STATE OF MICHIGAN THIRD CIRCUIT COURT

COUNTY OF WAYNE Case No. 03-326250-CZ

Judge: James J. Rashid

________________________________________________________________________

Very Reverend Radisa Ninkovic, (CIVIL)

Plaintiff, ANSWER OF
v. RATKO SARANOVIC

Holy Ascension Serbian Orthodox Church,

A Michigan Ecclesiastical Corporation, Vuko
Dragovic, Milutin Bojicic, Milan Bojicic, Jovanka Trbovic,
Sava Stajic, Velimir Krgovic, Aleksander Boskovic, Jelka
Sanovic, Petar Nastoski, Milivoje Stajic, Zivko Erdeljan,
Zivojin Jovic, Very Reverend Andria Dimitrijevic, Committee for
Safeguarding the New Gracanica Metropolitanate, Radmilo Krstic,
Ilija Stevanovic, George Deretich, Dr. Desanka Krstic, Mijodrag
Beljakovic, Veselin Vujicic, Miladin Soskic, Nikola Diklic, Petar
Milinovic, Ray Saranovic, Milan Malobabic, Very Reverend Djuro
Majerle, Radomir Simovic, and National City Bank, a National
Banking corporation, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________

By Defendant Ratko Saranovic

98 Rowland Court
Markham ON. L6C 1X8
905 887-0345

ANSWER
Civil
Defendant, Ratko Saranovic, in answer to the complaint, says:

The Defendant Ratko Saranovic admits the contents of paragraph two of the Plaintiff’s claim, but
save and except as specifically admitted herein denies each and every allegation, claim or
averment made by the plaintiff in his claim, and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

BACKGROUND

By the illegal defrocking of Bishop Dionisije, the Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church of
North America, in 1963, by Patriarch German in consort with the “verska komisija”, an
ecclesiastic board having members of the Communist Party, that defrockation caused a split in
the Serbian Orthodox Church between those clergymen and parishioners who supported a free
and independent Serbian Orthodox Church headed by Bishop Dionisije and those clergymen and
parishioners who remained supportive of the Patriarchy in Serbia. All of the local parishes in the
free church were and are completely free to decide their own affiliation and they are the sole
owners of their respective church properties and assets.

In 1985, Metropolitan Irinej, the successor to Bishop Dionisije negotiated a recognition of the
Free Serbian Orthodox Church by the new Patriarch Pavle in the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchy in
Serbia. However, while the Patriarchy recognized the existence of the Free Serbian Orthodox
Church and while the Patriarchy rescinded the defrockation of Bishop Dionisije, the Constitution
and the administration of the Free Serbian Orthodox Church remained independent of the
Patriarchy.

On or about 1992, the Patriarchy attempted to impose a common constitution upon the Free
Serbian Orthodox Church. The proposed new constitution was unacceptable to the Church
Corporations of the free Serbian Orthodox Church and was rejected by them. The Patriarchy
then began to appoint priests from Serbia to become the spiritual, financial and administrative
leaders of the Churches in the Free Serbian Orthodox Church in an effort to impose the proposed
new constitution.

However, the churches in the Free Serbian Orthodox Church have rejected the financial and
administrative authority intended to be assumed by the priests from Serbia and therefore have
resisted the implementation of the proposed new constitution.

The local church Ecorse Michigan, which is part of the Free Serbian Orthodox Church, is one of
those which has successfully resisted and rejected any control or ownership by the Patriarchy in
Serbia.

The Committee for Safeguarding the New Gracanica Metropolitante was organized and formed
to resist the control and ownership that the Patriarchy sought to impose. The Committee is a
grassroots outgrowth of those who want to preserve the traditional and historical Serbian
Orthodox faith. The Committee rejects the outside influences which have crept into the
Patriarchy, which are in opposition to a free, traditional church and which seek to usurp both the
authority and the property of the free churches. It has become a spiritual and temporal battle
between those in the Free Serbian Orthodox Churches represented by the Committee and those
who are in the Patriarchy.

The plaintiff in this action was sent from Serbia by the Patriarchy and is a member of the
Patriarchy. Under his mandate from the Patriarchy, the plaintiff attempted to take over the
control and ownership of the Ecorse Church under the proposed new constitution, which had
been and remains, rejected by the Ecorse Church and the remainder of the churches in the Free
Serbian Orthodox Church.

