Spiritual and Mental Abuse in Apostolic Christian Church Nazarene in Australia
CHURCH SPLITS  |  COURT CASES  |  SUICIDES  |  POWER STRUGGLE
 
Page  1  2  3  4  5  ...  16  17  18  19  20 
 www.accn-australia.com accnaustralia@gmail.com 

ACCN Forum | COLUMBIA STATION: Deposition of Dorel Stefan

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 0:13

6543 views


IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO

THE APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN CHURCH-NAZARENE, INC., Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 15-CV-188025, Judge James Miraldi

The deposition of DOREL STEFAN, a Defendant herein, called for examination by the Plaintiff, under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, taken before me, Kristine M. Esber, Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, pursuant to notice, at the offices of Lazzaro & Kraus, 20133 Farnsleigh Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio, commencing at 10:00 a.m., the day and date above set forth.

FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 2016



MR. KRAUS (ALAN H. KRAUS, ESQ. Lazzaro & Kraus): You understand that you are required to tell the truth in this deposition. Are you affirming that you will do so to the best of your ability?
MR. STEFAN: As God is my witness, yes, I'll tell the truth. I affirm.

DOREL STEFAN, a Defendant herein, called for examination by the Plaintiff, under the Rules, having been first duly affirmed, deposed and said as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KRAUS:

Q. You were present last week when I took your father's deposition; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And have you ever had your deposition taken before in any other matters?
A. No. This is the first lawsuit that's brought before me -- brought to me.
Q. So you've never appeared as a witness in a case where you had to give a deposition; this is the first time for you, correct?
A. The first time a lawsuit has ever been brought against me.
Q. All right. I know that's your answer and I understand that this is the first time a lawsuit has 5 named you as a party. I've asked you another question.
A. Okay.
Q. I've asked you, have you ever appeared as a witness in another case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Have you ever given a deposition in any other case?
A. No.
Q. All right. Good. Well, so you understand the basic rules. I know you sat for the four and a half hours we were here last week. I'm going to ask you a lot of questions this morning. When you give an answer, you have to answer audibly. Do you understand what I'm saying?
A. Yes. I have to speak it.
Q. Right. Because as you know, the court reporter is here taking down everything that we're saying. And if you just nod or say uh-huh or something like that, that the record will reflect a true answer. So you'll answer audibly to all of my questions? A. I will.
Q. And if for some reason I've asked a question that you don't understand, will you please bring that to my attention?
A. I will.
Q. Because it's important that if you don't understand a question that it's brought to my attention, because if you give an answer I'm going to assume you understood the question and the answer you gave is the answer you wanted to give; is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you don't understand, you bring it to my attention, I'm going to rephrase the question. Okay?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. So tell me your full name.
A. Dorel Stefan.
Q. Do you mind if I call you Dorel? Since your father is here, I'll call him Mr. Stefan.
A. That's fine.
Q. And, Dorel, what's your date of birth?
A. 11-24-66.
Q. Where were you born?
A. Rochat, Yugoslavia.
Q. And when did you come to the United States?
A. 1969.
Q. 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you were about three years old, something like that, when you came to the United States; is that correct?
A. Yes. Just under three probably.
Q. Okay. And you came with your family; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you attend schools when you came to the United States?
A. I started kindergarten. Yes.
Q. All right. And those were English speaking schools; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You certainly seem to understand English without a problem. You've been here since you were just under three years old. Do you have any problems with understanding English, reading English?
A. No.
Q. Where did you go to high school, Dorel?
A. Strongsville High School.
Q. And when did you graduate from Strongsville?
A. 1985.
Q. And after you graduated from Strongsville High School did you go on to further education; did you go to college?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. The University of Akron.
Q. And did you graduate from the University of Akron?
A. Yes.
Q. And what's your degree in?
A. Electrical engineering.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 0:19

6537 views
Q. And after you got your degree from University of Akron in electrical engineering did you go to any other 13 institutions for education after that?
A. Later, a few years later I took some graduate classes at BW, Baldwin Wallace.
Q. Do you have a graduate degree in any subject?
A. No.
Q. Are you currently employed?
A. Yes.
Q. Where do you work?
A. Benchmark Automation/Acuity.
Q. Where are they located?
A. Westlake.
Q. And how long have you been employed at that job?
A. I started in approximately 1994 until now, minus three years when I left for a different job.
Q. Okay. And what do you do at Benchmark; what's your job?
A. Computer systems.
Q. What do you do with computer systems?
A. We set them up, we troubleshoot them, we do development programming.
Q. Do you have a specific title with your job?
A. Systems engineer, senior systems engineer.
Q. And as a senior systems engineer you help develop software for the company; is that correct?
A. I do from time to time. We have various roles that we can partake in.
Q. And do you also, if there is a problem with the network system within the company, is that something that you would look at also as part of your job?
A. If the team there could -- if it's a simple matter the team will look at it to see if we can correct it. If not, we'll call the outside consultants or contractors that put it in to take care of it.
Q. Typically when you're at work what does your job consist of; what kinds of tasks are you performing in the computer system?
A. It would be various tasks, software development, customer support, set up systems, troubleshoot problems with client systems.
Q. Do you have a personal computer that you use at your house?
A. I have a laptop given to me from work.
Q. So the laptop that you were given from work, do you also put nonwork matters on that laptop?
A. At times, yes.
Q. Do you put matters regarding the church -- and when I say the church we're talking about The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene. Would you put matters involving the church on your business laptop?
A. If there's e-mails from this case coming in, I will download them and look at them there.
Q. Before this case was filed did you put any information on this laptop involving the church?
A. No.
Q. Is there some other computer, laptop, or there's so many things today, that you would use for church matters?
A. Sure. I do the financials on a computer for the church.
Q. What computer would you use for financial records?
A. A laptop, home laptop.
Q. All right. So in addition to the laptop that you got from work which may have e-mails regarding the church, you also have a personal laptop; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And the personal laptop you have at home, would that personal laptop have any information regarding the church?
A. It has our meeting notes there and it has our financial Excel documents that were turned in.
Q. Okay. And the laptop that you have at home that has church meeting notes and also Excel spreadsheets involving the church, does it contain any other information that would involve the church?
A. No. Just again, e-mails concerning this lawsuit.
Q. And were thehre e-mails prior to this lawsuit regarding the church that you exchanged with church members?
A. The only person is Mike Petras that we would have e-mail correspondence. We were friends.
Q. And that's Mike Petras, his last name is spelled P-E-T-R-A-S; is that correct?
A. I believe so. That's right.
Q. And is Mike someone who's around your age?
A. He's a little bit younger. I'm not sure exactly his age, but probably low 30s.
Q. And his father is Mihal Petras; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Mike Petras a member of the church?
A. When?
Q. At any time.
A. Sure. Yeah, he was a member.
Q. Okay. When was Mike Petras a member of the church?
A. We accepted him in right around 2000, 2001. Then they left the church. And then we accepted him back in, oh, probably around 2009, 2010, somewhere around there.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 0:29

6529 views
Q. Okay. So as far as you know Mike Petras became a member sometime 2000, 2001; is that correct, somewhere in there?
A. Correct.
Q. And you say he left the church. What year would he have left?
A. Like 2008.
Q. Do you know why Mike Petras left the church in 21 2008?
A. There was a spiritual battle at that time in our church, just like there is now, with a liberal group. And Mike Petras said our church was spiritually dead, so he left.
Q. All right. So it's your understanding, as far as you know Mike Petras left the church because there was some internal dispute regarding the religion being practiced at the church; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know what church he went to after he left the church in Columbia Station?
A. They left to Australia.
Q. They went to Australia. Okay. We agree that when Mike Petras left the church sometime in 2008, he gave up his membership at Columbia Station; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. And when he left as a member, he no longer had a right to vote at church meetings because he wasn't a member; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. When he returned sometime in 2009 he became a member again; is that correct, of the church?
A. Yes. We accepted him back in.
Q. Okay. And as a member of the church he had the right then to attend services at Columbia Station; is that true?
A. Well, even non-members can attend services at Columbia Station.
Q. Okay. But certainly as a member he could attend services, correct?
A. Sure.
Q. And as a member he could also have a say in church matters; is that correct?
A. As long as it's with the European Nazarene faith.
Q. Did he have the right to vote at church meetings as a member of the church?
A. Only if the church was one-minded in the same spiritual body. If there's differences, there would be no voting.
Q. Right. But if there was a matter at the church that required a vote of the congregation, as a member Mike Petras would have a right to participate in that vote, correct?
A. In simple matters, yes.
Q. Now, you say that as a member Mike Petras could vote in simple matters. What are simple matters that he could vote in; what's your understanding of that?
A. If there was certain maintenance that needed to be done in the church, we're going to make a decision of something financial in the church.
Q. So it's your understanding that a member of the church like Mike Petras could attend a church meeting and vote on matters involving the physical building, those issues, correct?
A. Voting is fine as long as if there's one -- as long as the body is one faith and one understanding of the Nazarene faith.
Q. I didn't ask you if voting was okay. I'm asking another question. I'm asking, a member of the congregation, like Mike Petras, would have the right to attend a church meeting; you agree with that, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he would also have the right to vote on matters that were given to vote, correct? You'd have a vote.
A. Yeah. On simple matters of the church, yeah. Not concerning faith.
Q. Okay. When we talk about simple matters of the church that would be voted on by the congregation, you gave me an example that the congregation would vote on financial matters, correct?
A. At times if it's a big amount that's going to be spent. Sure.
Q. All right. And you also said that members would vote on maintenance issues involving the physical church.
A. If they're big items, again. Small items, no, there would be no vote.
Q. What other matters would come before the congregation for vote besides matters involving maintenance and financial matters?
A. If the church is unified in the same spirit and faith, then we would have votes for ministers.
Q. Okay. So the church -- so I understand you, the congregation would vote on financial matters, maintenance matters and the election of the ministers; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. What else would the congregation vote on?
A. At times if a trustee stepped down, they would have a vote for trustee.
Q. Okay. So if I understand you correctly, church members could have a vote in matters involving the maintenance, financial matters, ministers and trustees when they need to be replaced. Is there any other matters that a member would vote on?
A. At times treasurers, I mean any officer, if they stepped down.
Q. Okay. This would be the treasurer for the church corporation, correct?
A. Correct.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 0:35

6526 views
Q. What else would members the church vote on besides maintenance, financial matters, ministers, trustees and officers such as treasurer?
A. That's all I can recall at this time.
Q. Okay. And the church meetings that would take place to address matters of maintenance, financial matters, ministers trustees and treasurer, how often would the church meet to have those types of meetings?
A. It depends. I mean, if someone is going to step down, they would have a meeting to replace them. If the year is coming up -- because the meeting would usually take place at the beginning of the year when the previous year ended. So in the next month, month or two we'd have a meeting if we needed one.
Q. Would it be fair to say that the church would hold annual meetings, and then if there was a necessity, there would be meetings such as you described to replace an officer or a trustee if it was between the annual meetings; is that a fair statement?
A. There wasn't always an annual meeting. Most of the time there was.
Q. So you're here today with Lawyer Monica Russell; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you first have any contact with Ms. Russell?
A. August 20th.
Q. Of 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is it that you had contact with Ms. Russell, or how did you contact her in August of 2015; did you call her, did you --
A. Through e-mail. And I believe I did try to call her probably once.
Q. And how is it that you got Ms. Russell's name?
A. We were looking for legal advice, and she was into realty law and was referred to us from a friend.
Q. You say we were looking for a lawyer for real estate law, is that what you were doing?
A. Yes.
Q. When you say we, who does that include?
A. Myself, my dad and Traian Mohan.
Q. And who referred you to Ms. Russell?
A. My realtor friend Jenny Dunkin.
Q. Is Jenny Dunkin a real estate agent at --
A. Yes.
Q. -- some company? And who does she work for or what broker is she at?
A. She's switched a few times. I think she's with Keller Williams.
Q. Okay. Have you done business with Ms. Dunkin in the past?
A. What business?
Q. Any kind of business. Have you engaged her as a real estate agent for you personally?
A. She's showed us a few houses, yes.
Q. Have you or your dad ever listed property with Ms. Dunkin?
A. I listed my vacant lot with her.
Q. When did that happen; when did you list a vacant lot with Ms. Dunkin?
A. Oh, approximately three years ago, maybe.
Q. Was she able to sell your lot?
A. No.
Q. Do you still own the lot?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Do you still own that lot?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if your father has ever listed property through Jenny Dunkin?
A. No. He doesn't know Jenny Dunkin.
Q. All right. So if I understand you correctly, Jenny Dunkin referred you to Ms. Russell because you, Traian and your father were looking for a real estate lawyer; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And why were the three of you looking for a real estate lawyer?
A. Because on August 16th, because of the spiritual discord in the church and it's no longer a church, Traian first spoke out and called us to the back of the church after church was done. And he told the two of us that this is not the Nazarene faith, where they want to take us, the Plaintiffs, and we need to break away and we need to preserve the church for the Nazarene faith. And we agreed with him.
Q. August 16th, so that's a Sunday?
A. Yes.
Q. August 16th, 2015 is a Sunday. There were church services that day?
A. Yes.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 0:46

6508 views
Q. Okay. And after those services you claim you had a conversation with Traian, which included you and your father, where he said words to the effect of we have to break away from the church, preserve the church because we have this spiritual argument?
A. Not break --
Q. I know those aren't exact words, but is that essentially what you claim happened?
A. Yeah. He said they are not Nazarene, people that are being called to come to the church. And this church was built for the Nazarene faith and we need to preserve what the church was built for. That's what our lives are dedicated to when we built that church for God.
Q. So after you had this conversation with Traian Mohan -- and Mr. Mohan is in the room with us this morning, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He's over there (indicating). -- and you took it upon yourself to look for a lawyer?
A. No. We talked.
Q. What happened?
A. The three of us talked and we decided to counsel with a realty lawyer to find out what we can do as far as to preserve the church in the Nazarene faith so we wouldn't break any laws.
Q. Okay. So when the three of you spoke on August 16th, 2015 was it your intention for the three of you to expel the members of the congregation and not allow them to be in the church?
A. Yeah. We've been telling them and Traian's been telling them for approximately a year that they need to leave because we're not spiritually one. If they want to change to liberal ways, they need to find another church, like the previous groups that tried to change the church were told the same thing and eventually they left.
Q. So before August 16th, 2015 are you telling me that Traian had told congregational members that they have to leave the church?
A. Yeah. He's been telling the Petras family and the son-in-law for over a year, approximately about like a year that they need to leave because they're not Nazarene faith, what they're trying to do. And I've told them that myself, too.
Q. Do you think that Traian Mohan has the right to expel members of the church, him alone?
A. No, but the trustees and the founders of the church do.
Q. So Traian Mohan doesn't have, as far as you understand, the legal right to say to a member of the church in August 2015, you got to go, you're no longer a member of the church?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. He can't explain what a legal right would be. He's not a lawyer.
MR. KRAUS: I just want his understanding.
MS. RUSSELL: He can give his understanding about the church, but he can't give you legal advice.
MR. KRAUS: I'm not getting legal advice.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I'm asking for your understanding. Is that your understanding at the time, Dorel? You can answer the question.
MS. RUSSELL: If you understand it.
A. Rephrase the question.
Q. Sure. Do you think in August 2015 Traian Mohan had the right, the legal right to expel other members of the church; was that your understanding at the time?
MS. RUSSELL: I'm going to restate my objection, as Mr. --
MR. KRAUS: You made your objection, Monica. Let him answer the question. You're giving a talking objection here. It doesn't -- that's not for you to do.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, -
Q. Answer the question.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, --
MR. KRAUS: Excuse me.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, --
MR. KRAUS: Monica, -
MS. RUSSELL: -- let me state a response to your statement.
MR. KRAUS: Listen, I'm not having a discussion with you.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, --
MR. KRAUS: I'm not doing that.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Answer the question.
MS. RUSSELL: No. Don't answer it quite yet.
MR. KRAUS: Are you telling this person not to answer the question?
MS. RUSSELL: I am stating that you should show me the professional courtesy by allowing me to state my full objection on the record. We had this confusion last time.
MR. KRAUS: I'm not -
MS. RUSSELL: You seem to have an misunderstanding about what is a proper objection and what is not. At a deposition, I understand what you're saying about speak objections, but if my objection is to the form of the question and you can fix the question at the deposition, it is my obligation as counsel to explain my objection to you so that you can correct it at the time of the deposition. If I tried to raise it later on, then the Court may deem my objection waived because I didn't provide you with the opportunity to rephrase your question.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 0:56

