have mercy!
Rdr. Alexander Langley
#7.1
Rdr. Alexander Langley
on
2007-07-09 08:17
Dear Patty,
When the spiritual court heard testimony from Fr Oselinsky on Friday that it was HERMAN who authorized the use of OCA appeal money not Kondratick, James Perry was not at all pleased. Kondratick never had the authority to use restricted appeal funds. The use of such funds could only be authorized by the Metropolitan alone or with the consent of the Administrative Committee in the previous structure, good or bad, that is how it was done.
Kucynda knows this because he was part of the meeting that authorized the use of the funds. Strikis knows this because he was part of the meeting that authorized the use of such funds. Kondratick knows this because he was part of that meeting that authorized the use of those funds, and Herman knows this because he is the one who authorized their use with the ORDER, "DO NOT TELL ANYONE OF MY DECISION, ESPECIALLY THE MEMBERS OF THE HOLY SYNOD."
Patty, that is the truth. Now what good is the truth? We will see very soon.
When the spiritual court heard testimony from Fr Oselinsky on Friday that it was HERMAN who authorized the use of OCA appeal money not Kondratick, James Perry was not at all pleased. Kondratick never had the authority to use restricted appeal funds. The use of such funds could only be authorized by the Metropolitan alone or with the consent of the Administrative Committee in the previous structure, good or bad, that is how it was done.
Kucynda knows this because he was part of the meeting that authorized the use of the funds. Strikis knows this because he was part of the meeting that authorized the use of such funds. Kondratick knows this because he was part of that meeting that authorized the use of those funds, and Herman knows this because he is the one who authorized their use with the ORDER, "DO NOT TELL ANYONE OF MY DECISION, ESPECIALLY THE MEMBERS OF THE HOLY SYNOD."
Patty, that is the truth. Now what good is the truth? We will see very soon.
#7.2
Anonymous
on
2007-07-09 08:45
Because your stomach is very smart. You have to have a strong one to digest the white bread the OCA's leadership is serving these days. Lots of filler, but where's the beef?
My stomach is wondering why His Beatitude, the Most Blessed HERMAN has not been called as a witness? He was for many years a fellow-worker with Fr. Kondratick. He was a witness to the whole debacle. He knew what was going on. He already knew the whole story before he spent all that cash for the Proskauer-Rose charade.
Inquiring stomachs want to know. Why isn't he a witness at this trial?
It's hard to keep this fast-food down!
Anonymous Digestive Organ
My stomach is wondering why His Beatitude, the Most Blessed HERMAN has not been called as a witness? He was for many years a fellow-worker with Fr. Kondratick. He was a witness to the whole debacle. He knew what was going on. He already knew the whole story before he spent all that cash for the Proskauer-Rose charade.
Inquiring stomachs want to know. Why isn't he a witness at this trial?
It's hard to keep this fast-food down!
Anonymous Digestive Organ
#7.3
Anonymous
on
2007-07-09 10:00
Because you, like most of the rest of us, have this feeling that one priest - even a powerful one - could not have run roughshod over the entire OCA infrastructure for so many years, taking so much money - by himself! It would seem clear that he must have had help / protection / support from at least some other people, most notably bishops and metropolitan(s).
On the other hand, one should never underestimate what can be done by one man with strong determination, in the right position, and with a shredder at his disposal!
At this point, the entire Holy Synod should resign en masse, with a petition for forgiveness for being unable to run an organization such as the OCA, and new bishops and a new metropolitan be put into place. They can call it "mismanagement" rather than crime - at this point, I could accept that and forgive. But, to have allowed such a mess to be made of what happened, and now the on-going aftermath - if that's not at least mismanagement, then it most surely has to be a conspiracy! If it's a conspiracy, then there are a lot of guilty parties surely involved; if it's simply mismanagement over a determined thief (presumably, Fr.RSK), then whomever served as his superiors are incompetent to manage him or the next criminal who comes along, and should resign to pursue other activities of a more spiritual nature. No shame in that - just admit, "I'm in over my head here," and go on to pursue something that you are good at, and let someone with a different mix of talents try their hand at "running the OCA."
