the first amendment is designed in part to prevent the government from establishing one religion because this case can be decided based on neutral tort principles the first amendment does not take away jurisdiction  galesburg nine hundred ninety three to the year two thousand the pastor joseph cassidy and exhibited a pattern of false accusations towards members of the church he accused one member cindy dre sites of breaking into his office and stealing a file the church and the senate through the district were aware of the accusations that the minister had been making false accusations about ministers as the early as may two thousand and july of two thousand the pastor accused of west of lying and stealing soon after this in august two thousand doug west had a  stroke the the plane alternately filed the suit the council were here about today would be a negligent detention count against mount calvary church intentional infliction of distress against both mount ca individually and then a negligent retention claim against the senate the missouri senate the documents show that the senate itself and some of their own documents recognized a neutral  next case a look at his van horn which is just an example of what we would need to prove a negligent retention and to prove that case we need to show that the employer knew or should have known that an employee had a particular unfitness so as to create a danger of harm to others the second thing we need to prove is that such unfitness was known or should have been known to the employer and the third thing is that this on fitness cause an injury to the p west has the burden of proving he's ok these elements but none of these elements require the court to get into issues of doctrine or policy of the church they can all be decided they simply on neutral toward principles in the the two jurisdiction from the court in the third district at night that the court noted in particular at that particular that there was nowhere in the complaint where the court was asked to pass judgment on church doctrine similarly those three other men some of what we need to pro involved the first amendment does not require judicial deference to the church on their doctor that neutral neutral toward principle doctor jenkins is a third district case from two thousand and and states the courts can resolve disputes that arise in church setting if the dispute is not required terminations of doctrinal issues it's not the intent of the first amendment that civil rights are unforeseeable in a civil court just because a party might be a minister the threshold question is whether a claim can be resolved without inquiring into religious starker the defamation claim issue in that particular case was sent down to the trial or there was an issue there or in that case also arguing about an arbitration clause which we don't have before us in this case but the appellate court sent it back to the trial court with the instruction that if the arbitration comes back to the trial court they're supposed to make good does a determination as to whether the remarks that were the basis of the cause of action fall outside of ecclesiastical concern and this case there's never been an argument by any of the defendants or anybody that the court simply doesn't need to get into church doctrine to make the decision that can be based on a neutral court principles and the trial court and given the briefs here are the apple e's the church and the minister have argued all we need to figure out whether doug weston actions were sinful or you know that's not one of the elements and van horn that's not anything we have to prove that's what i think we want to even talk about we want to address neutral core principle they argue that so then they can sort of dovetail to some other decisions i think thomas was the name of one of them where there was an issue in the you know it was a jewish church or synagogue and they were  the point of claim that thomas versus forstner guess is the case there was allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff was falsely accused of being an infidel or a scofflaw and the appellate court in that case found that they needed to address jewish law to determine if in fact he was or wasn't an infidel as defined in their judicial law in the jewish law we don't have that in our case he's accused of what is accused of lying and stealing we don't need to look at  not what we need to prove for a cause of action that we would likely i'd assume we could address said a motion in limine a beforehand i don't want to steer in that direction i just want to be addressing like i say if you look at our complaint he's got a history a pattern of falsely accusing parishioners and in this case you falsely accused my client of lying and of stealing and that's where i want to dress just go down the van horn one of the elements in negligent retention and  that by itself does not bar the court i mean if we're trying to get let's say we're trying to make the core make a declaratory ruling that my client was not sinful or that my client was not christian like or if we had a base that is the reason why he was injured then we i would agree with that but if it's lying and stealing which we have evidence of that and we have the elements of a history of false accusations the court should be able to address that based on neutral members of the church agree there was a cancer they had the right or the authority to make the kinds of decisions and pronouncements that you're talking about i don't believe we've really i mean there was no discussion before he made the statements that you can go ahead and make this if that's what you're asking that if that was if i understand your question in that way he made it this statement some of them are in a letter to mr west and some of them were in  council meeting and i don't believe there was any discussion beforehand about well i'm going to go ahead and make this amount announcement to make these accusations about mr west if that's answering your question statute of limitations on the commission and we never alleged any defamation and in any of the onus of our claim there's also an argument that was brought up by the senate in regards to whether they had the authority to control mr we that was what the ruling was in the trial court was solely based on the first amendment and the court didn't think that it would be able to address it without getting into church doctrine and i think that's not exact wording of what the judge said but that was i think the  intent of the ruling or what he said and i believe that's incorrect i believe the court can address this case a neutral for principles and it doesn't need to get in to make a decision  classic example of where the court should stay out of that yeah that's that was a separate later on that had ellery hughes and i came to him read that part of the complaint for a while but i think they had over essentially playing mr west misappropriated funds about a year later yeah and those counts i i believe that it is for sure mine that is in the letter and i do believe that mr robertson has collected i don't believe that we had an allegation of stealing in the actual complaint although i think it was very clear in the deposition of mr west when he was asked what was going on with the church at or about the time that you suffered your stroke he said that was within two weeks of when the pastor stated that i had well i think that this is and i think it's wrong kind of the second district case that it talks about tonight we review these cases right before all arguments try to remember it all and i thought they did a real nice analysis of a case out of massachusetts and i don't remember th t but in the case of talk about the first amendment and that sort of has two different things one it can't address if your