6495 views
MR. KRAUS: Well, thank you for your input.
MS. RUSSELL: All right. So --
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Answer the question.
A. Repeat the question.
Q. Was it your understanding that Traian Mohan in August 2015, on August 16th, 2015 had the ability to expel congregational members of the church?
A. The church founders who are the trustees --
Q. Listen to my question. Did you understand that question?
A. If you let me explain -- let me answer --
Q. I want you to answer my question.
MS. RUSSELL: He's trying to.
A. I am, if you let me answer.
Q. It's a yes or no answer.
A. No, it's not.
Q. Why is it not a yes or no answer?
A. Well, let me explain it and I'll tell you.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, stop badgering him. He's trying to answer the question for you.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Did Traian Mohan, as far as you understood, did he have the ability to expel members of the church, tell them that they can't practice and they can't be members of the church in 2015?
A. We don't expel members. We tell them they need to find another church that is equal to their faith and what they believe.
Q. Okay.
A. The trustees and the founders of the church have been doing that since it was built. And that happens in every Nazarene congregation, European congregation.
Q. Okay.
A. It's a spiritual matter. If they want to practice a different faith, different beliefs, then they need to go find a church that practices that. It's not going to change what the church was built for by the founders. We don't expel anyone. We just tell them they need to move on because there will be spiritual unrest in the church and the church cannot function.
Q. So you sought legal counsel on August 20th, 2015; is that correct; is that when you first made contact?
A. August 20th, 2015, that's correct.
Q. And it's your recollection that was by e-mail; is that right?
A. E-mail and I did give a call, too, whether it was that day or not. It was within a day or so.
Q. And can we agree when you sent that e-mail on August 20th, 2015 you had not engaged Ms. Russell as your attorney; is that correct?
A. Not on August 20th. No.
Q. Where is the e-mail from August 20th that you sent to Ms. Russell?
MS. RUSSELL: Well, no e-mails between him and me would be produced because he's my client.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I'm just asking where the e-mail is from August 20th, 2015 that you sent to Monica Russell before she was hired as the lawyer.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, I can --
Q. Where is the e-mail?
MS. RUSSELL: -- tell you I directed my client not to produce correspondence between him and myself.
Q. I'm just asking where the e-mail is. Where is it?
MS. RUSSELL: You can answer where the e-mail is.
A. It's in the e-mail folders.
Q. On your computer?
A. It's on any computer because it's part of Yahoo.
Q. Did you contact any other lawyers?
A. No.
Q. Did you also send her an e-mail on August 23rd, 2015 regarding church matters?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is that e-mail?
A. It's in Yahoo.
Q. Do you have access to both the August 20th and August 23rd e-mails from your computer?
A. Sure. Any computer.
Q. Well, I can't pull the e-mail up on my computer.
A. If I give you my login you can.
Q. Okay. What's your login?
MS. RUSSELL: No, don't give it.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 1:14

6476 views
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. So those e-mails are on your e-mail account with Yahoo; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And is your e-mail account with Yahoo now -- vs2stefans@yahoo.com; is that your e-mail address?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that also the e-mail address that would have these e-mails to Monica Russell before you hired her?
A. Yes.
Q. You still have that e-mail address; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. KRAUS: Okay. Let's mark this as Dorel Depo 1.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I want you to look at Dorel Depo Exhibit 1.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. What is Dorel Deposition Exhibit 1?
A. It's the fee agreement that the trustees signed.
Q. This is the fee agreement between the law firm where Monica Russell works and The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the date of the letter is August 25th, 2015; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you receive this by e-mail?
A. Yes.
Q. And this went to your e-mail account; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there are two signatures on this engagement letter on the second page; is that also correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And who signed this document?
A. The two trustees, Petar Stefan and Traian Mohan.
Q. And it's dated August 25th, 2015; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Was this document signed by your father and Traian in your presence?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did that happen?
A. At my father's house.
Q. Before you engaged --
A. And if it wasn't -- because it's hard to remember, but if it wasn't at my father's house, my dad either went to his house and had him sign it. So some stuff, I can't remember if everything was done in my presence. Or sometimes I would drop it off to my dad and then Traian would come over his house, or he would go over there and get the signature and I'd pick it up later because I had to go to work.
Q. And before you signed this engagement letter with the lawyer what was your understanding as the issues that were going to be presented for a legal opinion?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. Don't answer it. It's going to be protected by attorney/client privilege.
MR. KRAUS: I'm asking what his understanding was of the issues --
MS. RUSSELL: Don't answer the question.
MR. KRAUS: -- prior to meeting with a lawyer as to what was going to be presented.
MS. RUSSELL: Don't answer.
MR. KRAUS: Nothing to do with what was discussed with a lawyer at any time.
MS. RUSSELL: Don't answer the question.
MR. KRAUS: How is that privileged?
MS. RUSSELL: You're getting into matters that the church discussed with me as part of their engaging me to represent them and advice I may have given. It's all wrapped up into one.
MR. KRAUS: I'll rephrase the question.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Before you met with the lawyer, before you engaged the lawyer what issues did you think you needed legal counsel for?
MS. RUSSELL: So are you talking about before he even e-mailed me the first time?
MR. KRAUS: Yes.
MS. RUSSELL: Okay. Before you e-mailed me then. I guess it's repetitious of what he already asked, which is why you thought you needed a lawyer, I guess.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Can you answer the question?

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 1:35

6460 views
A. Repeat the question.
Q. What were the issues that you needed to seek counsel for before you hired and contacted Monica Russell?
A. Because of the spiritual disagreement in the church and beliefs, and that the parties would not leave us alone, we were going to shut down the church and make sure that we weren't breaking any laws. But the church is no longer functioning.
Q. So sometime before you contacted Monica Russell on August 20th, 2015 it's your claim that you, your father and Traian had decided that the church needed to be shut down; is that right?
A. August 16th in the back of the church after service.
Q. And when you say shut down the church, what do you mean exactly?
A. We're going to temporarily close it until we can reopen it as a European Nazarene faith congregation.
Q. When was the first time that you actually met with Monica Russell face to face, instead of just through e-mail?
A. September 18th.
Q. Do you know if your father had any conversations with Ms. Russell before September 18th, 2015?
A. With who?
Q. Did your father talk to Monica Russell before September 18th, 2015?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if he sent any e-mail to Monica Russell before September 18th, 2015?
A. I believe he didn't.
Q. Do you know if Traian Mohan had any conversations or corresponded with Monica Russell by e-mail prior to September 18th, 2015?
A. Not to my knowledge. Which day?
Q. September 18th, --
A. September 18th, not to my knowledge.
Q. So all contact between The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene and Monica Russell would have been through you; is that a fair statement?
A. We talked about everything, and what we agreed upon I conveyed to Monica.
Q. Okay. After the fee agreement we've identified as Dorel Depo Exhibit 1, have there been any other fee agreements since then, or is this the only one?
A. That's the only one.
Q. So the first face to face meeting with the lawyer took place on September 18th, 2015; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You had never met her at her office before that; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So on September 18th, 2015 you, your father and Traian met at the lawyer's office; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your understanding as to why you were going to the office that day?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. Don't answer it. I don't see how he can answer it without getting into conversations that we've had.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I don't want to know any conversations you had with the lawyer.
MS. RUSSELL: He can't answer the question. It would be violating attorney/client privilege.
Q. I'm not asking you to tell me anything that was said at the meeting or prior to the meeting with this lawyer. I just want to know what your understanding was as to why you were meeting with the lawyer on 11 September 18th, 2015.
MS. RUSSELL: Don't answer the question. Objection, attorney/client privilege.
Q. We can agree that the three of you -- when I say the three of you, you, Traian and your father, had in your mind that you were going to close this church down because there was this spiritual argument within the church, correct?
A. Yes, spiritually different beliefs.
Q. How does a person become a member of the church? When I say member, someone who can attend services and participate in church meetings and cast votes on matters that are voted upon. How does that happen?
A. They have to be a baptized member in a Nazarene church.
Q. And is it fair to say that a person is no longer a member of the church when they stop paying dues, attending services and they join another congregation and attend services and pay dues at that other church; you'd agree with that, right?
A. Repeat the question.
Q. Sure. As a congregational member of Columbia Station if I start attending another church, I stop going to Columbia Station, I stop paying dues, I stop participation in that church, and now I attend this other church where I now pay dues and attend services there, would you agree that individual is no longer a member of Columbia Station?
A. Correct.
Q. Would you agree that sometime in 1989, 1990 your father left Columbia Station church, was no longer a member of the church?
A. During 1990, yes.
Q. So I know we don't know the exact date, but sometime 1989, 1990 he stopped being a member of Columbia Station; is that correct?
A. During 1990 sometime, yes.
Q. All right. And it's my understanding from your father he didn't return to the Columbia Station church until sometime in 1998. Is that your understanding also?
A. Yes.


[to be continued...]

CURIOUS
USA
21 Jan 2017 10:01

6368 views
Question for Mike Petras. What was the reasoning given by the judge in granting the church to the Stefans?

Uhhm
Australia
21 Jan 2017 10:18

6363 views
How convenient it is that Peter stefan and katica his wife came back to Columbia station when the church was completely paid off. Wow...and they are the conservative side of the church. Is this the way of how to be a European Nazarene.

Uhhm
Australia
21 Jan 2017 10:26

6355 views
If only 3 of you were different than the whole church....Dorel, Peter, and traian, then why didn't you three leave since the majority of the church were a larger number...or doesn't the European Nazarene believe in majority rules. It seems you 3 don't believe in European Nazarene faith but in dictatorship faith...what you say will have to happen. You people are sick. Thank God He will have the last say of who is allowed to enter heaven and who needs to leave.....to hell fire.

CURIOUS
USA
21 Jan 2017 10:29

6350 views
Stefans were too busy trying not to break any earthy while breaking all of Gods' laws! Doesn't sound like that is the "European Nazarene way".

CURIOUS
USA
21 Jan 2017 10:41

6344 views
Great point 'Uhhm'!
Makes sense to kick everyone out and have the church to Stefan and his son to worship alone... NOT! Besides, where does the bible talk about following the European way? If everyone followed the biblical doctrine 'way' , none of this would have happened.


Uhhm
Australia
21 Jan 2017 11:13

6330 views
Very true, "curious"...perhaps there is something awful they did in their faith or coming to the faith, that they now want everyone to be so-called strict, just so they feel they are repented from their sin. Shame on traian and stefans.

Uhhm
Australia
21 Jan 2017 11:16

6328 views
Seriously mike, where is the transcript from the judge explaining why he ruled in favour of the corrupt and sickening stefans. Plus, is there anyone going to Columbia station any longer or is it closed completely.

Response
USA
21 Jan 2017 11:43

6312 views
This is sick. They are throwing the name of our European church around in the mud. Little do they know that the Europeans would excommunicate all three of them WITHOUT HOPE for acting the way they are unlike the Americans who put up with all kinds of theft and lies and scandals and no one gets punished. SHAMEFUL. Stefans, if you think you are "European Nazarenes" think again because in Europe you would be punished so hard you wouldn't know what happened to you.

past and present
Australia
21 Jan 2017 12:36

6291 views
if the stefans want to justify their actions according to the nazarene eurpean faith, let me give you one example.

in novi sad, serbia, the ACCN side church locked the church doors in front of the DS memebrs side in the early 1950's.

so, it seems quite interesting that the stefans are stating they never recognised the ACCN side and/or elders, yet the ACCN side in serbia, europe, did the exact same "SIN" THEY are doing to columbia station church memebrs

according to their faith, this "SIN" is what they are "EXACTLY" following and "REPEATING"

however, those actions are NOT biblical

the bible does NOT allow those actions in any way...........read below.

Isaiah 66:5
5. Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

St.John 16:1-3
1. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

St.Matthew 7: 21-23
21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 19:58

6204 views
OK, so far we know this: We do not expel people, we just tell them to leave and find another church. And "We" are - majority, founders, trustees? Let's see...