In my line of work, I've dealt with some really brilliant scientists, who I wouldn't trust to add up the daily receipts of a lemonade stand! Great in their chosen discipline, just lousy as administrators!
On the other hand, one should never underestimate what can be done by one man with strong determination, in the right position, and with a shredder at his disposal!
At this point, the entire Holy Synod should resign en masse, with a petition for forgiveness for being unable to run an organization such as the OCA, and new bishops and a new metropolitan be put into place. They can call it "mismanagement" rather than crime - at this point, I could accept that and forgive. But, to have allowed such a mess to be made of what happened, and now the on-going aftermath - if that's not at least mismanagement, then it most surely has to be a conspiracy! If it's a conspiracy, then there are a lot of guilty parties surely involved; if it's simply mismanagement over a determined thief (presumably, Fr.RSK), then whomever served as his superiors are incompetent to manage him or the next criminal who comes along, and should resign to pursue other activities of a more spiritual nature. No shame in that - just admit, "I'm in over my head here," and go on to pursue something that you are good at, and let someone with a different mix of talents try their hand at "running the OCA."
In my line of work, I've dealt with some really brilliant scientists, who I wouldn't trust to add up the daily receipts of a lemonade stand! Great in their chosen discipline, just lousy as administrators!
#7.4
C.C.
on
2007-07-09 11:52
It's easy to sympathize with this point of view, but really the mass resignation of the synod would only lead to chaos (although I guess it's possible to argue that chaos would be an improvement).
We have barely enough qualified episcopal candidates for the one or two openings that come up every couple of years ... where are these new bishops going to come from? And given the careful cultivation of like-minded folks by the former administration, whose to say the new would be any better than the old?
Rebecca
We have barely enough qualified episcopal candidates for the one or two openings that come up every couple of years ... where are these new bishops going to come from? And given the careful cultivation of like-minded folks by the former administration, whose to say the new would be any better than the old?
Rebecca
#7.4.1
Rebecca Matovic
on
2007-07-10 04:39
Good point Rebecca.
And for the first time, I have some reservations about (the conclusion of) the latest editorial (for the same reason). OK, "everybody" will go. Who will remain to pick up the pieces? There is so much talk about need for "new blood", but what is that "new blood" and where is it? As I have said before (and more than once) elsewhere on this site, one of the things that emerged out of this public discussion is that we who call ourselves members of the OCA are not of the same mind on some of the fundamentals of our church structure. True, we don't have a pool of episcopal candidates - how are we planning to resolve that? Hire bishops from overseas? Decide by popular vote that we are going to draw from married clergy? Elect women? Is that a matter for a hasty emergency decision, because that's what it would have to be should the entire Synod resign?
Etc., etc.... There is no diminishing the significance or the magnitude of this mess, but to think that the only way it can be resolved is by revolutionary measures reminds me of the history of my motherland... "We shall destroy the world of violence
to its foundations, and then we shall build a new world.
Those that were nothing shall become everything!" (that's from the Russian version of The Internationale). We all know where that got Russia...
Sorry, I don't mean to sound facetious, but all the same I would like to know what concrete plans those of us who want a "clean slate" are offering. And I will hurry to admit that I don't have a plan. If I had, I would have by now grown my hair long, donned a fake beard and worked my way up the ranks! ;o)
And for the first time, I have some reservations about (the conclusion of) the latest editorial (for the same reason). OK, "everybody" will go. Who will remain to pick up the pieces? There is so much talk about need for "new blood", but what is that "new blood" and where is it? As I have said before (and more than once) elsewhere on this site, one of the things that emerged out of this public discussion is that we who call ourselves members of the OCA are not of the same mind on some of the fundamentals of our church structure. True, we don't have a pool of episcopal candidates - how are we planning to resolve that? Hire bishops from overseas? Decide by popular vote that we are going to draw from married clergy? Elect women? Is that a matter for a hasty emergency decision, because that's what it would have to be should the entire Synod resign?
