this litigation between a members representing a church and the church is bishop the bishop of the defendant in this case bishop long and is a subordinate office holder of the metropolitan new church the metropolitan new church is a completely independent and autonomy church that consists of congregations loci throughout the country but has its capital different bodies of the church and the constitution in the constitution also allows for the fact that only the assembly is able to amend the constitution so they  here in the united states supreme court decades earlier and essentially what happened it was is that there was a serbian orthodox diocese in america and after mostly for the most part was written to communism in eastern europe the diocese in america wished to break away from the mother church with its the one in america so they actually will last but the people here who worship in a church in libertyville actually lost that church in his response they had to form their own independent church with their own independently inquired properly they want this monastery that's and thirdly they very funny everything they created their first constitution which to clear their independence so even though they consist of members who are ethnically serbian even though they follow similar practices and traditions they were clearly meant in the stalest as an independent autonomous church with their highest pride in being there essentially now in the early ninety's they started having communications with the old church in belgrade and they did consider the possibility of reuniting and we're using the word they are we talking about this essentially or certain of the churches here from churches from the metropolitan church which is the independent autonomous church with headquarters in third place and delegates did meet with representatives i would imagine  rating church officials in belgrade and there were there were discussions and there were conversations but no one's hiring did the assembly ever amend their constitution and he and well in in one paragraph one article it says that the transitional regulations are to be in effect for a period not to exceed three years but in another article doesn't say that it's there to be used until the adoption of a new constitution yes it is there some consistency there well i don't think it's the clearest back in the world and and i i do think to try to interpret that document no we're not doing that because because the fact of marius is that this court does not have the power to come to an interpretation of that given that it's contrary position in this particular not to pollinate as well as everything that happened after that one didn't happen after the fact based upon your argument would be decided under the doctrine is that correct the people's assembly and so when he when the church people's assembly met and voted not to you know the churches comes in here and he starts making proclamations of the churches are united in spite of the the line so the point is that is that this church has to i mean this court needs to under the mandatory difference needs to respect the decision of the one thing that they said was that there's there's two points in time and this is or i believe the a affidavit filed by the by the defendant where the defendant suggested that there was it and stated this in the vase way possible stated that delegations met and said conversations were having discussions were made as a result of these conversations is in discussions the church is the is these transitional regulations and selves and if you're going to have a a if you're going to if that if the court's going to make a decision that effectively transverse that control over the expires at the end of three years period but if there's a constitution between today and the end of that today and the end of three years now so i need a place i mean i think there would be a reasonable position to take i think earlier survey in case or if you pretty much all the cases the reality is that the courts are supposed to review the decisions or the methods or the interpretation made by the highest authority in the church so even if this is even if even if the if these early get together and all of that transitional regulations meant something completely ridiculous this court really couldn't  the earlier sort of keys in the earlier sort of the case that was the american diocese wishing to break away they were part of belgrade church they had their headquarters and they were legal and they wished to break away and of course when they want to break away they want completely separate church and that's just undeniable it's undeniable that they set up their own separate church to just outside of the higher and even when they put in the transitional regulations they said you know for days they that the defendant doesn't like and the defendant is using his his position his physical position as the occupant of that church to somehow under the free exercise clause churches have rights to organize themselves however they want if they choose to organize it higher to make it matter and if they choose to have a representative buying that represents churches from necessarily is not based upon a determination or interpretation by only the people's assembly it involves interpretation and application by by both parties to this case the serbian orthodox church as well what happens at the end of three years with the transitional regulations were to remain in effect until there is a common constitution between the parties that's the way six years not three six years after the transitional regulations would you call them with those of the second amendment a second amendment of the affidavit of organization for the metropolitan a think in this exhibit see belgrade church yes so the bilbray church says you have authority to act on their behalf and that comes from and that comes from the fact that at the point in time where this was occurring there was an effort to re fifteen years yes and no constitution there is no common terms to to show but the relationship exists between the parties the transitional regulations that exist between the parties to govern the parties until such time as there would be a common constitution don't you agree or disagree with the proposition that the assembly of the metropolitan church could simply repudiate the transitional regulations i would i would dispute that and based on and in order because they've they have signed off on the transitional regulations and acknowledged in this this affidavit of the organization that they will remain bound by a common account by the transitional regulations so basically this isn't a document that do anything about it they want to change that they want to amend it i don't think a constitution has to come to pass and i can't repeat this agreement so i am bound by this and i cannot change it i cannot amend however