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 20:00

6199 views
[...continued]

Q. So it would be fair to say somewhere from 1989, 1990 to sometime in 1998 your father was not a member of the church at Columbia Station, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also leave Columbia Station as a member; did you join another congregation also?
A. I was not baptized at that time.
Q. When were you baptized at the Columbia Station church?
A. I was baptized at the Cleveland Nazarene church, 1995.
Q. So 1995 you were baptized in the Cleveland Nazarene church, and when your father returned to the Columbia Station church, did you also go to the Columbia Station church?
A. Yes. I left before him.
Q. When did you become a member of Columbia Station?
A. Roughly the same time, 1998.
Q. 1998, somewhere in there; is that correct?
A. Correct.
MR. KRAUS: Let's call this Dorel Depo 2 A through F.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 A through F to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Let me hand you what has been marked as Dorel Deposition Number 2 A through F. You've seen that document before, haven't you?
A. Yes, I've seen the document.
Q. And you agree that this document is the incorporation documents that were filed with the State of Ohio in 1989, as far as you know?
A. Yes.
Q. And looking through that document does your father's name appear anywhere on this document?
A. No.
Q. Can we agree that your father Petar Stefan was not an original trustee of the church?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any designation in any of the church documents that you're aware of that designates your father as an original founder?
A. Yes.
Q. What document would identify him as an original founder?
A. The 1987 document to the seven families that left the Cleveland Nazarene church.
Q. Okay. And that's a document that had a list of people who were going to form this new church and they were going to receive money back; is that the document you're talking about? We had it last week at the deposition.
A. Each family that was part of Cleveland Nazarene church would receive their amount from the bank account. So they split it equally because it was their money. So each one got what was in the bank account for them to go off and start this new church.
Q. And is it your belief -- so your father's name appears on that 1987 document, correct?
A. Absolutely. He was one of the leaders of the founders.
Q. Is there any document that you're aware of that says because his name is on a piece of paper from 1987, that he has greater rights or responsibilities as a member of the Columbia Station church? Is there anything that says that?
A. It's known within the Nazarene faith congregation who the leaders and the founders were and the top people that made the church happen.
Q. Is there any document that you're aware of, other than the one you've told me from 1987, that says that because your father's name is on that 1987 document that he has greater say in church matters or has more than one vote at church meetings; anything like that?
A. There is no legal document.
Q. Okay.
A. Spiritually everybody knows.
Q. When votes are taken at church meetings as you've described when you've had votes, does your father have more than one vote, or is his vote kind of just like everyone else's vote?
A. Some matters there will not be a vote. Their voice will be the strongest and it would lead the church. There is no vote taken. When the founders make a decision, it's spiritual. There's no vote. It's just done.
Q. I'm talking about the matters that are put to vote to the congregation that we've discussed previously in this deposition. Does your father get more than one vote?
A. In simple matters, no, if it's not spiritual.
Q. The fact that your father wasn't a member of this church for eight, nine years, in your opinion does that change his position in the church? He left and wasn't a member for nine years.
A. No.
Q. Why not? He gave up his membership. My understanding from you is your father gave up his membership to Columbia Station sometime 1989, 1990, didn't pay dues, didn't attend services, went to another congregation, became a member there, comes back. Do you agree that not being at that church for nine years would certainly have an impact on his position in church matters?

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 20:11

6198 views
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
MS. RUSSELL: You can go ahead and answer.
A. What was the question?
MR. KRAUS: Read back the question.
THE NOTARY: Question: "Why not? He gave up his membership. My understanding from you is your father gave up his membership to Columbia Station sometime 1989, 1990, didn't pay dues, didn't attend services, went to another congregation," --
MR. KRAUS: That's good. I'm going to rephrase the question.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. We agree your father gave up his membership in Columbia Station 1989, 1990, correct?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. He said twice it was '90, not '89.
Q. 1989, 1990, we don't know the exact date.
A. We do. It's during 1990.
Q. So in 1990 he left Columbia Station, was no longer a member there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He wasn't a member for approximately eight, nine years, correct?
A. About eight years.
Q. About eight years. So is it your position that someone who leaves the church for nine years -- eight, nine years, when he comes back that he still has more say so than other members because his name appeared on the 1987 document?
A. Yes.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because the reason he left was because of issues with certain relatives, and he left for peace sake. He didn't leave the Nazarene faith. When those individuals finally left the church and everyone saw that they were liberals and left to other liberal churches, that opened the door for my dad to come back in peace. And the members and the original founders cried when he came back and welcomed him back, and said you're finally back where you belong because you built
this church.
Q. Okay.
A. And I was there and I saw the tears.
Q. All right.
A. And immediately was put up as a trustee.
Q. But there are no -
A. At the next meeting.
Q. There are no documents of any sort that would support what you just told me, as far as how he's given any special designation, is there? There's no documents of that nature, are there?
A. No. It's in the Nazarene Congregation's faith members, they know. We don't need documents for that.
Q. Okay.
A. It's all about faith.
Q. Are you aware that Traian Mohan -- and again Traian Mohan, it's no question he was one of the original trustees as indicated on Exhibit 2 A through F, right?
A. Yes. He was allowed to sign.
Q. When you say he was allowed to sign, why do you say it that way? His name is on this document.
A. He's not an original founder.
Q. I didn't ask if he was an original founder. You'd agree, according to this document, he's one of the original trustees for the church; is that correct?
A. Yes. He was allowed to sign as a trustee.
Q. Now, you're also aware that Mr. Mohan left the church in 1990 and joined another congregation; is that correct?
A. There was a few that left during that time for the same reason my dad left.
Q. Well, I'm talking about Traian Mohan. You're aware that Traian Mohan left the church in 1990 and joined another congregation?
A. He left basically at the same time with my dad and went to the same church, Cleveland Nazarene church.
Q. All right. And how long was Traian Mohan at the other church before he returned to the Columbia Station church?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Would you agree that Mr. Mohan gave up his membership and any position, including being a director or a trustee of the church, when he joined the other congregation?
A. I heard he gave up his trustee before he even left the church.
Q. Okay.
A. But if he didn't, then, yes, he would have.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, can I just ask you a quick question? Did you have a telephone conference you had to take?
MR. KRAUS: It was just supposed to interrupt and --
MS. RUSSELL: I thought you told me it was at 11:00.
MR. KRAUS: Yeah. So we're at eleven o'clock.
MS. RUSSELL: Do you want to take a break now since you have that conference call?
MR. KRAUS: Well, let's see if we can go a little bit further before they interrupt, but thank you for telling me.

Extremists
Australia
21 Jan 2017 20:11

6197 views
We see in the news and in social media where people are being beheaded and killed and their actions are justified and done in the name of their religion, their god and their prophets. Here you see in this scenario in stealing Columbia Station, excommunicating members, kicking people out and closing God’s door is no more different than in the actions we see in the news. They stole a church, excommunicated members and justified it all in the name of religion, and unfortunately have said they’ve done this in the name of our God and our Lord Jesus Christ and Nazarene faith.
The elders who are apart of this and the Steffan’s themselves and those who support the Steffan’s actions are far from God’s word. Luckily for all of us, the Steffan’s won’t be at God’s gate deciding who will enter the Kingdom of God.


Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 20:24

6188 views
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. As far as you know, Dorel, the individuals who are on this document marked as Exhibit 2 A through F, the original trustees, that these individuals have either left the church or they have passed away; is that correct? You can take a look.
A. What's the question?
Q. The people who are listed as the original trustees in this document, we agree that they have either left the church or they are dead, except for Traian Mohan who's here?
A. So what's the question again?
Q. The people who are listed on Exhibit 2 A through F as the original trustees, would you agree that except for Traian Mohan they have either joined other congregations or they have died?
A. Yes.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, was this cut off, or was there more on the bottom of the page? This was just part of the document?
MR. KRAUS: Yes.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I want you to look at what's been marked as Dorel Deposition Exhibit 3. And what I want you to direct your attention to is a list of names that starts with Brother Mike Petras in one column and the other column starts with Sister Suzy Popovych. Does this list include all the members of the congregation of the Columbia Station church on August
29th, 2015; were all of these people listed on this exhibit members of the church on August 29th, 2015?
A. Nevermind, the church was done August 16th.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. The church was closed August 16th. Since that point on there's no recognition.
Q. Okay. So on August 15th the people that are listed on Exhibit 3, were these people members of the Columbia Station church, as far as you know?
A. Some didn't pay all of 2015. They stopped paying. So we were told they were going to leave and they didn't leave. So no, we don't consider them -- they were told to leave but for a past year. So it was just a spiritual battle. There's no more -- no more recognizing any type of rights as far as spiritual.
Q. Were there church meetings held in 2015 that you recall?
A. Not called by us.
Q. Was there a church meeting in the early part of 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. And as far as you know, when those church meetings took place in early 2015 that the individuals listed here were members of Columbia Station?
A. In some people's eyes, yes. In our eyes, no. Dymytro stepped down as treasurer.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. In 2015 that was still a spiritual battle.
Q. I'm not asking about a spiritual battle. I'm asking in early 2015, the people listed on Dorel Deposition Exhibit 3, were these individuals members of the congregation of Columbia Station?
A. Not in our eyes. Maybe some people's eyes, but not in our eyes.
Q. Were they barred from attending the church in early 2015 as members?
A. We don't bar anyone. We tell them peacefully that they need to find another church. We don't use physical violence --
Q. Did these individuals --
A. -- or hire any type of law enforcement.
Q. Okay. Why would you say that, that no one hires law enforcement; is that an issue in this case?
A. Well, the Plaintiffs hire law enforcement every Sunday.
Q. Okay. And does that bother you?
A. It's against the Nazarene faith.
Q. To have a police officer present?
A. It's against the word of God to even hire someone on a Sunday. It's the Sabbath day. You don't put anyone to work. And to hire -- to hire a police officer against Nazarene Christians is against belief.
Q. All right. So the individuals listed on Dorel Depo Exhibit Number 3, they were congregational members when the church meeting was held sometime March, April 17 2015; is that correct?
A. Well, we have the meeting notes. It says the date on there. Whatever date it says, that's the --
Q. And at that time these individuals participated in that church meeting; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And they participated in that church meeting because they were members of the church, right?
A. In some people's eyes. Not in our eyes.

cleveland nazarene?
Australia
21 Jan 2017 21:06

6177 views
why did the stefans leave the Cleveland Nazarene Church when its a Nazarene church not an ACCN church?

or is it?

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 21:18

6167 views
Q. Before August 16th, 2015 did you or your father or Traian Mohan write a letter to these members of the congregation saying, you guys aren't members of the congregation anymore; did you do that?
A. It's all verbal. The Nazarene faith works verbally within the church.
Q. Okay. So you're saying that before August 16th, 2015 you told these individuals listed on Dorel Depo Exhibit Number 3 that they were no longer members of the church; is that your testimony?
A. We don't excommunicate. We simply tell them they need to find another church because their beliefs are different than what this church was built on.
Q. Okay.
A. We don't judge people. We want to keep our faith. And we just tell them they need to move on. Just like we've been doing that since the church was built.
Q. Okay. Would you agree that Traian Mohan became a trustee after he returned to the church?
A. In what year?
Q. Approximately 1993.
A. Was he a trustee in 1993?
Q. Yes.
A. I have no idea.
Q. When do you believe Traian Mohan became a trustee of the church?
A. 2012.
Q. Prior to 2012 was Traian Mohan a trustee of the church?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Was your father a trustee of the church prior to 2012?
A. He's been a trustee since 1998, an elected trustee as soon as he came back.
Q. Do you know if Traian Mohan was elected as a trustee prior to 2012?
A. No.
Q. Was it your understanding before 2012 that Traian Mohan was a trustee of the church?
A. Rephrase the question.
Q. Was it your understanding that prior to 2012 -- I'll start over. Was it your understanding that Traian Mohan was a trustee of the church after he came back and before 2012?
A. Well, I was there since '98. So since the time I was there I've never seen him a trustee.
Q. So as far as you're concerned Traian Mohan was not a trustee of the church between 1998 and 2012; is that correct, as far as you know?
A. Correct.
MR. KRAUS: Take a break. I'll see what's going on with this call. I'll be back in five minutes. (Thereupon, there was a recess.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Is it your understanding between 1990 and 1998 that trustees of the church were elected by the congregational members?
A. I have no idea.
Q. And why don't you have any idea?
A. Because it's been done different ways.
Q. Well, what was your understanding of how trustees were elected between 1990 and 1998; do you know?
A. No, not to my knowledge. I wasn't there.
Q. And after 1998 what is your understanding as to how trustees were elected at the church?
A. They could be elected by secret ballot if there's an opening. The trustees were always in the hands of the founder of the church. And sometimes there wouldn't even be a vote. They would just continue on; they don't resign.
Q. So it's your understanding that sometimes trustees were elected by secret ballot; is that correct?
A. Sometimes.
Q. And do you know what years elections were done by secret ballot?
A. The only one I remember is my dad was done in 1998 to put him back as a trustee.
Q. After 1998 were there other elections for trustees at the church?
A. One time I was elected to serve a term.
Q. When were you elected as a trustee?
A. Roughly from 2000 to like 2005.
Q. When you were elected as trustee in 2000, you were elected by the congregational members of the church; is that correct?
A. Yes. It was a --
Q. And how long was a term when you were a trustee; how long do you serve for?
A. I believe it was five years.
Q. So as far as you know when you were elected in 2000, your term as trustee would be for five years; is that your understanding?
A. Well, I stepped down from it because I had a family to raise. I didn't have the time to be a trustee.
Q. Okay. But your understanding when you were elected by the congregational members of the church to be a trustee sometime in 2000, was it your understanding that you would serve for five years?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some type of document or a record or minutes of the meeting where you were elected as trustee?

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 21:29

6164 views
A. I didn't keep the records at that time.
Q. Do you know if there is a record of that meeting where you were elected as trustee?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know, prior to 2012 is there any church record that states that the term of a trustee is five years, if you know?
A. No. That was just decided on, but founders always stayed trustees. They weren't changed.
Q. We can agree, you claim your father is a founder of this church; that's your position, right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And is it your position that he was a trustee between 1990 and 1998 while he was a member of another church?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You're not taking that position, are you?
MS. RUSSELL: You can answer it.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
MS. RUSSELL: You can answer it if you understand it.
A. What's the question?
Q. You would agree that your father wasn't a trustee between 1990 and 1998 while he was a member of another congregation; you agree with that statement, don't you?
A. Yeah. He wasn't there; he's not a trustee.
Q. Okay. And when he came back, he wasn't a trustee at Columbia Station when he first came back; there had to be an election my the members of the congregation to elect him as trustee; would you agree with that?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
Q. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Answer?
MS. RUSSELL: Yeah.
A. Yes, they had an election. It was just a formality.
Q. Now, you stepped down as a trustee after 2000; is that correct?
A. Not after 2000. When it ended, in like 2005 probably.
Q. I may have misunderstood you. You say you were elected as a trustee in 2000, correct?
A. To 2005.
Q. It's your understanding that your term as trustee would go from 2000 to 2005; that was your understanding, correct?
A. It did. Yes.
Q. And did you serve that complete term between from 2000 and 2005?
A. Yes.
Q. And in 2005 is it fair to say you decided you didn't want to be a trustee anymore?
A. Yes.
Q. You had other things more pressing, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that after you decided not to be a trustee anymore that there was an election to elect a new trustee to take your place?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. Go ahead.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall who was elected as the trustee to replace you?
A. No.
Q. And again typically these meetings would take place at the annual church meeting sometime at the beginning of the new year; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And sometimes they were done in between because there was a need to call a church meeting that required voting, true?
A. Not that I can recall. Usually we don't have anything to vote on.
Q. Okay.
A. It's when the church is unified in one mind, there's no issues.
Q. Do you know if there's been a situation where a trustee was removed from the position?
A. No.
Q. So it's your understanding that once you're elected as a trustee, it's for a five-year term; that was your understanding, correct?
A. No, unless you'd step down. The founders would always stay there as trustees. It's just a formality.
Q. So is it your position that after your father was elected trustee in 1998, that he had the right to hold that position until he voluntarily resigned?
A. It was never questioned because he was a founder. Founders kept on keeping their position.
Q. I just want to understand. Is it your claim that after your father was elected trustee in 1998 that there was no end to his term?
A. Unless he resigned, there's no end.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 21:44

