Macedonian Church Dispute in Australia

[George S.]

I've been away but whatever became of the idea of having the two vladikas shared arrangement??Ie petar having victoria,S.A,W.A,&NZ,The new vladika having NSW,QLD.I haven't heard anything of it.

[Risto the Great]

Sorry I missed this thread for a while, has Lubi fixed the problem yet?

[Buktop]

Thanks for the advise Buktop, it would be good if you can find out more information in either the church or somebody who is well informed in this matter maybe a family friend.

Its good to see the Macedonians in North America get along so well with the Bishop representing them, i know Bishop Kiril was there earlier and the people were happy with him.

It would be good for the people of North America to share their experience and give advise from their experiences. Every Bishop is there to serve the people, to bless them and give them the good news.

I asked around, and it seems I was correct. American churches are community owned, with community elected committees, and they pay a certain tribute or percentage of their revenues to the American-Canadian Diocese where, in turn, they supply the clergy.

I am not sure of the exact procedure for affiliation with the diocese, but I am planning on meeting with several members of the committee in the next few weeks. I have met with them before, but the issue of church affiliation has never come up. I never even thought about this issue until I read of the goings on down under.

Metodij is more of a laissez faire type of authority. And I think this approach is more palatable with the individual communities.

[aleksandrov]

Here's the balance of the reasoning for the opposition to Petar's Bill by the Association of Macedonian Communities in Australia:


The Parliament has been misled about the Diocesan Statute

7.1 The proposer of this Bill and therefore the Parliament have been misled into believing that the Diocesan Statute has been passed by a Diocesan Assembly, and authorised and certified by the Archbishopric Church and Lay Assembly (more accurately translated as “Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly”) on 24 February 1996” (see the definition of “Diocesan Statute” in Clause 3 of the Bill).

7.2 A majority of the associations whose delegates are supposed to comprise the Diocesan Assembly and whose churches the Diocesan Statute purports to affect have never approved it in its current or any other final form. They have not approved the Statute at general meetings of their members or amended their own constitutions or relinquished ownership of their properties to comply with the despotic rule provided for by the Statute.

7.3 According to article 190 of the Constitution of the MOC-OA:

The composition of the Diocesan Assembly, as well as the organisation of the Diocesan bodies and organs of the dioceses of the MOC outside of the territory of Macedonia, are regulated by a separate statute, which, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, is passed by the Diocesan Assembly, after a previously provided opinion by the Holy Synod of the MOC, in plenary composition, and is approved by the Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly.

7.4 On 15-16 February 1996, in Geelong, Victoria, a Diocesan meeting, which was not constituted according to any pre-existing Diocesan Statute, resolved to adopt a draft Statute, proposed by bishop Petar, based on the understanding that Macedonian Orthodox churches from across Australia would have an opportunity to take the draft back to their organisations for approval or to consider further changes before its final adoption. Bishop Petar has since misrepresented that resolution as a resolution by the majority of Macedonian Orthodox church communities in Australia to pass a Diocesan Statute in final form. Yet he is well aware that the majority of delegates present at that meeting were not authorised by the church communities they were supposed to be representing to pass the proposed Statute, considering that it conflicted fundamentally with the constitutions by which those communities were lawfully incorporated, and that it had never been approved by most of those communities in general meeting.

7.5 Over one third of those present at the Geelong meeting were priests whose titles and jobs depended on the will of bishop Petar, with the rest being representatives of incorporated Macedonian Orthodox organisations from across Australia. Audio recordings of the meeting include explicit statements by some delegates that they were not authorised by their organisations to pass or reject the Statute. The bishop insisted that the delegates must vote for or against the Statute as a draft only, and that it could later be changed. Some time after the Geelong meeting, the bishop declared an amended version of the draft as effective without ever taking it back for final approval to the associations comprising the Diocese.

7.6 The Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly, being the highest governing and legislative body of the MOC-OA, did not even convene on 24 February 1996, so it could not have “authorised and certified” any Diocesan Statute as alleged by bishop Petar. In the course of the current Supreme Court proceedings against the MOCC St. Petka Inc, bishop Petar was asked to produce minutes of the Assembly’s meeting as evidence of his claim. He replied that the Archbishop of the MOC-OA is not willing to release the minutes to the Court. This Inquiry should place a strict onus on him to show evidence of the alleged decision of the Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly or accept our submission that claim that it occurred is an act of deception.

7.7 During a visit to Macedonia in August-September 1999, the writer of this submission, in company with other delegates of the AMCA, personally asked bishop Stefan (now Archbishop), bishop Agatangel, bishop Timotej, and bishop Gorazd, all members of the Holy Synod and Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly of the MOC, whether the Assembly had convened at any time since 1995. They all confirmed that the Assembly had not convened in that period. As a result, representatives of 14 Macedonian churches from across Australia made a submission to the Holy Synod and the Archiepiscopal Church Court of the MOC seeking a declaration that the Diocesan Statute was not in force because it had not been approved by the Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly. We have received no reply at all, despite several follow-ups. This is indicative of the lack of accountability and absence of the rule of law (including the MOC-OA constitution) within the MOC-OA generally.

7.8 Individual Macedonian bishops have repeatedly confirmed to us, in private conversations, that no Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly took place in 1996. This is supported by records of the MOC-OA’s internal bulletin, “Sluzben Vesnik”, which contain reports of all Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly meetings since 1994. We have checked all issues of the bulletin from 1996 and there is no mention at all of a meeting of the Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly.

