the attorneys who are going to orally are you we come up to the podium and introduce yourself to the court that that number excludes the testimony of some twenty two witnesses many of whom most of whom a majority of them were taken by means of an interpreter it was i think fair to say  stand but it's a very important extent he ruled that various board members were rightfully excused he did not rule at least to my understanding and i was there for the whole thing he did not rule that every at last played off of the eight names were not or were excluded were excommunicated were not in title i do not read as any in that way and when we went in you know to get to ascertain the nature of this not ruling on that there was no mention of that by the court and if i am you know that that's about the best way i can answer your question i believe your honor we were obviously concerned with standing issue but we do not believe that he said that none of these people were members of which are we to concur with that anybody he did not you know but it was a centrally stipulated a number of them testified that they were let me backtrack i don't want to make a statement that may not be completely accurate  the president was removed as the president there was no finding by the court on that he was removed as a member of the same was true of mr gurr cough and there was no ruling at all on any of the remaining plaintiffs again to the best of my recollection which i think this after we are concerned with the standing or share your honor we think that it has been by virtue of of stipulation before the trial requirement that members feel like that right so i guess i'm asking you what then do you think the process is under the church for determining who is a member in good standing your honor the the requirement for membership under the formation of the church and up through and including two thousand and three exploiting the events that are before you will was that you that nobody to my knowledge with the possible the exception of short i've been off the president who was removed as a board member had their membership rights terminated through any action of the church there were various people that were excluded from the premises now that included people over and above the plaintiff not just the client there me address your question by saying that's not an issue we're not we're asking this court to order you know he lecture we are asking him to do as can you to do that by virtue of the not for profit corporation act that requires an annual meeting on election we're also asking you to do it by virtue of the church constitution which should copius did in fact find out w part of this case the church constitution now only says there will be an election it says what it will be it will be on any sunday jim november oh my and we are therefore he wasn't going to deal with that because he wasn't allowed to in therefore he couldn't work or anything because the people yes king were members your honor i think the answer again is no voters that had their through for the entire eight year existence of the church existed then knows which came into play by virtue of the acts of elders  realistic when the guy went in for says there's there's no dispute as to that that element of the dispute was never brought to i had for the simple reason that there was no for and has never relief in this case the first point is that the trial court promptly invoked the religious abstention doctrine in this case and he refrained from imposing the court's attorney sion in the governance of st john's it appears that the court is pretty familiar with the issues of this case honestly just want to point out some of the relevant provisions of the church constitution in this case which required the circuit court judge both the religious extension doctrine and of the first the fourteenth amendment eight section she states no person shall be excepted for membership argument against your honor in fact there was a meeting that was held and two thousand and four where there wasn't a vote that took place because there is evidence a trial stablish if there was a disagreement over which members were eligible to attend this meeting and there was this meeting was very clear in the serbian orthodox case and the ruling the state religious freedom encompasses the power of religious bodies to decide for themselves free from state interference matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine this is exactly what the circuit dead he did it gave the church the ability to decide how to manage it and you watch a meeting and there was a disagreement over which church members were allowed to attend and so if this meeting also only the church gave the priests the final say and who was qualified to vote system compassed many religious requirements as you'll see in parts of the constitution out director honors attention to the constitution which is brief  if there's  has the authority to do that because the priest had a say and at the election was conducted in accordance with the church rules there is that religious requirements to the meeting there was a period that was how the priest started the meeting and then