in order for a court a trial court to determine for example how long do the transitional regulations remain in effect and what do they provide with respect to property and all of those issues one has to necessarily delve into those documents the actions of the church the air actions of the bishop the actions of both and to tease here both the metropolitan it here in the building or a church that's exactly what the supreme court said could not occur and should not occur if enough to over simplify put the original miller want to be the case stood for the proposition that they are the challenge was the bishop claim that he was improperly if you would kick down the church and he claimed that that was not been consistent with the constitution and rules and regulations and procedures that have been established by this hierar church the supreme court said the trial court illinois supreme court said carette agreed with the bishop that he had been improperly kicked out if you will supreme court said can't get into that plan to go for granted but to do to ensure the court's question as to whether or not the metropolitan didn't agree to abide by the transitional regulations or any other authority or whether there is or has been a you reunification as they allege in the complaint that bishop kerchove has has has stated publicly in order to ensure their question you have to do exactly what the supreme court said cannot be done because  i believe they don't apply for whatever reason for your term and that's exactly what the supreme court said can't occur i am disputing the legitimacy of the court's question i'm just saying that in order to answer their question one yes to to do exactly what the supreme court said can't be done well if you if you have two different hierarchical authorities one saying there was a merger the other saying there was no merger is it are we just been left to whoever's in possession of the property if it's a tie a tie goes to the personal possession or what no the issue here has to be resolved within those authorities and they have and this isn't simply a matter of where there was a property grab if you will these parties are based on the allegations in the amended complaint these parties are merely moving toward reunification these parties have taken formal steps in order to reunify these parties have made agreements that thort i'm saying that i'm not saying deliberate is the higher for i guess not the conclusion to draw i'm saying that's what the traditional regulations provide but we can't get into that correct then i am actually they are the two parties before me if this was not a church this is a simple dispute that we entered into an agreement or we didn't but the fact that it's about the fact that it is above the church is what compels the court to stay out of the dispute because there i court can decide interpret it in an agreement between the parties as it may but the fact that it is a church is what compels the court to do with the supreme court stated is it's up to them they have their process you can't church condo or church polony church documents interpret and apply all of those in a manner that we're simply not supposed to the holy the first time i've seen this this  entity the holy simply bishops i see in the second amended organization organization yes is that different then the people's assembly the holy assembly of bishops is similar term but then i have different it can see the the important part of it is that those articles of reorganization is the fact that it clearly states they are the best the the metropolitan the people's assembly will be any sense but it seems to me that they're stuck in this state of limbo or purgatory or whatever and to one party just walks away is it right if they can do it in three to five to finalize this are they just stuck until somebody walks allegations they have been a unified in many respects bishop kercheval is is easy is it is is acting as the bishop here but he is and has publicly stated as stated in the amended complaint he sees himself to be property and think what that article fourteen and title church property clearly states that the church property is going to be governed by the serbian orthodox church i mean belgrade so they do provide for this so the transitional regulations are concerned about the result of this as much as following the law i don't this is not a results oriented thing but let me ask you this do you see this case is falling under bras were or russet in most of the places particularly as brus that the subject matter of the dispute complete role of the application of the data so it's not simply the object of what you seek it's the subject matter all of the choose to step away from transitional regulations we won our independence what's i say that they need to address that issue within the hierarchical structure of the church that they hear that they at everything but it's like when you take your child and say go and you're gone leave all this stuff that we bought you for the last twenty one years but here in order for it to be decided to get back to the question of whether or not they could they could make a agreement between the contract between the parties there who will do if it where in the first instance it is acknowledged that the parties will be governed by the holy assembly of bishops  church and it provides for how we're going to be done in in very specific instances once once from now we're inside of the hierarchical structure of the church that's where the issue has to be decided the question that your honor higher structure it can only be decided that way is an oversimplification to say that if it's a dispute within a church the circuit court can be involved it could make any and the lutheran church would agree that any dispute we have is going to be resolved by the pope what about that and it has to be decided by oh not us now that you the governor on the basis of he the provisions of the constitution and the new comic of metropolitan eight in its component diocese which do not conflict with these transitional regulations what if it says if this regulations or these transitional regulations says that the holy see is the governing body that conflicts with your people's assembly and isn't that then doesn't the people's assembly give the into the holy sentry of bishops oh i would say no i say that he did the people's assembly has the unique power of power from their perspectives interpret this document that this document does not bytes terms supersede the they have their own constitution own the church is the measure probably has a constitutional right to govern itself and in this court can't question its interpretations of its own contain any indication that there are other than this pending litigation against the author was actually there is actually and i'm not sure if this is a part of the record perfectly honest but what if there was a