Hampden, ss.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Department Civil Action No. 11-831

Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, A Corporation Sole, Plaintiff ANSWER TO COMPLAINT & COUNTERCLAIM Victor Anop, Peter Stasz, Halina Sulewski Helen Domurat, Shirley Anop, Eva Boruch, Iwana Boruch, Friends of Mater Dolorosa Church, John Doe#1,John Doe#2, Mary Roe#1, Mary Roe#2, and other John Does and Mary Roes, Defendants v. Now come the Defendants, by counsel(s), and answer the complaint as follows: 1. Defendants admit to action brought, but deny that there is a “continuing trespass” to Mater Dolorosa. 2. Denied. Defendants are paid members and volunteers of the church, and continue a prayer vigil to protect their religious freedom (right to pray), and their chosen church. 3. Defendants admit that Diocese is bringing an action against them for relief, but deny that “RCB” is doing so for anyone’s safety. 4. Denied. This allegation is blatantly untrue. 5. Denied. Defendant’s comprehensive engineering report refutes allegation. 6. Denied. This is a speculative conclusion not based upon valid and certified engineering data. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. The building and steeple are sound structures.

9. Denied. The steeple does not need to be removed. 10. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in 10th paragraph of complaint, and call upon “RCB” to prove same. 11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation contained in 11th paragraph of complaint, and call upon “RCB” to prove same. 12. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same. 13. Denied. Defendants continue as members of the church. 14. Admit. 15. Admit. 16. Admit. 17. Admit. 18. Admit. 19. Admit. 20. Denied.Iwana Boruch unknown. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. Defendants say there are no “representative” capacities. 26. Denied. Speculation, not verifiable allegation. 27. Denied. While the goals of the Diocese planning are noteworthy, the process is undemocratic and actions were determined by a “chosen few” without adequate input from parishioners. -2-

28. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same. 29. Defendants neither admit nor deny as Defendants lack sufficient data to determine the truth or falsity thereof. 30. Denied. The “RCB” was not a corporate body in 1896. 31. Denied. 32. Denied. Defendants calls upon “RCB” to prove same. 33. Denied. Defendants say that ratio indicates little. 34. Denied. M.D. Church had better 2008 attendance numbers than the church the Diocese selected to remain open. 35. Denied. The seating capacity was arbitrarily computed, and has no relevance to those attending several different masses over a weekend. 36. Denied. Defendants say that “RCB” decisions are, in fact, all about money and the Pastor and “RCB” have not appeared to be candid about the church finances for several years; it also appears that monies have been mismanaged and not properly accounted for, and records are held “secretly” by “RCB”, and its various corporate and clergy agents. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Admit. 40. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same. 41. Denied. 42. Denied. 43-61. Denied. Defendants say this information is irrelevant, and immaterial to this action. 62. Denied. 63. Defendants neither admit nor deny 63rd paragraph of complaint as they are without sufficient data to answer. -3-

64. Defendants neither admit nor deny 64th paragraph of complaint as they are without sufficient data to answer. 65-68. Defendants neither admit nor deny 65th through 68th paragraph of complaint as they are without sufficient data to answer. 69. Denied. Defendants say that if this is the recommendations of EDA that the conclusions are definitely inaccurate in view of the more comprehensive investigations by Defendants engineer. 70-72. Defendants neither admit nor deny 70th through 72nd paragraph of complaint as they are without sufficient data to answer. 73. Denied. Defendants say that a cursory examination without computational support is not valid. 74-80. Denied. Defendants say that a cursory engineering examination without computational support is not valid, and since the steeple doesn’t have to be removed there is no imminent risk to the public or parishioners. 81. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation as they are without sufficient data to answer. 82. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation as they are without sufficient data to answer speculation. 83. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation as they are without sufficient data to answer speculation. 84. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegation as they are without sufficient data to answer speculation, but assert that there is no need to remove steeple according to Defendant’s documented engineering reports. 85. Defendants admit that Pavlica made statements regarding safety during removal/demolition of steeple, but deny that such a procedure is necessary requiring abandonment of the building for religious uses.

-4-

86. Defendants admit that Mr.Hunt made statements regarding safety during removal/demolition of steeple, but deny that such procedure is necessary requiring abandonment of the building for religious uses. 87. Defendants admit that Mr. Mirkin, a “building wrecker” made statements regarding safety during removal/demolition of steeple, but deny that such a procedure is necessary requiring abandonment of the building for religious uses. 88. Defendants admit that some of them entered Mater Dolorosa Church on 6/30/11, and some of the church members came thereafter. 89. Defendants admit that some of the church members remained inside. 90. Defendants admit that some of the church members remain in inside for prayer and care and protection of the church. 91. Defendants deny the allegation (P.91), and call upon “RCB” to prove same. 92. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same. 93. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same. 94. Denied. Defendants call upon “RCB” to prove same. 95. Defendants deny that they were given valid oral and written notices to leave the church, but admit that some Defendant church members continue prayer vigil in the Mater Dolorosa Church. 96. Defendants reassert their previous admissions and denials to this complaint, and hereby reassert and and re-incorporate those previous answers here. 97. Admit.