freedom to believe you can believe whatever you want or listen to your power to act and be controlled by the court and it is those actions if they are i mean if there are certain actions that a person does regardless of what they say to be the reason why or the basis of the belief they have i believe the court can step in you look at the goods upon constitutions and bylaws the district is part of the senate the district is specially the president of the district has supervisory authority over the the ministers inside the district that president is acting as a representative of the senate they have the power and by their own testimony remembering ryan mix who is also a an employee of the district they have in the past let ministers go i believe they do have authority at a minimum there is a out on the courts don't get involved in religious discipline they don't get involved in issues of the largest point mr ron assumes in his brief and he assumes in his argument that everything he alleges is true this case is not here on emotions that this mess this case is here on the record a motion for summary judgment and the problem with the plaintiff's position is you're going to see that mr brown really expects you to do three things there are three things he wants you to read right in this record three things that you don't have the jurisdiction to read the first of those  the holy bible the second of those is the deposition testimony and the third of those are the complaints that he filed in the case so i'll just try and very briefly explain what i mean by that mr west acknowledges in church doctrine and membership documents in the record of knowledge that mr west agreed to be subject to church discipline and in a lutheran church missouri s this means that the pastor has an affirmative duty to address what he believes a sinful conduct in the congregation mate agree or disagree with that approach to religious practice but that's what matthew eighteen said as matthew eighteen does not say if you think your brother sends you will take him aside and talk to him but not hurt his feelings correct this is not a real friendly doctor and frankly it's not my religious preference but that is how the missouri senate practices are personal relationship and when you look at the record in this case you have to start with that premise you have to understand that that is the role of a pastor and that's what the plaintiff accepted secondly he has to rewrite the depositions  deposition testimony and that's not what happened mr away asked acknowledges that when he got the letter it was mr west who took the confidential letter and went to the congregation and shoved it under the nose of anybody the fact he's the one who published the letter not the pastor that's uncontroverted pastors testimony is identical so there is no testimony in this case that pastor cassidy went to the congregation and spread alleged false words about mr west he's good mr west a confidential letter mr west decided to take it to the stuff certain things and what in a way on intentional infliction of emotional distress was the direct contact between the pastor and the play when we get into the depositions and when we get into the facts actually in the response to the summary judgment of the first time it appears it's clearly here is that the court didn't strike that portion as hearsay because of something but here's the significant bit that allegations nowhere in the original complain so in terms of when you look at the pleadings we've never responded to it it would be a defamatory statement if it occurred unless it was in some sort of privileged context where they were discussing the true finances and we that record never got the buck because barred by limitations because it occurred more than one year before that point so it's to me it is a complete non issue so with respect to the planet the real problem is that when we went through discovery and depositions were taken the documents exchanged the scenario alleged in the complaint which i think is what they're saying here is that somebody at the synagogue based on was true because these two prior conduct should a fire that she does a long time ago and did well look at some of the is one area where our courts will live the composition of the church hierarchy the churches ability to select its own ministers at the core of our religious f the moment government steps in and starts telling churches the criteria that they must use to hire or fire clergy members  brought under title seven the so there is a vast body of case law of of employment related decisions against churches and they have what they call a ministerial exception they will not anywhere near an action against a clergy or or employer really they don't care what the reason was what subject the reasons they used no matter how improper their hiring or firing decision is our courts will not get involved so cool one thing sexual assault and that is one exceptional with sexual assault when it when the going gets involved in employment decisions it is when dealing with questions of employment decisions of involving clergy it is in the curial whether subjective of whether the subject of a point of decision involved religious understand the complexities of the organization but there are a number of key facts that are absolutely undisputed the cinema has absolutely no role in the find lines we haven't asked that the minister should be fired we have a negligent retention plan ok it's negligence it's just like if there downspout there was room warrant for the stairs in the church and a person comes in and slips and falls there that's an unnatural humiliation advice they're responsible for their negligence and any damage and damages that their negligence requires the court doesn't come in and order church you need to get rid of the downspout there if there is negligence that causes the injury and there's damages as a result of that the court provides a remedy what we have is they knew they had a minister that could cause harm they left him in place they are responsible for damages if they knew about that particular harm in that particular harm caused damage sexual assault i don't know all let's say the ministers started to beat up whatever it is that was late in the hollow you of course every week i mean would that person if they did it kept doing it every week i mean with sometime you say well the court can step  no that doesn't deal with sexual assault so we don't do anything this is what it is has he had a dangerous propensity to hurt people by making false accusations and in fact mr west had a stroke right after that as far as  argument i believe it's their burden to show how the first amendment comes into play and keep support for making a decision where is it that they have some doctrine where is it that a court deciding that it was negligent to retain this kind of surprise left with a deposition was taken five or six years ago as i don't belong to go where mr was said he was called he was charged with stealing property by the minister just about two weeks before he had the stroke and also there is an also allegation in count one about being called a liar in the letter and also it's as if there was a statement of falsehoods about the budget by the minister i don't believe that i believe that what we would prove is consistent with the allegations of the complaint and that clearly the first amendment does not or the court from her injuries sticks in the final thing was there's a note about hearsay the trial court actually specifically found that that was not hearsay in regards to the statement by the minister that mr west had stolen property and that was in the suffolk you see the second something that we supplement the record a couple of times on this one but there is a supplemental ruling specifically on that issue