THE PARTIES

2. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegations, and
therefore specifically denies those allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 1 to30
inclusive.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

3. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegations, and
therefore specifically denies the contents of those allegations made by the plaintiff in
paragraphs 31 to 49 inclusive.

COUNT 1
DEFAMATION BY HOLY ASCENSION SERBIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH/SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SE

4. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic restates his denial of the contents of the statements made by
the plaintiff in paragraphs 1 and paragraphs 3 to 49 inclusive as if fully set forth herein.

COUNT II
DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANT AND
SLANDER AND LIBEL PER SE

5. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegations, and
therefore denies the contents of those allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 50 to 65
inclusive.

COUNT III
WRONGFUL TERMINATION

6. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegation, and
therefore denies the contents of those allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 66 to 72
inclusive.
 COUNT IV
BREACH OF CONTRACT

7. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic restates her denial of the contents of the statements made by
the plaintiff in paragraphs 1 to 72 inclusive as if fully set forth herein.

8. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegations, and
therefore denies the contents of those allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 73 to 79
inclusive

COUNT V
NEGLIGENCE

9. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegations, and
therefore denies the contents of those allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 80 to 83
inclusive.

COUNT VI
CONSPIRACY

10. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic restates her denial of the contents of the statements made by
the plaintiff in paragraphs 1 to 83 as if fully set forth herein.

11. The Defendant Ratko Saranovic has no knowledge of the truth of the allegations, and
therefore denies the contents of those allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 85 to 88
inclusive.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to state a claim)

12. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Truth)

13. Plaintiff’s defamation claims are barred by truth. Bank document (Exhibit B) speaks for
itself.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 (Lack of personal jurisdiction)

14. Defendant Ratko Saranovic lives in the province of Ontario and transacts no business in
Michigan and has no minimum contacts in Michigan. The Committee’s newspaper does no
business in Michigan. It is aimed at international members of the Serbian Orthodox Church,
is published in other states, and is not geographically linked to Michigan.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Fiduciary Duty and Obligation to Report)

15. Church officials had fiduciary duty to inform Bank that plaintiff did not have signatory
authority. Defendants had moral obligation to report to members of the Serbian Orthodox
Church.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands)

16. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of Unclean Hands as a result of his own
misconduct.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Public Figure)

17. Plaintiff is a public figure within the Serbian Orthodox Church, thus the disclosures are
privileged. He thrust himself into the forefront on the issue of the public controversy of
financial control.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Exhaust Remedies)

18. Plaintiff claims to have been hired by the Diocese and to have the right to a hearing. His
remedy, then, is to seek that hearing.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Join an Indispensable Party)

19. Plaintiff is claiming wrongful dismissal but has not named the party he claims appointed him
(the Diocese) as a defendant.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 (Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)

20. This is a Church matter and not within the jurisdiction of the State.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate)

21. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any claimed damages.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Free Speech)

22. The financial matters of the Serbian Orthodox Church are a matter of public concern to those
members in North America and, thus, protected speech under the First Amendment.

TWELFTH AFFIMATIVE DEFENSE

(Good Faith)

23. Any publication that could possibly be deemed false was done without malice. The facts
were investigated with due diligence.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Opinion)

24. Exhibit A (the article and the cartoon) are opinion and not defamatory. The likeness of the
cartoon character in question is not unique.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Parody)

25. The cartoon is parody and thus protected.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Conspiracy Claim)

26. The Complaint does not properly state a conspiracy claim. The mere use of the phrase
“worked in concert” is insufficient to constitute a cause of action.

RELIEF
Wherefore,Ratko Saranovic respectfully asks this Court to award judgement in favor of Ratko
Saranovic as follows:

1. Declaring that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Ratko
Saranovic;

2. Declaring that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this
Church matter;

3. Declaring that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and his
termination case is not properly before this Court;

4. Declaring that Ratko Saranovic and other defendants did not violate any Michigan
statute or common law, did not defame plaintiff, unjustly terminate him, breach
his contract, or conspire against him and that no compensatory, punitive, or
exemplary damages may be taken by plaintiff;

5. Denying restoration or plaintiff to his former position or any award of any wages
or benefits, past or future;

6. Denying any request by plaintiff for costs or attorney’s fees;

7. Awarding Ratko Saranovic his costs and disbursements herein, including

attorney’s fees; and

8. Awarding Ratko Saranovic such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

September 16, 2003

Date Defendant’s signature
Ratko Saranovic
98 Rowland Court.
.. Markham ON. L6C 1X8
Canada.