-5-

98. Defendants, paid members of the church, admit that some have remained (rightfully) in the church, from time to time, but deny they do so after being told to leave. 99. Defendants, paid church members, deny that they are wrongfully praying and staying in the church, admit that some church members continue staying from time to time in the church, but deny that praying and staying in the church constitutes a trespass. 100. Defendants reassert their previous admissions and denials to this complaint, and hereby reassert and re-incorporate their previous answers to the complaint here. 101. Defendants, church members, admit, as a matter of right, to intentionally being in the Mater Dolorosa Church praying and doing other religious community endeavors. 102. Denied. Defendants continue a prayer vigil as paid members of the Mater Dolorosa Church exercising their protected freedom of religion in the Catholic Church built and paid for by their Polish predecessors and now being paid by them, not constituting a trespass.

-6-

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert that this court lacks jurisdiction regarding the subject matter and collateral church issues of this complaint as the controversy is an ecclesiastical, Canon Law “internal dispute” of a hierarchical church-The Catholic Church, currently before an Ecclesiastical Court, Congregation for Clergy (Protocol No.20112390)not reviewable by Massachusetts civil courts. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert that Plaintiff(“RCB”)and its Ordinary’s claim is not “ripe” for adjudication as they have failed to exhaust all of their church administrative remedies and failed to satisfy all administrative prerequisites according to the procedures of Roman Catholic Church Canon Law before bringing an “enforcement action and claims” against their own diocese parishioners in this Civil Court. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert that Plaintiff (“RCB”) and its agents at Mater Dolorosa Church have failed to fulfill its trust, duties and responsibilities, under both Canon Law and Civil Law, to the Defendant Catholic Church members by unreasonably refusing to allow them real input into the pastoral process regarding closing their vibrant and viable parish, and withholding detailed financial and other information which was essential to a fair and just process; The actions of “RCB” precipitated this “internal dispute”. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert that they are “equitable owners”, paid church members, and tenants paying utilities and rightfully praying and staying in Mater Dolorosa conducting a prayer vigil exercising protected first amendment religious rights, freely associating with other members as well as caring for and protecting the church premises from damage and destruction. Therefore, Defendants assert that as such equitable owners, licensees and tenants they are not wrongfully on the premises. -7-

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert Plaintiff (“RCB) is wrongfully attempting, in a Massachusetts Court, under color of law, to restrain the right of paid church members to Prayer and Vigil,a protected free exercise of religion at Mater Dolorosa under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution. (Declaration of Rights) SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert the equitable defense of “laches” against Plaintiff as Defendants have conducted an open prayer vigil 24 hours a day, known to Plaintiff for over 100 days;during that time, Defendants position changed by the expending of substantial labor and financial commitment to saving and protecting their place of worship. The Plaintiff knowingly sat on his alleged legal and equitable rights, and delayed bringing an action much to the detriment of Defendants. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants assert the equitable defense of “soiled” and “unclean hands” as Plaintiff comes into this action as a result of the “bad faith” exclusion of Defendants from an undemocratic, unrepresentative,& unfair pastoral planning process, misrepresenting an opportunity for Defendants to save their church from closing/merger and “bad faith” dealings with Defendants by withholding essential parish engineering data, substantial financial accounting, and all essential facts leading to decision made at the outset to close Mater Dolorosa. All of which provoked this church dispute. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants hereby assert that they reserve their right to claim other affirmative defenses that may be obtained as a result of the discovery process,examining limited and sparse financial reports from Mater Dolorosa Church, and the result of a full and complete title search of the Mater Dolorosa church real estate. -8-

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Defendants hereby respectfully request that: 1. The Complaint, including all requests for injunctive relief, be dismissed with prejudice, and 2. This Honorable Court order such other further relief as it may deem just, equitable, and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________ VICTOR M. ANOP, ESQ. 103 Bridle Path Rd. Chicopee, Ma.;BBO#019880 Tel.(413)536-4181(&FAX)

________________________ PETER STASZ, ESQ. 62 Richard Eger Dr. Holyoke, Ma.;BBO#447440 Tel.(413)532-1511

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.