Etc., etc.... There is no diminishing the significance or the magnitude of this mess, but to think that the only way it can be resolved is by revolutionary measures reminds me of the history of my motherland... "We shall destroy the world of violence
to its foundations, and then we shall build a new world.
Those that were nothing shall become everything!" (that's from the Russian version of The Internationale). We all know where that got Russia...
Sorry, I don't mean to sound facetious, but all the same I would like to know what concrete plans those of us who want a "clean slate" are offering. And I will hurry to admit that I don't have a plan. If I had, I would have by now grown my hair long, donned a fake beard and worked my way up the ranks! ;o)
#7.4.1.1
Inga Leonova
on
2007-07-10 08:23
I do not believe there have been no candidates for the episcopate. In my over 25 years in the OCA, I know of cases where clergy who felt called to the episcopate were not nurtured on that path. (Of course, it was God's will that these men follow another path.) In one case, the would-be candidate was rejected as being "too emotional" (a so-called business manager or treasurer in name only is so much better?!). In another case, Fr. Bob, as was his wont, started a vicious and untrue rumor about this individual. Think of the fairly recent past, when a would-be candidate was to go to the Diocese of the South, but certainly it was Fr. Bob and his crew there who felt that was not necessary, as they have their own candidate waiting in the wings.....
May we have eyes to see! Lord have mercy on me! Lord have mercy on us!
#7.4.1.1.1
Anonymous
(Link)
on
2007-07-17 11:58
It's clear that it's 'Anonymous' here who has 'started a vicious and untrue rumor about' Fr Robert Kondratick, dishonorably without a signature.
I don't know who our brave correspondent thought was considered 'too emotional', but if the DOS candidate is Fr Vladimir Wendling, I can tell you for a fact that FrRK 'and his crew' had NOTHING to do with the cancellation of those plans.
Don't we have enough trouble dealing with our real problems? Please, friends, let's be careful about letting our imagination run away with us, and stick instead to the sad facts of our current crisis, from which may the Lord swiftly deliver us.
I don't know who our brave correspondent thought was considered 'too emotional', but if the DOS candidate is Fr Vladimir Wendling, I can tell you for a fact that FrRK 'and his crew' had NOTHING to do with the cancellation of those plans.
Don't we have enough trouble dealing with our real problems? Please, friends, let's be careful about letting our imagination run away with us, and stick instead to the sad facts of our current crisis, from which may the Lord swiftly deliver us.
#7.4.1.1.1.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-17 14:25
Please spare us your "pious" admonitions!
I happen to have a pretty good idea who the "too emotional" candidate for the Episcopate was and can tell you his loss was very much a loss for our Church. His faults were preferable to the few virtues of most of our current bishops. At the time in question, Fr. Kondratick was the "Shogun of Syosset," so I hold him directly responsible for shamefully scuttling the candidacy of this outstanding prospective bishop. As for the Diocese of the South, it strains credulity that Fr. Kondratick and Co. had nothing to do with the termination of their prospective bishop.
While I can not fairly call you a lier, your reassurances lack a certain verisimilitude. Perhaps you should go back to your day job as a monk and leave publicity and lawyering to some else.
KRT
I happen to have a pretty good idea who the "too emotional" candidate for the Episcopate was and can tell you his loss was very much a loss for our Church. His faults were preferable to the few virtues of most of our current bishops. At the time in question, Fr. Kondratick was the "Shogun of Syosset," so I hold him directly responsible for shamefully scuttling the candidacy of this outstanding prospective bishop. As for the Diocese of the South, it strains credulity that Fr. Kondratick and Co. had nothing to do with the termination of their prospective bishop.
While I can not fairly call you a lier, your reassurances lack a certain verisimilitude. Perhaps you should go back to your day job as a monk and leave publicity and lawyering to some else.
KRT
#7.4.1.1.1.1.1
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2007-07-18 10:45
Yesterday I had it in mind to respond to Kenneth Tobin's earlier remarks about monasticism, most of which were his personal reactions to his own false impressions and not at all relative to the life which we monks and nuns strive to live, a life of repentance.