6160 views
Q. And is there some type of document that you base your claim that after your father was elected trustee that he could remain trustee until he resigned; is there some document that says that?
A. The Nazarene faith don't have documents. It's all a spiritual matter and it's done in faith. And you can ask the Cleveland Nazarene church as well.
Q. So is there a document that you can direct me to that supports your claim that once your father was elected trustee, he was a trustee until he voluntarily resigned?
A. No legal document. Just a Nazarene spiritual understanding of how the churches work.
Q. Tell me, what are the jobs duties of a trustee at the church. What does the trustee do?
A. They watch over maintenance of the building. They'll take care of financial matters, if we need to pay someone or hire someone to do some work. And the trustees that are the founders of the church watch over the spiritual well-being of the church and make sure that it stays a Nazarene faith congregation that it was built upon.
Q. So they serve a non-religious role deciding the matters that you just discussed, I mean financial and that type of thing, those are non-religious issues, correct?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Maintenance and financial matters.
MS. RUSSELL: It's misleading.
Q. You can answer the question.
MS. RUSSELL: You can try.
A. What's the question?
Q. The trustees have certain non-religious duties, such as looking over financial matters, maintenance matters, those are non-religious issues, correct?
A. Everything is taking care of the house of God, so it's all done for God.
Q. So when a decision is made to replace a furnace at the church, is it that a religious matter, replacing a furnace? I just want to know.
A. It's maintaining the house of God. You have to make a decision. And they'll ask for -- if they need, all matters, when the church is unified, will be decided upon together. If it's a high expense, then the church will have a voice if it's unified. If it's a matter that needed to be taken care of right away because there's going to be damage to the church, then they'll just take care of it.
Q. How does the church resolve religious disputes within the congregation; is there a process that's followed?
A. No. The founders will express that the beliefs are not according to what the church was built on. And that they need to move on to another church if they want to practice those beliefs. It will just be a spiritual battle.
Q. I'm just trying to understand, if there's a spiritual dispute within the church, how does it get discussed by the congregation; how is it determined what conclusion should be reached?
A. The founders of the church will make the decision.
Q. So --
A. They didn't build it for someone else to come over and take over and practice their own beliefs. And since it was built, those parties have always left until this party brings a lawsuit, which is against the word of God, Corinthians, Chapter 6. Ask any Nazarene faith church, they'll say they're going against the word of God. It's not a Nazarene belief.
Q. What role does a church elder play in church disputes on spiritual matters?
A. He plays no role. He can add advice, but usually they walk away because they don't want any part of the spiritual battle. They're not going to be -- the outcome will be whatever the founders of the church decide. That's why Dave Nikolson walked away on August 16th.
Q. And David Nikolson was the church elder for Columbia Station; is that correct?
A. Yes. He said he would do the spiritual work for the church when --
Q. I'm sorry?
A. He would do the spiritual work for the church when needed.
Q. What kind of spiritual work would David Nikolson do as church elder for the church?
A. Baptisms and weddings.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Baptisms and weddings.
Q. Okay. So he wasn't a member of the congregation, correct?
A. No.
Q. He didn't have a vote in congregational matters, right?
A. No.
Q. He didn't have the right to appoint or remove trustees, did he?
A. No.
Q. You agree that the congregation had the right to remove trustees; you'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
A. No. Not if they're not spiritually one. It would never come to that.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Dorel Depo Exhibit 4. What's that document?
A. Meeting notes from February 12th, 2012.
Q. And who typed up that document?
A. I did.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 22:14

6153 views
Q. When did you create that document?
A. A few days after the meeting. It could have been that evening.
Q. Okay. And did you use your personal laptop when you created that document a few days after February 12th, 2012 or maybe that evening?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's still the laptop at your house; is that correct?
A. It may be. Some computers have died since then.
Q. Is there a handwritten document from what you claim took place on the February 12th, 2012 meeting?
A. If there was, it was thrown out.
Q. Did you take notes at that meeting, handwritten notes?
A. It's a simple meeting, so probably not.
Q. So anything on this document is based upon what you recall happening at the meeting; is that a fair statement?
A. Yes, this happened at the meeting.
Q. The document marked as Dorel Exhibit 4, this would reflect what you claim occurred at the meeting on
22 February 12th, 2012, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. After you created this document that you claim reflects what occurred on February 12th, 2012, was this circulated among the congregational members?
A. Most of the time it is, but I can't say for sure.
Q. You don't recall if this one was circulated; is that a fair statement?
A. I don't recall. When the church is unified we don't circulate papers. A lot of times it's known.
Q. Okay. Well, this particular document, this is regarding an annual church meeting that took place on or about February 12th, 2012; is that correct?
A. Yes. This was after the split in 2011.
Q. Did this meeting take place at the church?
A. Yes.
Q. And were the members of the congregation present at this meeting, as far as you recall?
A. Maybe not all of them, but probably most of them.
Q. Why was Elder Nikolson presiding over this peaceful church meeting?
A. Because we just had a spiritual battle in 2011 where the group finally left, so he came to make sure everything was okay.
Q. Who asked him to attend; do you know?
A. Not to my -- to my knowledge I don't know.
Q. And according to this document, is it true that the congregation voted to appoint a new treasurer as part of what happened on that day, correct?
A. There was no vote. It was just verbally agreed to.
Q. Okay. So the question of who would be treasurer was put out to the group to see if anyone was opposed to it; is that how that worked?
A. It was already known that Traian would take over even before the meeting. It was just going through the motions. It was already determined.
Q. So it says the members verbally affirmed the appointment of Traian Mohan as the treasurer in place of George Zula. It says verbally affirmed; what does that mean?
A. No one was against it. No one said anything.
Q. And you were also a treasurer in 2012?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were treasurer by virtue of the fact you had been elected by the congregation, correct?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer the question. Can you answer the question?
A. What's the question?
Q. Were you elected to be a treasurer before February 12th, 2012 by the congregation?
A. Well, there was no vote. It was just asked of me if I would take over the treasurer duties, and I accepted since I didn't -- I've done it before.
Q. Okay. According to this document, Dorel Depo Exhibit 4, Traian Mohan was verbally affirmed to be treasurer and it states that you remained the treasurer; that's what your understanding was, correct?
A. M-hm.
Q. Yes, that's your understanding?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And it also says that the number of church trustees was decreased to two and appointed to serve for five years. Prior to February 12th, 2012 how many trustees were there?
A. I recall always between three and five.

Moderator
Australia
21 Jan 2017 22:48

6144 views
Q. And what do you recall about the discussion regarding decreasing the church trustees to two; why was that happening, what's your recollection?
A. No one else wanted to be a trustee, so we decreased it to two. My dad was always a trustee. He continued on. And then my dad recommended that Traian take it, since he's the other one that came after the church developed, but he's the oldest standing member there, too, as well, from the beginning when the church was made. And he was -- he said he would keep the Nazarene faith, so --
Q. Earlier I was asking questions when Traian Mohan became a trustee, and you said that he became a trustee
in 2012. Were you referring to this church meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. As far as you know, you don't know when he had been a trustee prior to 2012?
A. While I was there he was never a trustee prior to 2012.
Q. Why don't you consider Traian Mohan an original founder of the church if he's on the original incorporating documents?
A. He came after it was built and already done.
Q. Is it true your father left the church before that building was completed?
A. No. He's not on the 1987 document and he came after the church was built and completed. So he's not an original founder.
Q. And you don't recall who was elected as a trustee to replace you after you claim your term expired in 2005; is that correct?
A. Correct.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I hand you what's been marked as Dorel Depo Exhibit 5. Could you tell me what this document is?
A. This is meeting notes from March 16th, 2014.
Q. So this is the annual church meeting that took place in 2014 to be accurate; is that accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you know if there was a meeting in 2013?
A. No meeting in 2013.
Q. So again, this document was created by you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was it created? I see it's dated March 16th, 2014.
A. Either that evening or a few days after, in a short time.
Q. And this would be a document that would be on your laptop?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm talking about your personal laptop, not your business laptop.
A. Yes, my personal laptop. Yes.
Q. And did this meeting also take place at the church in Columbia Station?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree that the members of the congregation would have attended this church?
A. Yeah. Maybe not all, but all that could make it. Sure.
Q. And this was another meeting that was being presided over by David Nikolson; is that correct?
A. Yes, he was there.
Q. And at this meeting on March 16th, 2014, the congregation agreed that Dymytro Popovych would take over the position as the treasurer; is that correct?
A. On my recommendation, yes.
Q. And you also remained a treasurer; is that also correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it also says here there was no change in the church trustees and that would remain Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan; that's what that document says, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And they were just appointed, according your meeting notes in 2012, for a five-year term, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why would that have to be put in here in 2014?
A. Because no one resigned.
Q. Okay. No one had resigned.
A. So just to establish the fact that they didn't resign. They're still the trustees.
Q. All right. So I wasn't at the meeting. So at this meeting it would be fair to say that David Nikolson was presiding. It's been presented that Dymytro Popovych should be a treasurer, also. Does anyone disagree with that; is that kind of how this would proceed?
A. No. I recommended him. Traian stepped down, so I recommended Dymytro to --
Q. Okay.
A. To learn how to be a treasurer.
Q. So, again, just to understand the process, you would recommend that Dymytro Popovych take over as trustee, and then -
A. Not trustee.
Q. I'm sorry. As treasurer. And then the congregation would have an opportunity to say, we object or they don't object; is that the way it works?
A. No one said anything. Dave -- he first refused; he didn't want to do it, but eventually we talked him into it.
Q. David Nikolson talked Dymytro Popovych into being the treasurer; is that what you're telling me?


[to be continued...]

Uhhm
Australia
21 Jan 2017 23:56

6117 views
Why did Peter stefan leave Columbia station to go Cleveland Nazarene church, I thought Dorel said that the liberals were asked to leave. Does this mean Peter became a liberal believer and left. Peter stefan must have considered himself not to have been a good enough trustee any longer and it was time to look for a church that was more like himself. It seems his ways became liberal or not according to the way Columbia stations faith was founded. Then Peter S. Went to Cleveland church, he stayed there for many years. Did Peter S. become too liberal for that group too that he decided to come back to a so-called liberal Columbia station church. Peter must have felt Columbia was now liberal enough like himself to make that move back. Remember Dorel said only liberals need to leave a church and look for a church that is more liberal like themselves. WAIT ONE MINUTE HERE.....didn't Dorel say he was baptised in the Cleveland Nazarene church? Did Dorel become a too liberal member and was asked to leave Cleveland church. Is that why Dorel came to a so-called liberal Columbia station church.

right condemnation
Australia
22 Jan 2017 0:20

6111 views
Matthew 12:37
37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

unless you repent and confess your sin to be healed from that sin.

James 5:16
16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. T



Uhhm
Australia
22 Jan 2017 0:30

6108 views
I could be wrong..they may not be liberal, just trouble makers looking for someone to go along with their sick and twisted minds. Isn't that about the same time the petras' moved to Columbia station church. It looks to me dorel and his father Peter found the one who will help them get rid of everyone they don't like in Columbia station church. This might be the real reason the stefans came back to Columbia church. It fits in with their plan for the future of becoming trustees and taking over Columbia station and getting rid of petras' group and everyone else. Then they continued down the road of sin and shut the doors and everyone out of Columbia station. I could be wrong.

queer question
Australia
22 Jan 2017 0:41

6105 views
would it not have been easier for the STEFANS to have chosen another church, like they did by leaving Cleveland church??

how come they didnt lock the church at the Cleveland Church from the liberal members?

why did they just leave?

because they were not trustee's in Cleveland Church?

is our NAZARENE faith in brick, concrete and mortar?

1 Corinthians 15:19
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.


Uhhm
Australia
22 Jan 2017 0:43

6103 views
Poor people of Columbia station to be fooled like this. What a battle it must have been, I don't envy any of you. Dave should have put a stop to the stefans straight away. Couldn't he see and hear what the Holy Spirit was telling him about how wrong the stefans were. They are like wolves in sheeps clothing.

Uhhm
Australia
22 Jan 2017 0:44

6102 views
Very good point. They had a motive from the beginning.

elder committee
Australia
22 Jan 2017 0:57

6097 views
how come the elders punished the stephans, but not David Nickolson?

David should have received the greater punishment then the stephans.

consider:

- St.John 19:11 (second part of the verse)

.......therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

so, if I lead you to sin, I have a greater sin, yeah?

but....I only told you to rob the bank, I didnt do it, why should the committee elders punish me for the robbery?????????

AMEN TO ALL
Germany
22 Jan 2017 4:22

6056 views
Wow the comments by all are so right on......according to everything I read here the bottom line is that the Elder David Nikolson should not only be removed as elder but he should be put under discipline for allowing all of these extremists to rule so ungodly.
To the commentaters EXTREMISTS, CLEVELAND NAZARENE, UHHUM and others how can you be so right on and see what the crooked Steffans were up to but AN elder (Dave Nikolson) could not?? Perhaps it's because he is blinded by all of his own crooked baggage he carries with him.

AMEN TO ALL
Germany
22 Jan 2017 4:48

6052 views
This Dorel is a contradicting joke, making up rules as you go. And Dave Nikolson is a bigger joke yet.

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 10:25

5995 views
Why are you using a proxy server ( http://Anonymouse.org/ )..?

Reply to Eld. Com.
Australia
22 Jan 2017 21:14

5913 views
>>>>>>>>>>but....I only told you to rob the bank, I didnt do it, why should the committee elders punish me for the robbery?????????

Do you know the Steffans? I just logged on to read for any updates and your comment shouted out at me. Are you saying that David planned to steal the church and sell it from the beginning? That he instructed the Steffans to make discord, kick people out only to steal the church?

To Germany, you are spot on!!!


Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 22:29

5898 views
[...continued]

A. Well, he was encouraging him to take it because we wanted him to see what's it's all about.
Q. And the congregation, the members wanted Dymytro Popovych to --
A. No. Personally I wanted him, because he was thinking it's -- some of them were thinking it's such an easy job. I wanted him to see what it's all about before they make a judgment.
Q. And the congregation did not object then to him becoming a treasurer also?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any record of any kind, I'm talking about an e-mail or a letter, that those notes from March 16th, 2014 was circulated to the membership after you created it sometime maybe that night or a couple of days later?
A. There was no e-mail. if it was distributed, it would have been in church with a copy of it.
Q. Do you recall that happening?
A. I'm not certain.
Q. Okay.
A. Like I said, usually if there was a reason for it, we would do it. If not, if we were spiritually united, there would be no reason for it.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 to 5 the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I'm handing you what has been marked as Dorel Depo Exhibit Number 6. What's that document?
A. Meeting notes from February 8th, 2015.
Q. So this is another annual church meeting that took place in 2015; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And this church meeting also took place at Columbia Station; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, the congregation members would have attended this meeting, or certainly those who were able to make it; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in 2015 did the congregation agree that your father would take the position previously held by Dymytro Popovych as treasurer?
A. Yeah. He stepped down. He resigned.
Q. Okay. And your father agreed to it, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the congregation members agreed that he would be the new treasurer in place of Dymytro?
A. Yeah. No one said otherwise.
Q. And this document, this was created by you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. On your laptop, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you saying that this was created either the same evening or shortly thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And was this particular meeting notes from February 8th, 2015, is there any record that that was distributed or given to members of the congregation?
A. I'm not sure about the congregation, but I did e-mail it to Dave Nikolson.
Q. Had you e-mailed those other church meeting notes that we've identified from 2012, 2014, were they e-mailed to David Nikolson also?
A. No.
Q. Why would you e-mail the February 8th, 2015 meeting notes to Dave Nikolson when you had not done that in the past?
A. Because the spiritual dispute started at the end of the 2014, and this was e-mailed to him so that there would be no dispute as far as who the trustees are and the officers of the church in case -- because we know that people come up with their own stories. So that was to verify that this is true.
Q. So in February 2015 or at the time that you e-mailed the notes from February 2015 to David Nikolson, you had some concern that someone would question who the trustees were?
A. We have that concern right now, don't we?
Q. I'm asking the question, back in February 2015 did have you a concern that someone would challenge who the church trustees were?
A. Yes, because we learned from our split in 2011 there's devious people and they don't tell the truth, they make up their own documents and meetings that aren't in charge to do that.
Q. Okay.
A. So this is to verify what took place and who they are from the church.
Q. Prior to February 2015 what members of the congregation had made up documents that weren't true?
A. I'm just saying they could. But they say false accusations or they make up things, and it's your word versus their word.
Q. My question is, prior to February 8th, 2015 are you accusing any of the past church members of Columbia Station church of creating false documents?
A. No false documents. Just false accusations and false situations that arrived spiritually and so forth. So this was to guarantee that no one could come up with their own document and say that it wasn't so within the church.
Q. Okay.

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 22:40

5891 views
A. Before that there was spiritual unity, so there was no danger of anything like that. Once the spiritual danger showed up in 2014, then we've learned from our mistakes in the past in trusting people. So now we are making sure that there is evidence.
Q. Who do you claim made false accusations?
A. Well, they were in the 2011 split, the liberal group that left in 2011.
Q. Okay. So there's a group of people who left the congregation in 2011, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're claiming that some of the people who left in 2011 made false accusations regarding what?
A. Matters in the church.
Q. They left the congregation and became members elsewhere; is that correct, that group that you claim made false accusations?
A. They eventually left.
Q. Are you claiming that the members of the Columbia Station church who did not leave in 2011 are making false accusations?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.
A. What's the question?
Q. Are you claiming that the members who did not leave and stayed at Columbia Station after 2011 have made false accusations?
A. Yes. The group that is suing us now has slandered us and made false statements all over the world.
Q. What false accusations have been made by the group who did not leave the church in 2011?
A. They started spreading that we were going to sell the church.
Q. What is your understanding as to who has said that you were going sell the church?
A. Mihal Petras.
Q. Mihal Petras, that's M-I-H-A-L, and that's the father of Mike Petras, correct?
A. Right.
Q. So it's your claim that Mihal Petras has told somebody that you were going to sell the church; is that what you're telling me?
A. He called all around and told people. Yeah.
Q. What other claims do you think are false, and who made them?
A. Their group also claimed that my dad shut down the church for one Sunday, that he did it.
Q. I'm sorry. Someone made a false accusation that your dad shut down the church?
A. Yeah. Mihal Petras called my dad and told him that church -- we're going to close church this Sunday because everyone's going to go to the Cleveland church because they were having guests there. And we might as well close our church and go there and be with the guests.
Q. I'm a little confused. You're describing a conversation that you believe took place between Mihal Petras and your father, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. This is what your father has told you happened; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You weren't on the phone for this conversation?
A. No. My mom witnessed it.
Q. Okay. And you're telling me that Mihal Petras made an accusation that your father was going to close the church, or that Mihal was going to close the church? Tell me about this conversation. I'm not following it.
A. Well, he talked to his family and some others, and they decided -- we're a small group. We're only like people. So if half the group is not going to come to church and the minister wants to go visit another church for that event, then we might as well close the church for that type of event and just go to the other church. So he said, that's what everyone's going to do. And my dad, I believe, told a few people. But in reality when my dad went to the church just to make sure no one shows up -- and no one showed up until -- a couple of ministers I believe showed up minutes late, which is unheard of. Ministers are usually there before the service starts, which is ten o'clock.
22 So someone showed up right around 10:00 and my dad said, well -- he was in plain clothes because church wasn't going to happen today, everyone was going to the Cleveland church. And he told the one lady member that came, you know, there's no church today; everyone's going to the Cleveland church. So she left. And 15 minutes after church was supposed to -- 15 minutes after ten o'clock all of a sudden there was a couple of ministers that showed up. And an argument started because, why did you close the church. My dad said, I didn't. I was told there wasn't going to be church today. Then that started arguments in the church.
Q. Okay. So you claim false accusations were made by Mihal Petras regarding you planning to sell the church and your dad shutting down the church on a day where he had not shut down the church; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. What other false accusations?
A. He started requesting the deed from my dad, which is not a false accusation, but a very undisturbing event that he would request a deed from my dad because he wants to take over the church.
Q. We'll talk about the deed. I want to know the false accusations. We've talked about the claim that Mihal Petras made about you selling the church and about your father shutting down the church.

Uhhm
Australia
22 Jan 2017 22:46

5884 views
Dorel you're fool of it. First YOU don't tell the truth. In your own words you say that the devious people make up false documents then Mr. Kraus asks you about these false documents that you said people made and you had to fix up your LIE. How many more untruths have you been telling the church or keeping from the church. God knows the truth.

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 22:51

5881 views
A. Those are the two big ones that I recall at this time.
Q. Now, who brought up the topic of the deed? You were just talking about the deed.
A. Misha started requesting the deed.
Q. You say Misha, that's Mihal?
A. Mihal.
Q. Okay. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Mihal Petras, Mike's father also goes by Misha, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So it's your understanding that Misha asked for the deed to the church?
A. Yeah. He was badgering my dad, requesting it from him and from Traian to hand over the deed to him.
Q. When did that happen, this request by Misha Petras to have the deed to the church?
A. Early 2015 probably.
Q. Did you ever discuss with your friend's father Mihal Petras the subject as to the request for the deed to the church; did you ever talk to Misha about this?
A. Yeah. We had arguments about it.
Q. You and Mihal Petras argued about the deed; is that what you're telling me?
A. No. As a group in church we would have arguments.
Q. What was the argument about the deed?
A. You can't have it.
Q. What was your understanding as to why Mihal Petras wanted this deed; do you know?
A. He wanted to control the church with him and his son and his son-in-law.
Q. And on what do you base the conclusion that he wanted the deed so he could control the church?
A. Because he was calling all around to get support from the elders that we never associated with, that don't spiritually believe like us. He was calling all around to pull up troops to come in and help him do what he wants to do.
Q. Okay.
A. And he slandered Dave Nikolson's name as well because he wasn't helping him do what he wanted to do.
Q. Okay. And what was your understanding -- so you're telling me that your understanding that he wanted this deed to the church so he could control the church; that was your understanding of what the fight was?
A. Yeah. Take it over and his group will run it the way they want.
Q. Are those your words, or are those the words of Mihal Petras?
A. He told my dad, I'm going to bring the elders and kick you out of here like they kicked other people out of their churches. But they weren't built by them, so they could do that. But not to this church. But he threatened him with all kinds of --
Q. You said he threatened him. You're talking about Mihal Petras threatened your father?
A. Yeah, with elders.
Q. He threatened him with elders.
A. Some of the same liberal elders that came in 2011 to tell us to take back the group that left in 2011, they told us to take them back. And we said, no, you're not in charge of this church and you have nothing -- you can't order us around, and we will not take them back in their original position. If they want to keep the Nazarene faith, they're welcome to come back, but no positions. And now they're using the same elders to do to us what the liberal group was trying to do to us in 2011. And it wasn't Okay then, but now it's okay.
Q. You claim that Mihal Petras slandered David Nikolson; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In what way do you claim Mihal Petras slandered David Nikolson?
A. Well, you'll have to ask David Nikolson. He just told us that during the August 16th meeting that Mihal called all over and he got calls of what he was saying, even from his own church.
Q. You're referring to the August 16th, 2015 meeting that took place after services between you, your father and Traian?
A. No. This was during the church meeting.
Q. During services?
A. After service.
Q. So there was a general meeting with the congregation on August 16th, 2015 with David Nikolson being present or he was there?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. So I want to understand. David Nikolson was at a meeting. Did he attend services on August 16th, 2015?
A. I believe he was there for the afternoon. I believe so.
Q. So what was discussed at the meeting of August 16th, 2015 with David Nikolson?
A. The spiritual battle going on over the church. Misha was demanding for us to resign as trustees and our positions and to hand over the deed. And we told Dave, no, we will not resign our positions, will not hand over the deed. The church will remain a Nazarene faith church. And that's when he decided to remove himself because of the spiritual battle and not be involved anymore.

Bigger picture
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:00

5877 views
In the comments of the other forums about Columbia Station, Misha was blamed for Columbia Station ENTIRELY! But according to Dorel’s deposition Misha tried bringing the first group back in 2011 with the Elders.

Sick
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:01

5876 views
This is making me sick to my stomach! What pain everyone in Columbia Station must have gone through?!

Uhhm
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:02

5873 views
The future will show if Mihal was right in accusing the Stevan group for wanting to sell the Columbia station church. After we get to look at dorels deposition, can we please see peters, traians, mihals, mikes and dmytrys deposition. There's always 2 sides to the story. Thanks

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:05

5871 views
A bit of information that we are missing here is how many people attended the Columbia Station church? How many members left that church in 2011 and how many stayed? Does anyone know? Thank you in advance.

2 sides
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:36

5848 views
2 sides to the story???
There are always more than two sides to a story; every individual has their version of “their truth”.
Uhhm maybe you’d like to see Steffan’s clear of guilt and the party that was kicked out to be fully blamed. I agree I’d like to see the other depositions and the offer to sell the church... MORE TRUTHS will come out and time will tell what happens to the Columbia Station building. How the money will be divided once it’s sold.



Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:43

5838 views
Q. Is there some written church document that states trustees cannot be removed by the church congregation?
A. No. It's Nazarene faith. We built the church for the trustees, and we're the owners and we watch over the house of God and make sure it's being conducted in the manner and in the faith that it was built for. That's our duty to God, preserve the faith.
Q. Okay. Will you admit that the church, the members of the church before 2015 had a right to remove trustees by a vote?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.
MS. RUSSELL: You can answer it.
A. No, not during a spiritual matter there's never been a trustee removed by vote. Because a spiritual matter arose, there would be no more meetings, there would be no more votes. And the spiritual matter will come to an end either by the liberal group leaving or we could shut down the church.
Q. I want to ask you a hypothetical question and I want you to assume certain facts are true. Okay? Assume before 2015 the church had elected Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan to be trustees of the church by majority vote. Assume that's true. Further assume that members of the church learned that Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan had been embezzling church money.
MS. RUSSELL: Objection to this whole line of questioning. That's ridiculous. You're asking him to assume facts. You're calling it a hypothetical, but you're saying things that aren't true.
MR. KRAUS: We're allowed to --
MS. RUSSELL: He's not going to answer this question.
MR. KRAUS: You can't tell him not to answer this question.
MS. RUSSELL: I'm telling him not to answer.
MR. KRAUS: It's a hypothetical.
MS. RUSSELL: It's a hypothetical where you're using the parties, you're accusing them of --
MR. KRAUS: I'm not accusing. This is a --
MS. RUSSELL: -- crimes in an effort to incite him.
MR. KRAUS: Let me rephrase the question.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I'll rephrase the question. Assume that the church had elected as trustees John Petrutz and Petar Miu as trustees. Let me start over again. Assume that the church has elected two individuals to be trustees of the church by a majority vote. Assume that the two trustees that have been elected by the members of the church have been found embezzling church money. Just assume that's true. Assuming those facts to be true, would the members of the congregation have the authority to hold a meeting to vote to remove those trustees and replace them with new trustees?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. I don't want you answering the question. Mr. Kraus, it's a factual deposition. If you want to ask him about facts, ask him about facts.
MR. KRAUS: No. Listen, --
MS. RUSSELL: He's not going to try to hypothesize with some question you're making up.
MR. KRAUS: Well, because I'm allowed to ask hypothetical questions and he has to answer them. It's not privileged. I'm not asking a privileged question.
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, you can take it up with the judge. I don't want him answering the question. It's confusing. If you want to ask about facts, --
MR. KRAUS: So it's your position --
MS. RUSSELL: -- ask about facts.
MR. KRAUS: So it's your position in a deposition I can't ask hypothetical questions of the deponent.
MS. RUSSELL: It is my position --
MR. KRAUS: Is that your position?
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, do you want me to answer the question, or you just want to argue over me when I try to answer the question? That seems to be your modus operandi. That's what you do. People try to answer and you talk over it.
What I am saying is that the way that you're asking the question is inherently confusing and there's no way he's going to be able to reasonably answer it. It's a factual deposition. If you want to ask him open-ended factual questions that he can actually answer, ask him. You already asked him can the members of the congregation remove a trustee. I believe he already said no. If not, ask the question.

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:45

5832 views
MR. KRAUS: Okay. I'm asking a hypothetical question. I'm permitted to do that. You can object to it and he can answer it, and the judge can decide. It's not privileged. I'm not asking for him to reveal a conversation with a lawyer. And if the judge says, you know, that's not a good question, Mr. Kraus, then it's not going to be admissable. That's all it is, just a question. There's no grounds for telling this person, do not answer it. It doesn't subject him to any criminal liability.
MS. RUSSELL: You call the Court, or you can ask him questions and he can answer the questions.
MR. KRAUS: Listen, I want to get through this.
MS. RUSSELL: Okay.
MR. KRAUS: But I just want to make sure the record is clear, you're telling this person not to answer the question because you don't think I can ask a hypothetical question assuming certain facts.
MS. RUSSELL: I'm telling him not to answer the question you asked because it's inherently confusing with the way that it's phrased.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Okay. Were you confused by that question?
A. Yes.
Q. What was confusing about that question?
A. You can make up hypothetical situations that don't exist in the real world.
Q. Okay. Are there any circumstances in your opinion that you can describe that would give the congregation the authority to vote to remove a trustee?
A. It's never happened.
MR. KRAUS: Can you read back the last question, please?
THE NOTARY: Question: "Are there any circumstances in your opinion that you can describe that would give the congregation the authority to vote to remove a trustee?"
A. No. If the trustee committed some fraudulent act, that's a sin before God. He would remove himself.
Q. Okay.
A. He would recognize the sin and probably leave the church if he committed an act like that.
Q. So if a trustee had committed a sin before God, would that be grounds for him being removed as a trustee?
A. He would remove himself. He would leave the church probably.
Q. Assume that someone, a trustee has committed a sin before God and refuses to give up their position as trustee of the church, can the church take action to remove this trustee under those circumstances?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.
A. It's never happened.
Q. I didn't ask if it's ever happened.
A. It won't happen because the spiritual leaders of the church -- there would not be a vote. The spiritual leaders of the church would take care of the situation. There would not be anyone involved as far as voting. The spiritual leaders of the church, the founders that are preserving the faith of that church would take the action necessary.
Q. What action would they take; what's the necessary action that those people would take?
A. He'd have to repent from his sin and he would resign on his own.
Q. Okay. Assume that individual, that trustee who has committed a sin before God refuses to give up his position of trustee, can the church remove him by a vote?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, asked and answered twice now. He already gave his answer. You keep asking the same questions. You're not going to get a different answer.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer the question.
A. What's the question?
MR. KRAUS: Read back the question.
THE NOTARY: Question: "Assume that individual, that trustee who has committed a sin before God refuses to give up his position of trustee, can the church remove him by a vote?"
MS. RUSSELL: I'll renew my objection. You can go ahead and answer if your answer is any different.
A. Read the question again.
MR. KRAUS: Go ahead. You can read the question again.