It's probably just as well that I didn't write yesterday, since someone else later wrote here with pretty much what I would have said. Yet Mr Tobin continues in his misapprehensions of monastic life and practice.
Frankly, most of us don't care if the laity are watching us or not, but we try to be good -- for the sake of being good -- and if people are edified, well, then, to God be the glory. It's a terrible sin to give scandal.
We monastics also have the very serious obligation to instruct and guide our spiritual children, and I'm sure that some of this spills over into our public comments, even into my own remarks on the Internet.
That being the case, I suspect that Mr Tobin (and the rest of 'us', whoever we are) is unlikely to be 'spared (my) pious admonitions'.
It might interest Mr Tobin to know that I asked several years ago to be relieved of my previously assumed responsibilities of writing on orthodox forums on the internet. My request was refused and I was given the renewed obedience to keep writing.
I wonder what sense he can make of *that*.
Monk James
It's probably just as well that I didn't write yesterday, since someone else later wrote here with pretty much what I would have said. Yet Mr Tobin continues in his misapprehensions of monastic life and practice.
Frankly, most of us don't care if the laity are watching us or not, but we try to be good -- for the sake of being good -- and if people are edified, well, then, to God be the glory. It's a terrible sin to give scandal.
We monastics also have the very serious obligation to instruct and guide our spiritual children, and I'm sure that some of this spills over into our public comments, even into my own remarks on the Internet.
That being the case, I suspect that Mr Tobin (and the rest of 'us', whoever we are) is unlikely to be 'spared (my) pious admonitions'.
It might interest Mr Tobin to know that I asked several years ago to be relieved of my previously assumed responsibilities of writing on orthodox forums on the internet. My request was refused and I was given the renewed obedience to keep writing.
I wonder what sense he can make of *that*.
Monk James
#7.4.1.1.1.1.1.1
Monk James
on
2007-07-18 18:21
Mass repentance and a willingness to change would suffice in most cases. As for filling vacancies without violating existing canons, no matter how outdated, how about looking for new bishops among the single or widowed clergy, whether monastic or not, and, horror of horrors, among the laity. There is plenty of precedence in the early Church for doing this.
What we can't do is just throw up our hands and resign ourselves to the status quo!
KRT
What we can't do is just throw up our hands and resign ourselves to the status quo!
KRT
#7.4.1.2
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2007-07-11 08:59
Ditto Patty.
#7.5
Anon.
on
2007-07-09 16:06
Dear Patty, Your not alone with the sickly revolting feeling in your stomach, I have it as well. But I also have a sadden feeling, that is there is no change occuring. Just think 18 months of comments on Fr. Bob about his own misleadings.
I just can't accept this anymore, its about covering up the real perpertrators, the handful or more of them are just playing their cards to cover themselves, and we are paying the bills for it. How stupid are we? A normal healthy administration would of issued a statement on sunday asking for prayer and disclosing some type of information about the trial. The blameshifting, scapegoating and games are still continueing with this Metropolitian and the administration are ignoring the cries of its people. This is a sad state in which our church is in, God is crying over this and I truely believe that Gods Holy name is being used by these people. That's a pretty harsh statement for me to make, but I believe it.
Truely I won't be surprised if all of our icons started weeping all across our OCA. Our Church is suffering and its being ignored. A very sad time indeed. I wish you a Blessed day and please continue to post for I enjoy your wise words and I know your heart is clearly motivated by God. Love Irene
I just can't accept this anymore, its about covering up the real perpertrators, the handful or more of them are just playing their cards to cover themselves, and we are paying the bills for it. How stupid are we? A normal healthy administration would of issued a statement on sunday asking for prayer and disclosing some type of information about the trial. The blameshifting, scapegoating and games are still continueing with this Metropolitian and the administration are ignoring the cries of its people. This is a sad state in which our church is in, God is crying over this and I truely believe that Gods Holy name is being used by these people. That's a pretty harsh statement for me to make, but I believe it.