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:49

5830 views
THE NOTARY: Question: "Assume that individual, that trustee who has committed a sin before God refuses to give up his position of trustee, can the church remove him by a vote?"
MS. RUSSELL: And I'll renew my objection. You can answer.
A. No, there would be no vote. The trustees and the founders of the church would take care of the matter. It would never get to that. It would not happen. There's no doubt about it. The person would realize his sin, he would resign voluntarily and the situation is over. The founders would take care of the matter.
Q. How would the founders take care of this matter? You say they will take care of it. How would they do that?
A. By talking to him and expressing what he did and what he needs to do. And that would be it.
Q. Okay. So assume that the trustee who has committed a sin before God has been talked to by the founders of the church and the members of the church, but he refuses to step down as trustee, can the congregation vote to remove him?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, asked and answered four times now.
MR. KRAUS: It's a different question.
A. It would never get to the congregation. The trustees and the founders of the church would take care of the matter.
Q. Okay. Do you claim that Traian Mohan resigned his position as church trustee?
A. At which time?
Q. Well, you claim he became a trustee in 2012; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So after 2012 do you claim that Traian Mohan resigned as trustee?
A. Yes. I talked to him on the phone. He no longer wanted to maintain the Nazarene faith and he wanted to go back. And I told him, we're not going back, we're not going to compromise our faith; if you choose to do that, either come along with us or you need to resign. And he said he'd resign.
Q. This was a conversation that you personally had with Traian Mohan?
A. Yes.
Q. When did that take place?
A. I believe it was -- October 2nd was when my dad called me and told me that Traian had called him and said that he's betrayed us and gone to go back to the liberal group. And then I talked to him a couple times, I think it was like October 6th, right around there that he told me on the phone. And I said, either you have to come with us and agree to what we're doing, because there's three trustees, two of us are not going to compromise our faith. Like we started from the beginning, that we're going to preserve and keep the Nazarene faith. We're still going to do that. If you decide to go with the liberal group, you're welcome to
leave, but you need to resign. And he said, I resign.
Q. Did Traian tell you why he was taking this action that he wanted to not be part of your group with you and your father; did he tell you that?
A. Yeah, because I asked him.
Q. What did he say; what did he say?
A. He said he's getting threatened, he's afraid he's going to go to jail and they're going to take his house away, because what we did was illegal. And I'm going to go to jail and lose my house, and my dad's going to go to jail and Monica's going to go to jail. And Monica has no idea what she's doing and she's stringing us aside. And his wife is crying because she wants to go back to the other side because that's where her friends are at, and she doesn't care about the Nazarene faith. She just wants to be with the other group because she's got a sister there. So she was crying and he just couldn't take it anymore. He said, that's it. He's going to compromise his faith. And I said, how can you do that. And he said, well, when they do things that I don't like, I just won't go to church and I'll stay home. And I said, what kind of faith is that.
Q. Okay. What else was discussed in this phone call? He told you he was changing his position because he'd been threatened. Did he tell you who he'd been threatened by?


[to be continued...]

Moderator
Australia
22 Jan 2017 23:53

5825 views
OK, it's enough for today, and that is already like 2/3 of Dorel's deposition. Tomorrow we'll post the last third. Thank you.

To: Uhmm
Australia
23 Jan 2017 9:00

5758 views
The document to sell church has been supplied on this website.
How would you like it if someone took money that you donated to your church at Tarneit and used the money to have an investigator investigate you?????? That document has been supplied too!!!
These people deserve to be prison, forget punishment!!!!!

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 19:35

5666 views
[...continued]

A. I can guess, because Mihal is the one that's spreading the threats.
Q. Without guessing, did he tell you who was threatening him?
A. In word, a specific name, no. But the threats I've heard before, it came from Mihal. So I'm just guessing it's him.
Q. Okay. And did he tell you what specific threats were being made against him, or you included that in your answer already.
A. I already said.
Q. Okay. So you're claiming in this conversation Traian Mohan told you that he was changing his position regarding the church because he was being threatened with jail and his family would go to jail?
A. Not his family. I'm saying him because he's a trustee.
Q. That he was being threatened that he was going to go to jail because he was a trustee, that he would lose his house, that the acts that he had engaged in were illegal, that Monica didn't know what she was doing and is also -- I don't remember your exact words.
A. We're all going to jail. She's going to jail, my dad's going to jail, I'm going to jail and we're going to lose our houses.
Q. And also you said something about his wife is crying.
A. And the reason I think it was Mihal, because he said this happened to someone in Australia. So the only person from Australia is Mihal that's spreading this stuff and coming up with these hypotheses and scare tactics.
Q. And at the end of this conversation it's your claim that he said, I don't want to be trustee anymore?
A. Yeah. He said he's going to resign. And I said, will you sign a paper. And he said he will. So I gave the paper to my dad to take to him. He gave it to him. He took it. And then he said he's going to look it over first with his daughter. He doesn't want to sign it right here. And then eventually he didn't sign it. He didn't give it to us.
MR. KRAUS: We're going to mark this. We're on 7?
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 to 13 the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Take a look at deposition Exhibit 7. Is this the letter that you created?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you author this language, by the way; is this something that you came up with?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you take this personally to Traian to be signed?
A. No. I stated, I gave it to my dad and my dad gave it to him.
Q. And as far as you know Traian refused to sign this document, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. He never did sign this, did he?
A. No. He said he would, but he didn't.
Q. And Traian refused to sign this document that says he's resigning his position as trustee. Would you agree that he's still a church trustee?
A. No. He resigned.
Q. That's --
A. Before God he resigned.
Q. Well, you say before God. Are you talking about the conversation that he had with you on or about October 6th, 2015?
A. Well, I'm affirmed to tell the truth. He said he resigned.
Q. Okay. But that's what you're referring to is that one conversation; is that correct, on August 6th, 2015 (sic) or thereabouts?
A. He told me in two conversations that he's going to resign.
Q. Okay. Was August 6th, 2015 the first or the second conversation that he said he's going to resign? A. Which one?
Q. August 6th, 2015, is that the first conversation with Traian?
A. That's the last one.
Q. When was the first one?
A. Probably the day before. Because I told him -- I called him that I have a document for him to sign.
Q. You called him on October 5th and said I have a document for you to sign regarding his resignation as trustee?
A. He told me he's going to resign. I said I'll get a document together so you can sign it, and then
you'll have no part in what's going on, and my dad delivered it.
Q. So how many conversations did you have with Traian where he says, I'm going to resign as trustee; is it two?
A. Of the four or five conversations I had with him from October 2nd to October 6th, twice.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
MR. KRAUS: That's Exhibit 8, I think, isn't it?
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Depo Exhibit Number 8, can you tell me what that is?
A. This is the document, the resolution that the three of us, Traian, myself and my dad, wrote up to notify anyone coming to the church that it would be shut down until we could reorganize it as a Nazarene faith church again. There would be no more church services.
Q. So this is the letter that you typed up; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was this prepared?
A. Probably -- well, between August 16th and August 29th --
Q. All right.
A. -- I worked on it.
Q. And you're the author of this particular document?
A. The author, but we all saw it before we signed it and agreed to it.

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 19:39

5662 views
Q. Was this document created after you had engaged counsel?
MS. RUSSELL: I'm going to --
MR. KRAUS: I'm just asking if --
MS. RUSSELL: Mr. Kraus, I just want to interject so he doesn't get any conversations with me. I can tell you that I assisted them with the resolution. So I can tell you that without getting into our conversations, but I just wanted to clarify that for you.
MR. KRAUS: I appreciate that.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. So this letter dated August 29th, 2015, this was created with the assistance of counsel; is that correct?
MS. RUSSELL: Go ahead.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you would agree this letter doesn't say anything about the church being reorganized. It just says it's being temporarily suspended; do you agree with that?
A. Yes. It's going to be suspended so we can reorganize.
Q. You keep saying it says it's being suspended for reorganization. That's not in this letter, is it? It just says temporarily suspend church services as of August 31st, 2015. Does it say anywhere in this document that the church is being reorganized?
A. No, but what are you going to do? Of course it's going to be reorganized.
Q. I'm just asking the question, Dorel.
A. We would have done this in 2011 if they didn't leave.
Q. Dorel, my question is, does it say anywhere in this document deposition Exhibit Number 8 that the church was being temporarily closed so it could be reorganized?
MS. RUSSELL: We can stipulate it doesn't use the word reorganize.
A. The word is not in there.
Q. Okay.
A. If that's what you're looking for.
Q. I just want you to answer the question.
A. Sorry.
Q. Well, based on what you told me we can agree that your father and Traian didn't author this letter, did they; they didn't come up with the words, correct?
A. They had input. They could change anything they wanted in there.
Q. Okay.
A. They were the trustees.
Q. Was it your understanding when this August 29th, 2015 letter was created that you and your father had decided that The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene at Columbia Station would never reopen under that name?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. You can answer.
A. What's the question?
Q. Was it your understanding that when this letter, I'm talking about depo Exhibit 8, states that the church is being temporarily closed, suspended, would you agree that you and your father had agreed that the church, The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene church at Columbia Station would never reopen under that name?
MS. RUSSELL: I renew my objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You had already decided that, correct?
A. We decided that on August 16th when we decided that this is no longer a Nazarene church, so the name is going to change to reflect that so there is no more confusion and there would be no more fraternizing with ACC churches.
Q. Okay. So on August 16th, 2015 the three of you had already decided, we're closing the church, it's never reopening as The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene; is that correct?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection as to the phrasing. It's confusing.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Are you confused by that question?
A. State the question again.
MR. KRAUS: Read the question, please.
THE NOTARY: Question: "So on August 16th, 2015 the three of you had already decided, we're closing the church, it's never reopening as The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene; is that correct?"
MS. RUSSELL: I'll renew my objection. Go ahead.
A. No, we didn't decide that on August 16th. We talked after that as we were looking at reorganizing, saying, well, let's change the name to what it should be. The 1987 doc states the correct name is the Romanian Nazarene Congregation. So let's call it -- we agreed let's call it Nazarene Congregation so that everyone knows it's Nazarene faith and it's not fraternizing with ACC anymore. And that's when we decided, as we talked on how we were going to reorganize it and open it as a Nazarene church again.
Q. Well, you admit that there was a plan in place by August 29th when you created this letter, depo Exhibit 8, that the church was not going to reopen as The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection to phrasing of the question.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.
A. Repeat the question.

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 19:48

5654 views
Q. Will you admit that there was a plan in place by August 29th, 2015 that the church would never reopen as The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene; you already decided that when this document was created, correct?
A. We decided by probably within the first -- or the week before, like sometime, that when we were talking how to reorganize and open up as a Nazarene church, before we put this out we did decide. But not on August 16th.
Q. Okay. Sometime between August 16th and August 29th --
A. Yeah. Mid week between there we had many discussions.
Q. Certainly by the time you authored this letter with the help of counsel that the church was going to be temporarily suspended, it was decided that the church was not going reopen as The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, right?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, asked and answered three times now. His answer is not going to change --
MR. KRAUS: Let him answer the question.
MS. RUSSELL: His answer is not going to change.
MR. KRAUS: Let him answer the question.
A. Yeah. We talked about the reorganization. We were going to change the name. We decided that --
Q. Okay. So when you --
A. -- a few days before that letter went out.
Q. All right. So when you circulated this letter that this was a temporary closure of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, that was misleading;
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. -- do you agree with that?
A. No.
MS. RUSSELL: You're phrasing your question merely in an effort to harass my client.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Why would you disagree that this letter would be misleading to the congregation when you don't reveal that there's going to be a reorganization of the church?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection to the --
Q. You only say it's going to be --
MS. RUSSELL: -- phrasing of the question.
Q. You only put in here that you're temporarily closing it.
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. You're trying to confuse the witness. He's just said they were going to reopen the church. He didn't say they were going to close the church forever. He's testified four times now that they were going to reopen.
Q. So --
A. We didn't say we're not going to change the name. We're going to reorganize.
Q. Did you before --
A. If they want to keep the Nazarene faith when it opens, they're welcome back just like anybody else.
Q. After August 29th, 2015 and before September 18th, 2015 did you circulate any letter or e-mail to the members of the congregation that the church was being reorganized under another name; did you do that?
A. No.
Q. Can we agree that the plan to reorganize the church was kept as a secret from the members of the congregation?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
A. There's no more congregation. The church is over. It was a spiritual battle. They're no longer considered members by us of the church. They're free to go to other churches of the ACC. We're no longer a part of it. So there's no reason to tell them. When the church opens again they can all decide for themselves if they want to be Nazarene faith or they want to stay in ACC like everyone else has done before. That's when they'll know.
Q. Before September 18th, 2015 did you circulate any document or e-mail to people who you say were formerly members of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene at Columbia Station that the church was being reorganized and that they can come back to church; did that happen?
A. Only word of mouth. That's how the Nazarene faith works. We don't work through e-mails. A lot of them don't even use it. Among them Nazarene faith believers, and even ACC churches knew that it was going to open up under a new name.
Q. Prior to September 18th, 2015 who did you tell who you claim is now a former member of the church that the church was being reorganized and they would be allowed to return to the church; who did you tell?
A. Specific names, probably Moses Magna, Joe Crashun.
Q. I'm sorry, Moses Magna?
A. Other people from the Nazarene faith.
Q. So you claim that you told Moses Magna before September 18th and after August 29th, 2015 that the church was going to be reorganized under another name, and that the former members would be welcome at the newly named church; is that what you're telling me?
A. Well, I can't say it was before September 18th, but the word was starting to spread. When exactly, I can't tell you.
Q. Would you agree that prior to September 18th you never told any of the people who had been attending The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene at Columbia Station that the church was being reorganized and was not going to be reopened under the name of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene?