Truely I won't be surprised if all of our icons started weeping all across our OCA. Our Church is suffering and its being ignored. A very sad time indeed. I wish you a Blessed day and please continue to post for I enjoy your wise words and I know your heart is clearly motivated by God. Love Irene
#8
#7 reply Irene
on
2007-07-09 11:09
Only Metropolitan HERMAN and his backup singers in the OCA "Holy" Synod could make Protopresbyter Robert Kondratick a sympathetic figure.
I need to attend an OCA seminary so I too can learn how to change gold into lead.
I need to attend an OCA seminary so I too can learn how to change gold into lead.
#9
Wayne Matthew Syvinski
on
2007-07-09 18:37
would the group of attornies- who requested a demonstration of dogs running around chasing their tails- kindly pay their bill.....it is many months past due
#10
Metropolitan Kennels
on
2007-07-09 20:52
On the rare occasion I have had an innocent client, I could have cared less about arguing procedure. I wanted to get the facts out as quickly and completely as possible.
Usually, however, I spend a lot of time complaining that some aspect or another of the trial is unfair. Now, that also happens to be perfectly legitimate, since part of the sytem is a check on the state's immense power over individuals. But you can imagine which way I tend to be persuaded on the guilt-innocence question by the procedural complaints I read here. It rubs my defense lawyer fur the wrong way that any tribunal would prohibit a transcript, although maybe there are churchly reasons for it I haven't thought about. But it has nothing to do with whether an accused person is factually innocent.
How about this: can't a guilty person be tried in a flawed process? I'm not saying either part is true. I am saying there is nothing logically inconsistent about it.
Or here's another one: What if BOTH Metropolitan Herman and the accused at the trial are guilty of... let's say less than sound fiscal management? Again, I don't know, but the either-or position of the obvious partisans here is a false one. Actually, given what we do know, and how the parties have behaved, is this a particularly unlikely scenario?
Of course, all we have to do is wait and the whole truth will be told and then won't everyone be sorry. But it should be obvious that repeating this over and over for so long has the opposite of the intended effect. (Although I say with all sincerity that Monk James would be a far better lawyer than I would be a monk, and it should be understood I am commenting on the arguments, not the persons making them. Indeed, I appreciate a loyal and tenacious defense more than most.)
The outcome of this trial is of great importance to the direct participants, and I would not suggest otherwise. To somehow expect it to resolve the larger issues of this interminable -- and I'm afraid I am using this word exactly -- scandal is unreasonable. In that sense, the whole trial business is about the least interesting part of this website for me. I care about who wins and who loses (aside from my professional sympathies that lie with accused persons) only to the extent it sheds light on what happened and hastens a satisfactory resolution. I have no reason to hope for either from this trial.
If the accused turns out to be factually innocent and the exculpatory story is finally revealed in a "now it can be told" conclusion, I will be surprised. And excited, and happy. Who wouldn't be at the dramatic vindication of an innocent person? It just isn't playing out that way to make me expect that result, that's all. And every time I read about the lack of a transcript and just wait, no really, we're about to tell the whole story, it looks even less likely to me.
Usually, however, I spend a lot of time complaining that some aspect or another of the trial is unfair. Now, that also happens to be perfectly legitimate, since part of the sytem is a check on the state's immense power over individuals. But you can imagine which way I tend to be persuaded on the guilt-innocence question by the procedural complaints I read here. It rubs my defense lawyer fur the wrong way that any tribunal would prohibit a transcript, although maybe there are churchly reasons for it I haven't thought about. But it has nothing to do with whether an accused person is factually innocent.
How about this: can't a guilty person be tried in a flawed process? I'm not saying either part is true. I am saying there is nothing logically inconsistent about it.
Or here's another one: What if BOTH Metropolitan Herman and the accused at the trial are guilty of... let's say less than sound fiscal management? Again, I don't know, but the either-or position of the obvious partisans here is a false one. Actually, given what we do know, and how the parties have behaved, is this a particularly unlikely scenario?
Of course, all we have to do is wait and the whole truth will be told and then won't everyone be sorry. But it should be obvious that repeating this over and over for so long has the opposite of the intended effect. (Although I say with all sincerity that Monk James would be a far better lawyer than I would be a monk, and it should be understood I am commenting on the arguments, not the persons making them. Indeed, I appreciate a loyal and tenacious defense more than most.)
The outcome of this trial is of great importance to the direct participants, and I would not suggest otherwise. To somehow expect it to resolve the larger issues of this interminable -- and I'm afraid I am using this word exactly -- scandal is unreasonable. In that sense, the whole trial business is about the least interesting part of this website for me. I care about who wins and who loses (aside from my professional sympathies that lie with accused persons) only to the extent it sheds light on what happened and hastens a satisfactory resolution. I have no reason to hope for either from this trial.
If the accused turns out to be factually innocent and the exculpatory story is finally revealed in a "now it can be told" conclusion, I will be surprised. And excited, and happy. Who wouldn't be at the dramatic vindication of an innocent person? It just isn't playing out that way to make me expect that result, that's all. And every time I read about the lack of a transcript and just wait, no really, we're about to tell the whole story, it looks even less likely to me.
#11
Timothy Capps, Esq.
on
2007-07-11 21:22
Michael,
Yes, but then the airline frequent flier account would be empty and we would not have enjoyed all that cognac.
I know, it really isn't funny and unfortunately that is just one year - 2004. I didn’t look at those numbers, but what about the other 15 years or so?
My only hope is gained from looking ahead at what this church could really be if we had half the leadership that Fr. John Hopko outlines. Yes, it seems that some local Evangelical/Protestant churches in Akron, OH probably spend $12,000 or more for one missionary event. If they are traveling out of the country, they are treveling to evangelize and work with the poor in Africa, Asia and yes, into the predominantly Orthodox countries of Eastern Europe. I think the OCMC continues to ask for about $600/year to help support a mission priest. You reap what you sow, but our group has not been working the plow. (That’s not to say that individual diocese are not working, but they have been unduly burdened with the excesses of our Chancery.)
Yes, that remains my sole hope: get the charlatans off the stage and pray that we can find visionary leaders or at least leaders who are willing to listen, guide and discuss a real future for the OCA. The laity will still rally to support an open, honest administration, and there remains Truth in Orthodoxy. So, there is potential, but without a change in leadership, the OCA will continue to silence ideas and squander talents; quite a depressing mess if you look at it from that view.
Is my glass half full or half empty? I don't know, but we need to totally empty the glass and get rid of the bad wine so that it does not continue to is ruin the fresh wine that is maturing.
Remaining hopeful,
Ken Kozak
St. Elia
Akron, OH
Yes, but then the airline frequent flier account would be empty and we would not have enjoyed all that cognac.
I know, it really isn't funny and unfortunately that is just one year - 2004. I didn’t look at those numbers, but what about the other 15 years or so?
My only hope is gained from looking ahead at what this church could really be if we had half the leadership that Fr. John Hopko outlines. Yes, it seems that some local Evangelical/Protestant churches in Akron, OH probably spend $12,000 or more for one missionary event. If they are traveling out of the country, they are treveling to evangelize and work with the poor in Africa, Asia and yes, into the predominantly Orthodox countries of Eastern Europe. I think the OCMC continues to ask for about $600/year to help support a mission priest. You reap what you sow, but our group has not been working the plow. (That’s not to say that individual diocese are not working, but they have been unduly burdened with the excesses of our Chancery.)
Yes, that remains my sole hope: get the charlatans off the stage and pray that we can find visionary leaders or at least leaders who are willing to listen, guide and discuss a real future for the OCA. The laity will still rally to support an open, honest administration, and there remains Truth in Orthodoxy. So, there is potential, but without a change in leadership, the OCA will continue to silence ideas and squander talents; quite a depressing mess if you look at it from that view.
Is my glass half full or half empty? I don't know, but we need to totally empty the glass and get rid of the bad wine so that it does not continue to is ruin the fresh wine that is maturing.
Remaining hopeful,
Ken Kozak
St. Elia
Akron, OH
#12
Ken Kozak
on
2007-07-16 16:23
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||