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 19:51

5652 views
MS. RUSSELL: Objection as to facts not in evidence. You can answer.
A. I don't recall. I assume I did.
Q. Why do you assume you told people?
A. Because I remember having a conversation with Vlasa Oldja, and maybe a passing conversation there.
Q. Okay.
A. But that's probably it. There was no contact with them. They have attached themselves with the liberal group. We don't have any contact once that happens.
Q. Okay.
A. The word would be known eventually, and that's the practice of the Nazarene faith.
Q. I'm just asking were your plans to lock the church, reorganize under another name, were those plans made known to the members of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene before September 18th, 2015?
A. No. We didn't have any ties with them anymore.
Q. Okay.
A. They weren't considered members. There's no reason to notify them. They would find out when the church opened or sometime before then.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. So handing you what has been marked as Dorel Deposition Exhibit Number 9, is this the resolution that was prepared by Attorney Monica Russell?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was the paperwork that was prepared for the meeting that took place on September 18th, 2015; is that correct?
A. Yes. We met at her office September 18th to sign the resolution.
Q. Okay. Is it your understanding that this is the document that changed the name of the church from Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene to the Nazarene Congregation?
A. Yes. The resolution states that.
Q. And the resolution further states that there's going to be a transfer of the property to the new named Nazarene Congregation, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this document bears a signature of Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan, right?
A. Yes. I witnessed them signing it in Monica's office.
Q. Okay. And is it your belief that Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan had the authority to make such a resolution because they were trustees of the church at that time on September 18th, 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware before September 18th, 2015 that the members of the church congregation had met and voted to remove your father and Traian as trustees of the church; did you know that?
A. No.
Q. As you sit here today you're aware there was a meeting to remove your father and Traian as trustees of the church; you know that today, right?
A. I saw evidence of it in their lawsuit.
Q. Right. When was the first time you learned that a meeting had taken place where a vote was conducted among the members of the congregation to remove your father as trustee, along with Traian as trustee and you as treasurer; when did you first learn about that?
A. When I saw it in the lawsuit.
Q. At various times today you've talked about tenets of the Nazarene faith about lawsuits. Certainly you felt that it was within the faith to hire a lawyer, right?
A. Not for a lawsuit.
Q. All right. But you --
A. For advice.
Q. Right. And also to help create whatever documents you felt were necessary in reorganizing and renaming the church; you felt the necessity that a lawyer be involved in that, right?
A. We're not learned in those skills as far as what needs to be done.
Q. Okay.
A. As far as the state is concerned to make it all legal.
Q. Did you tell Traian Mohan at any time before he signed the letter temporarily closing the church and the resolution of September 18th, 2015 that there was a plan to sell the church?
A. Repeat the question shorter, please.
Q. Did you tell Traian Mohan at any time before he signed the August 29th, 2015 letter that it was your intention to see that the church be sold?
A. Before August 29th?
Q. Yes.
A. No.

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 19:55

5645 views
Q. All right. Before September 18th, 2015 and after August 29th, 2015 did you ever tell Traian Mohan that you thought the church should be sold?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if your father has ever told Traian Mohan that he thinks the church should be sold, the physical building sold; do you know?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Has your father ever discussed with you selling the church?
A. That's not our -- that's not our desire.
Q. So if I ask you, has he ever discussed with you a plan to sell the church, would your answer -- would you say that has never taken place?
MS. RUSSELL: I'm going to object so far as any conversations which may have taken place during any of our conferences, any of our discussions. So outside of any of our conversations because --
MR. KRAUS: I'll rephrase the question.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Outside of the hearing of your lawyer at the lawyer's office have you and your father discussed selling the church?
A. No. Our first option and our desire was to open it up as a Nazarene faith. We didn't get that chance because the lawsuit started.
Q. Have you ever discussed outside of the meeting with your lawyer a plan to sell the church?
A. No.
Q. How many members are there in the Nazarene Congregation?
A. Were you counting Traian Mohan as still part of the Nazarene Congregation?
Q. I'm asking you, who are the members of the Nazarene Congregation as we sit here today?
A. I don't know how many of the members that would come to the Nazarene Congregation that were former members. I don't know how many would return.
Q. I understand. So as you sit here today what is your understanding as to who the members are of the Nazarene Congregation?
A. I would say today it's just four.
Q. And who are the four people who are members of the Nazarene Congregation?
A. It would be myself, my dad, my wife and my mother.
Q. Okay. Have you conducted any services at Columbia Station since it was closed on August 29th,
2015?
A. No.
Q. You'd agree that there was not a church meeting of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene to elect you as trustee; do you agree with that statement?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.
MS. RUSSELL: I think you need to clarify it to make is not confusing. Are you talking about a
meeting --
MR. KRAUS: Listen, --
MS. RUSSELL: -- of the congregation or the church?
MR. KRAUS: -- you keep asserting that something is confusing. Until the deponent tells me he's confused, that's not appropriate.
MS. RUSSELL: Actually, it's appropriate --
MR. KRAUS: And unless you're --
MS. RUSSELL: -- for me to make an objection based on a vague nature of a question.
MR. KRAUS: No. This is giving direction to a deponent, and that's wrong. So let me ask the question.
MS. RUSSELL: I'll continue my objection if you ask it the same way.
MR. KRAUS: You can object all you want. I'm going to ask the question and if he understands it, he's going to answer it. That's all.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. So was there a church meeting of the members of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene that elected you as trustee?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. Could you please clarify for me, congregational members or corporate members?
Q. I'm asking you, you used the term congregational members throughout this deposition, did any of those people have a meeting and elect you as a trustee of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene at Columbia Station; did they vote?
A. There's no more Apostolic Christian Church since August 16th.
Q. Okay. So you would agree that none of the people that you identified in Exhibit 3, this list of people, none of these people had an opportunity to vote or affirm or agree that you should be a trustee of the church; do you agree with that?
A. They have no say. They're no longer members.

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 20:00

5619 views
Q. Okay. So when this resolution was signed on September 18th, 2015 and thereafter paperwork was filed with the State of Ohio renaming the church the Nazarene Congregation and the deed was transferred to the Nazarene Congregation, that you'd really taken action to dissolve The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene as it existed from 1989 through 2015; that's what you did, right?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. That's asking for a legal conclusion. A name change is not a dissolution.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.
A. Repeat the question.
MR. KRAUS: Can you read it back?
THE NOTARY: Question: "So when this resolution was signed on September 18th, 2015 and thereafter paperwork was filed with the State of Ohio renaming the church the Nazarene Congregation and the deed was transferred to the Nazarene Congregation, that you'd really taken action to dissolve The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene as it existed from 1989 through 2015; that's what you did, right?"
MS. RUSSELL: And I'll renew my objection. You can answer.
A. The church has always been a Nazarene faith congregation.
Q. Did you understand this question? I want you to answer that question.
MS. RUSSELL: He just did.
MR. KRAUS: He didn't.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Do you need to hear the question again?
A. Sure. Read it again.
THE NOTARY: Question: "So when this resolution was signed on September 18th, 2015 and thereafter paperwork was filed with the State of Ohio renaming the church the Nazarene Congregation and the deed was transferred to the Nazarene Congregation, that you'd really taken action to dissolve The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene as it existed from 1989 through 2015; that's what you did, right?"
MS. RUSSELL: I renew my objection.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Is that what you did?
A. That was decided during the week -- middle of the week from August 29th to September 18th. We discussed that we broke away, we're not going to have any association, it's going to be a Nazarene faith congregation still, and we're not going on open anymore with the ACC. We're not going to have any ties, any type of fraternization with the ACC with the liberal side.
Q. So it was your understanding certainly by September 18th, 2015 that The Apostolic Christian
Church-Nazarene was disbanded and the members were no longer members of the Nazarene Congregation; would you agree with that?
MS. RUSSELL: Object to the form of the question. You can answer it.
A. No. When it reopenes and reorganizes as the Nazarene faith congregation they would have the opportunity to choose where they want to attend services and attend which church, whether they want a liberal church or they want to come back to the Nazarene faith. The name was to clarify that it no longer will cause doubt.
Q. So your understanding is when this -- when is the church going reopen? When was it going to; what was the plan of reopening this church?
A. If they wouldn't have had the lawsuit, we would have had a chance to reopen. We can't reopen with a lawsuit and reorganize.
Q. And would you agree that the people who had been members of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene would not automatically be members of this new Nazarene Congregation; you'd agree with that, right?
A. They would have to accept the Nazarene faith congregation beliefs.
Q. And how do you do that? When you say they would have to accept the faith of the Nazarene Congregation, what do they have to do to be members of this new congregation?
A. We will ask them about the spiritual differences and see if they believe as the Nazarene faith or if they believe as the ACC liberals. It's an easy decision.
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: I'd like to take a break.
(Thereupon, there was a recess.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Let me hand you Exhibit 10. What is deposition Exhibit 10; do you know?
A. This is an e-mail that's sending the annual meeting 2015 notes to Dave Nikolson.
Q. Those are the minutes that we've identified earlier in your deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that you sent to -- and this is confirming that you sent that to David Nikolson?
A. Yeah.

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 20:05

5602 views
(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 to the deposition of DOREL STEFAN was marked for identification.)
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Let me hand you what's been marked as Dorel Deposition Exhibit No. 11. Do you know what that is?
A. That's Dave Nikolson replying back that he received the meeting notes.
Q. Of the meeting in 2015; is that correct?
A. Correct, 2015.
Q. All right. How did you become a trustee of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene?
A. I was appointed by the two trustees Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan. That's in the transitional phase.
Q. Okay. Prior to September 18th, 2015 can you give me an example where a trustee was appointed by other trustees and not by a vote of the church?
A. I recall times where votes weren't taken. It was just asked and you took a trustee.
Q. Can you give me an example where a current trustee appointed a new trustee before September 18th 2015?
A. Petar Stefan recommended Traian Mohan in 2012, and he was appointed trustee on his recommendation.
Q. Okay. And that was actually by members of the congregation that they accepted that recommendation, correct?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. They did not say a word against it.
Q. So you're giving me an example where a recommendation was to name a trustee and that was done in front of the members of the congregation, correct; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And no one objected to Traian becoming a trustee, correct?
A. No one objected. Correct.
Q. We agree that there was no church meeting where you were recommended to be a trustee?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
A. We were the church. It's only the three of us. At that time they were the trustees of the church.
They were the trustees and have authority over the Nazarene faith church to elect trustees.
Q. But you'd agree with me that the church never had an opportunity to object to you being a trustee of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection to the phrasing of the question. But go ahead and answer.
A. The church ceased August 16th, so they have no say. The Nazarene faith church started shortly after. The ACC, the other church ceased August 16th, so there are no other members.
Q. This is a resolution. Depo Exhibit 9, this is a resolution of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc; you agree with that?
A. The name changed on that date, too.
Q. Okay. You agree that's the organization that passed the resolution?
A. The Nazarene Congregation passed that resolution under the prior name until the name changed.
Q. Okay.
A. That's the Nazarene Congregation doing that. That's not The Apostolic Christian Church doing that.
Q. So when this says the trustees of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc. ("the Church"), Traian
Mohan and Petar Stefan hereby enter into this resolution, are you saying when they were doing that there was no longer an Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc; is that your position?
A. Legally there was, but not -- the names changed. It changed in that document.
Q. Okay. So legally The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc. was still in existence on September 18th, 2015, otherwise no reason to pass a resolution, right?
A. Sure. Technically they're still in it, but it's really the Nazarene Congregation doing it under the old name.
Q. And would you agree that this resolution appoints a third trustee of the church, Dorel Stefan, who shall also continue to act as secretary of the church and treasurer along with Petar Stefan, that's what this resolution of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene states also, right?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. We'll stipulate to the contents of the document.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. And that's what the document says, correct?
A. Repeat the question.
Q. I'll rephrase it.
A. Okay.
Q. According to this resolution of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc. you were appointed to be a trustee of that church; is that correct?
A. Yes. They have the power to do that.
Q. And would you agree that prior to September 18th, 2015 a trustee had never been appointed in such a manner?

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 20:12

5599 views
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. You're assuming facts not in evidence.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer the question.
A. In 2012 it was done. It was recommended and he was accepted by the recommendation of one trustee.
Q. Would you agree that on --
A. The only legal trustee that was left in the church.
Q. As far as you know, September 18th, 2015 is the first time a trustee was appointed by other trustees -- I'm sorry. Let me rephrase. On September 18th, 2015 as far as you know this was the first time when trustees of the church, The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc. had appointed another trustee without a church meeting?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection.
Q. Is that your understanding? You can answer.
MS. RUSSELL: You can try to answer it. Go ahead.
A. That's a legal document with just dates. That was done under -- that's just a name change from one to the other. That's done under the Nazarene Congregation church.
Q. Okay. Do you understand my question?
A. That resolution there changes the name of the church. The trustees from the previous church are still the trustees, and they have the power to do it and assign another trustee if they want to. And they so chose that and they chose to change the name.
Q. What makes you believe that Petar Stefan and Traian Mohan had the authority to appoint you as a trustee; what's your understanding of that?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection as to any conversations you may have had with me that would have formed the basis of your belief. So I don't know how he's going to answer that if his answer is based on conversations with his counsel.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. I don't want to know about conversations with your lawyer.
A. Then I can't answer it.
Q. Okay. So on September 18th, 2015 was it your understanding that you were appointed by your father and Traian Mohan to be a trustee of The Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc; is that your understanding?
A. If that's what the law says for the transition of the name, they have the power -- they had the control of the church, being the trustees of the previous church they have control according to the name of the new church. It's still the same power. It's just the name of the church changed. The faith of the church did not change. It's still the Nazarene Congregation faith. They had power before. They have power after. It didn't change.
MR. KRAUS: Just give me one minute.
MS. RUSSELL: Okay.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. Your father left the church in Columbia Station in 1990; is that correct? I think we've gone over this.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It's your understanding that he left because there was a dispute, a spiritual dispute within the church at that time; is that your understanding?
A. You would have to ask him about that, but it was related to relatives.
Q. Okay. Did it have to do with interpretation of -- the liberal interpretation of the faith?
A. I won't answer for him.
Q. I'm just asking what your understanding was.
A. I won't answer for him. I have no understanding. I won't answer.
Q. If you say you don't know, that's fine.
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. Well, then say you don't know.
A. Okay. I thought I was.
Q. So it's your understanding that -- in 2011 was there a spiritual dispute within the church?
A. Yes.
Q. And a group of people left to form their own church?
A. They didn't form a church. They just went to the other churches that are out there.
Q. Okay.
A. They could have formed their own church, but they didn't.
Q. And would you agree, because there's a dispute between the members of the congregation of the church and you and your father and maybe Traian, the three of you could leave and join other congregations or build a new church; you have that opportunity, don't you?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. You can answer the question.
A. We wouldn't do that. We have a church. We don't need to go anywhere.
Q. Okay.
A. We built the church for the Nazarene faith, and that's where we're staying.
Q. Okay.
A. We don't need to go. Anyone else that wants to practice a different belief, they're free to go and build a church. They were told the same thing.
Q. And you think you and your father have the authority to lock out 14 families because you've been
there a long time?
A. There's not 14 families there.
Q. Okay. 14 people. The two of you think you can lock out the church, take away their membership where they've been members for many, many years, where they've paid dues, given services, you think you can do that because you've been there a long time?
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. You're mischaracterizing his prior testimony.
BY MR. KRAUS:
Q. You can answer.

Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 20:14

5597 views
MS. RUSSELL: Go ahead and try to answer it.
A. Traian and Petar Stefan had the right to do that, and I agreed with them being an officer. And I believe we are a Nazarene faith. We built that church for the Nazarene faith and to serve God one way. And we have the right to tell them to move on. So they had no part in building it, other than one person. And, listen, they're welcome to come back when it opens up as the Nazarene Congregation.
MR. KRAUS: All right. I have no more questions at this time. Are you waiving signature?
MS. RUSSELL: No, we won't waive.
MR. KRAUS: All right. Thank you, Dorel.


(DEPOSITION CONCLUDED.)






Moderator
Australia
23 Jan 2017 20:29

5580 views


Full article:

http://blackchristiannews.com/2015/11/ohio-church-sues-three-trustees-who-allegedly-tried-to-take-over-building/

A Royalton Road church filed suit Wednesday against three former trustees, saying they wrongly suspended worship at the church, barred the congregation from the property and tried to take over the building.

Shaker Heights attorney Alan H. Kraus filed the suit on behalf of the Apostolic Christian Church-Nazarene, Inc., a Parma Heights church formed in 1989 that later purchased land and built a church at 23295 Royalton Road in Columbia Station.

Kraus wants Common Pleas Judge James Miraldi to step in and declare the actions of the former trustees erroneous. The men, he alleged, sought to change the name of the church and transfer the Royalton Road property to “The Nazarene Congregation,” the new name they created despite being removed as trustees.

Escalating conflicts among church members over the summer reached a head Aug. 29 when church trustees Traian Mohan and Petar Stefan stated in a letter to members they had decided to temporarily suspend church services effective Aug. 31, according to the suit.

The letter also stated that no one was to enter the church property “without express written permission of the trustees,” according to the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, the actions were taken by Mohan and Stefan without the church’s authority and against the wishes of its members, who were “locked out … from their place of worship.”

Despite claims that the closing was temporary, Mohan and Stefan removed Bibles, songbooks and members’ property, according to the filing.

At a Sept. 12 meeting, church members voted unanimously to remove Mohan and Stefan as trustees and both men were informed of such action in a letter sent by certified mail, the suit said. At the same meeting, church members approved installing Dmytro Popovych and George Zula as new trustees.

After meeting with an attorney Sept. 18, Mohan and Stefan told church officials they had approved a resolution that gave them authority to change the name of the church. At the same time, Dorel Stefan, son of Petar Stefan, was appointed as a third trustee by his father and Mohan on Sept. 18, according to the suit, which stated the pair’s actions were taken despite a unanimous vote by church members to strip them of their title as trustees, according to the lawsuit.

Kraus, who was unavailable for comment, asked for a declaratory judgment affirming the three men are not trustees of the church, and that actions taken by them following the Sept. 12 meeting of church members be voided.

The suit also requests an injunction to bar Mohan and the Stefans from selling or renting the Columbia Station property or barring members from worshipping there.

Efforts to reach other church officials were unsuccessful Thursday.

SOURCE: Steve Fogarty
Chronicle Online

weird statement
Australia
23 Jan 2017 21:02

5567 views
what does this mean.....

And that's when we decided, as we talked on how we were going to reorganize it and open it as a Nazarene church again.

why do they want to sell it then?

is this fact?
Australia
23 Jan 2017 21:07

5563 views
MS. RUSSELL: Objection. You're trying to confuse the witness. He's just said they were going to reopen the church. He didn't say they were going to close the church forever. He's testified four times now that they were going to reopen.

who of church
Australia
23 Jan 2017 21:18

5560 views
re.

A. We were the church. It's only the three of us. At that time they were the trustees of the church.
They were the trustees and have authority over the Nazarene faith church to elect trustees.

"WHO IS THE CHURCH OWNER" and "WHO IS HEAD OF Christ's CHURCH"



just curious
Australia
24 Jan 2017 10:06

5440 views
Stefans believe to changed the name of the church to "NAZAREN" they'l be saved only by that name even though they committed such crime.

just curious
Australia
24 Jan 2017 10:23

5435 views
Stefans and Petrases were good bodies before; how it's happen they become hostile toward each other?
Please can someone give us information on that?

still waiting
Australia
24 Jan 2017 15:38

5378 views
Dear moderator! Please can u poste Petras's deposition?

Moderator
Australia
24 Jan 2017 15:59

5374 views
There is still plenty of documents waiting to be posted.

Why?
USA
25 Jan 2017 2:46

5293 views
This is unbelievable. Since when in our churches does a trustee have a say on spiritual matters?? Am I just so out of the loop that I don't know this? I always thought trustees were for changing light bulbs and fixing the furnace. And "founder"??? Give me a break I have never heard that term before. Wow did he lie to the court...just unbelievable.

CURIOUS
USA
25 Jan 2017 3:13

5281 views
Why do Mihal or Mike Petras do not let us know why the judge ruled in Stafans favor. It has been requested a few times already. Is it simply because they help the title of the church that David Nikolson took away from Jon Petruc and handed to the Stefans? To Why, you are correct, all that stuff the Stefans are claiming is a lie. Trustees have zero input on spiritual matters. And the term founders? Ridiculous!

Answer
Australia
25 Jan 2017 12:25

5215 views
According to mike petras, the reason the judge ruled to give stefans back Columbia station is because of the HARRASSMENT LETTERS written from the elder commitee that were present at the Brunswick hills meeting. To mike, we would like to see these letters the elders wrote. we can all see where mike petras says this in his letter to George bodjanac under ACCN FORUM: Discrimination Columbia Station. In this link below:

http://www.accn-australia.com/Forum/Documents/ColumbiaStation03.pdf

trustee meaning
Australia
25 Jan 2017 14:48

5181 views
trust·ee means:

1.a person, usually one of a body of persons, appointed to administer the affairs of a company, institution, etc.

(minister to the CHURCH or to oneself????????)

2.a person who holds the title to property for the benefit of another.

(benefit for the CHURCH or to benefit myself?????)

the title DOES not belong to me, myself, or oneself. it belongs to the "CHURCH".

your responsibility as a trastee is NOT to govern or exercise lordship over the CHURCH.





Response
USA
25 Jan 2017 15:00

5178 views
In our church language, a trustee is someone who does building maintenance only. This is all a lie what Dorel testified.

Response
USA
25 Jan 2017 15:02

5177 views
Anyway, Dorel, if you want to be so "European Nazarean," the European churches dont even have trustees. Thats the case here too, and you know it. I am just wondering how you can sleep at night while testifying things like this? Doesnt God's fear bother you at all?

Response
USA
25 Jan 2017 15:09

5172 views
You even said something along the lines of an elder has little or no say in church matters and trustees have all say. Wow just unbelievable. Its just so sad that a believer can bring himself to just flat out lie like this. And you got the church too. I honestly pray that God would be merciful to your soul.

Response
USA
25 Jan 2017 15:18

5164 views
One more comment. Remember that your children are growing up. They will not much longer be held under your thumb like they are now. No 20 year old wants to go to a church that consists of his parents and grandparents and thats it and not be allowed to visit any ACC. Wheb they leave church to live in great sin in the world you will be regretting this and then it will be too late. What did Jesus say? Let the wheat grow with the tares till the harvest. Instead you are judging who is wheat who is tare. You will not be defiled by going to an ACC. Live there like you do here. Pulling tares is Jesus' job not yours. Repent while you still can and instead pull your kids out of the fire before its too late. Remember this warning.

Response
USA
25 Jan 2017 15:20

5160 views
Well, one more I guess.

Dont think Europe is your solution. Europe already knows all about this and they are appaled by it as well.

To.. ANSWER
USA
26 Jan 2017 11:44

5043 views
The harrassment letters excuse of why the Petras'lost the church is simply that, the Petras excuse... Why will he not provide the court papers that show the reason they lost. Only then can it be believed.



To: ... ANSWER
Australia
26 Jan 2017 17:14

5004 views
I'm not sure what the Petras' have regarding proof, but I pray for them every day and I hope God reveals the TRUTH to EVERYONE!! May God help you and stand with you all. He is JUST!

Still waiting
Australia
5 Feb 2017 18:37

4734 views
To mike...can we please see those harassment letters you mentioned the elders wrote.

Dorel & ACCN Leaders
USA
8 Mar 2018 7:38

2333 views
Dorel, sell the church with your dad and with the ACCN leaders support. Once you do you will be held accountable to God’s law and the law of United States of America. Do you realize this is a criminal offence? You know that you didn’t pay for the church and you may not know this but selling the church would be enough to prove that you stole from the people who paid and worked on the church building. It doesn’t matter if the judge was corrupt and influenced by the ACCN leaders. That doesn’t mean that you are free from the law of this land and most importantly God’s law. ACCN leaders you supported these two men, therefore you are just as guilty as them.

double potion

22 May 2018 0:35

1672 views
but, hang on here......if the elders approved it, justified it, allowed it....it must be right, because they have double potion of the spirit yeah?

it MUST be ok then, yeah?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.........NOT SO........

Surely
USA
22 May 2018 1:13

1666 views
If the elders say it's OK to kick people out of church it must be OK then, if the elders say certain churches shoul should be closed and sold it must be OK then, if the elders choose who's in or out it must be OK then.
We have good examples Sydney, Melbourne, Warren OH, Hallandale FL and so on, it must be OK then, look at the path of their destruction
It's the church people fault they listen and believe their justification lies and they just sit in church and say NOTHING.

Truth
Australia
22 May 2018 5:22

1659 views
It's time to look at this religion for what it is...... A lie!
EVERYTHING that is taught during conversion is in fact culturally found acceptable and okay to do.

Stealing is the least of anyone's concern, let a lone a house that is dedicated to the service of the Lord.

The ACCN is a complete joke and waste of precious time!!!

Correction
Australia
22 May 2018 7:36

1641 views
**everything that is taught not to do during conversion is found culturally acceptable.

its very clear
Australia
22 May 2018 11:05

1676 views
Colossians 3:25
Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

$1000
USA
19 Jun 2018 13:41

1337 views
Petro Kraj and David do you remember when brother Jon Patruz bought landfill for the Columbia Stations church landscaping? He used $4000 dollars out of his own pocket and then he used another $1000 dollars from the churches funds? Do you remember how you both chased brother Jon Patruz down for that $1000 dollars and how you called Jon a theif? Do you also remember how you both forced Jon to pay that $1000 back to the church which brother Jon did as you requested? Isn't it ironic that you condemned brother Jon as a theif? How do you now identify yourselves?

Caught the snake?
USA
21 Jun 2018 12:45

1261 views
David and Petar Kraj didn’t you both refer to Brother Jon Patrutz as a snake that needed his head cut off? After Brother Jon passed away David was questioned in front of the church and asked, “Brother David you said we caught the snake and we chopped off the head, now brother Jon has passed away and we still have a problem, so is the snake still here?” And you said yes.

To: Krajs & David
Australia
22 Jun 2018 1:30

1213 views
Why don't you do the right thing and sell one of your houses to pay the legal fees and return the church to the widows, children and open it to "all members" who want to serve God?
It's not too late while you have life to return that which you stole. It might be too late to correct offending poor Jon Petrutz, but while you have life you still have hope to return the building which you stole.

No returns
USA
22 Jun 2018 23:08

1161 views
Return the building? Come on. In their eyes its like this: We stopped the liberals from worshipping God in the "wrong way" so God will reward us for eternity! SICK MINDS

r they really blind
Australia
22 Jun 2018 23:23

1157 views
"they" stopped someone entering Gods temporal house.

but......

they forgot that God can stop them entering into Gods eternal house.




User name  

Comment  


A B U S E R S  :  H A L L  O F  S H A M E 
Paul Pentsa
Brisbane
Janko Tomek
Melbourne
Andrew Szabo
Perth
Vlada Papuga
Melbourne
Philip Ruzeu
Melbourne
Nick Pentsa
Brisbane
Michael Stanjo
Melbourne
STAY AWAY FROM THIS MAN! His mouth is full of Biblical verses but his heart is filled with hatred, jealousy, treachery and lust for power. This FALSE CHRISTIAN is the root of almost all evil in ACCN in Australia and he will even take you to court, if he can't get his way.
Janko is pretty much like Paul, dishonest and unloving, just less intelligent. Janko is now building his humongous "warehouse" in Tarneit, destined to remain void of both faith and members. This UNREPENTED SINNER is still dreaming about becoming an elder!
Hard-hearted and egoistic, this long-time "elder" has caused immense grief, division and misery amongst the Nazarenes in Australia. Some even call him a sadist... not that Andrew really cares about anyone's opinion, though. Currently residing in a nursing home in Perth.
Earned his nickname by constantly repeating "Ljubazni" (Dear Ones) while preaching. This recently appointed "elder assistant" is ambitious, but at the same time not clever enough to realize he will always be just Paul's and Janko's messenger boy.
Philip is Paul Pentsa's son-in-law and definitely his best student. Proud, stubborn, arrogant - a classic bigot. Due to his off-putting personality and some weird beliefs, he's not on very good terms with Janko Tomek and other Slovaks in Tarneit.
Here is your future Elder, whether you like the idea or not. Nicky is "a very nice guy". No gift for preaching or leadership skills, but being Paul Pentsa's son, he's actually got everything he needs. Sooner or later his Dad will find the way to install him as his successor.
Janko Tomek's loyal admirer and bodyguard - sleazy, hypocritical, dishonest and ignorant. His interpretation of the Scriptures can make you laugh as well as his awkward sermons in broken English.


Go to Page 2 >>>
 

Special Topics 
            

"The Insidious Harm of Spiritual Abuse" and other articles

   
Our e-mail: accnaustralia@gmail.com

   
Contact Form
You can contact us 100% anonymously

   
We are aware that many more people would like to contact us and share with us their thoughts but they are somewhat afraid that their name and/or e-mail address could be posted on the website. First of all, we do not reveal people's personal details by default. But for those who are still hesitating to send us an e-mail, we have provided this basic contact form. As you can see, there are no mandatory fields for name, e-mail address, etc. You can simply type in or copy/paste your message and click the Submit button. The website will then forward your message to our e-mail address and there will be no way that anyone could see who you are.
 
Write your message here, then click Submit


  
In Serbian, if you like
You asked for it, and here it is! The new page (click to open) for your comments and questions written in Serbian language. A good proportion of our readers is bi-lingual and able to understand Serbian as well as English, so please keep sending your messages in both languages.   
 
 
Note: To be able to see our website properly on your mobile phones and tablets please turn off the option "Auto-fit pages" (in your mobile browser's Settings). If you have experienced any problems accessing our website on your mobile device please let us know. Thank you. 

Spiritual and Mental Abuse in ACCN in Australia - Page 1
 

Go to Page 2 >>>