7.9 Article 7 of the current constitution of the MOC-OA, which was adopted in 1994, lists each Diocese under its jurisdiction. There is no “Macedonian Orthodox Church Diocese for Australia & New Zealand” on the list. There is a “Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia”. This suggests that bishop Petar has breached the constitution of his own MOC-OA by wilfully changing the name of the Australian Diocese and expanding its borders to New Zealand. He has made no efforts to rectify this situation, even though it has been repeatedly brought to his attention since 1997.

Purported supporters of the Bill have been fundamentally misled about its operation

8.1 The substance of this Bill does not enjoy informed support even among the parishioners of the churches listed in Clause 17 (2) or within the highest governing bodies in the MOC-OA, including its Archiepiscopal Church-people’s Assembly and the Holy Bishop’s Synod.

8.2 Bishop Petar and his advocates have rallied support for this Bill with the misleading and deceptive claim that its purpose is to gain recognition of the Macedonian Orthodox Church by Australia or to “register” the Macedonian Orthodox Church “as a legal person”. They falsely claim or imply that Macedonian Orthodox churches that have been established in Australia since the 1950s are illegitimate according to Australian law. They have gone so far as to claim that the passing of this Bill by the NSW Parliament will amount to effective recognition of the Republic of Macedonia under its proper name, even though that is a matter for the foreign affairs jurisdiction of the Federal Government. For the record, Macedonian Australians strongly and unanimously object to the Federal Government referring to the Republic of Macedonia as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

8.3 In his Second Reading speech, the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile claimed that if this Bill is passed, “the community will understand that the church is acknowledged, organised and well administered.” This statement serves to reinforce the misleading suggestions that the Bill is about recognition of the Macedonian Orthodox Church by the State of NSW, that the State has somehow disputed the legitimacy of Macedonian Orthodox community churches in Australia since the 1950s on the basis that they have been disorganised and poorly administered, and that those Macedonian Orthodox churches whose properties will not be transferred to the corporation established by the Bill will remain disorganized, poorly administered and not recognized by the State.

8.4 The Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile further said: “The Concern is that when the property is vested in trustees incorporated associations or companies there is no accountability to the church.” Unless “accountability to the church” is taken to mean absolute submission to the will of bishop Petar, this is a baseless accusation, which serves to conceal the fact that the passing of the Bill will in effect reduce, rather than increase accountability to the Church.

8.5 We are deeply offended by attempts to equate the entire Macedonian Orthodox Church with bishop Petar. The Macedonian Orthodox Church was constituted by the Macedonian Orthodox people. This fact has been acknowledged by the current Archbishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, Stefan, with the words: “Throughout the centuries, the only patriarch of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was His Holiness, the Macedonian People! In that sense, the Church exists because of the people, and not the people because of her.”

8.6 The incorporated organizations at whose expense the proponents of this Bill seek to benefit represent local communities of the Macedonian Orthodox people in Australia. They are transparently and democratically controlled and scrutinized by their constituents, their supporters and by state agencies, in accordance with well-established and comprehensive Australian laws for the registration and responsible governance of non-profit and charitable organisations. This is what the proponents of the Trust Bill seek to circumvent. The basic purpose of the Bill is to avoid transparency, scrutiny and accountability in the use of property that was meant to serve the common needs and objects of the Macedonian Orthodox people in Australia, and at the same time to gain special protection that is not generally afforded to non-profit corporations and trustees.

8.7 Although bishop Petar insists that an incorporated association or company limited by guarantee cannot be a church or hold and control church property, he has himself tried to benefit from incorporated associations. A number of Macedonian Orthodox Church Community associations in Australia have been stacked and taken over by priests appointed by the bishop, with arbitrarily selected members. All voices of dissent in those associations have since been arbitrarily expelled from those associations or coercively silenced.

8.8 On 5 October 2000, bishop Petar procured a special resolution by a general meeting of the Macedonian Orthodox Church “St. Petka Inc., in Mill Park Victoria, of which his appointee, reverend Tone Gulev, was and remains President, to amend the constitution of that association, in a purported effort to comply with the Diocesan Statute and local church by-laws designed by the bishop. The Deputy Assistant Registrar of Incorporated Associations, from the Victorian Department of Justice, refused to approve the special resolution because of non-compliance with Section 6(a)(i) of the Associations Incorporation Act, in that the proposed rules did not comply with the provisions of the Act in relation to:

- The entrance fees, subscriptions.
- The quorum and procedure at meetings of the committee.
- Whether members are entitled to vote by proxy at general meetings.
- The source/s from which the funds of the association are to be or may be derived.
- The inspection by members of the relevant documents of the incorporated association.
- The disposition of any surplus assets on the winding up or dissolution.
- The grievance procedure.
- The requirement of 21 days notice to members and ¾ majority votes to pass a special resolution.
- The manner of altering the statement of purposes of the incorporated association.

8.9 The Australian Securities & Investments Commission’s public database of corporate and business names lists the “Macedonian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand Incorporated” as an association incorporated in NSW, under number INC9882840. Unfortunately, the database does not include names of office-bearers and we have had no opportunity to make further inquiries prior to this submission.

8.10 In promoting this Bill on a Macedonian language radio interview in Melbourne, on 15 August 2010, bishop Petar stated (in Macedonian):

“…once that property is under a trustee, there is no legal possibility for anybody to abuse that property because if I as an individual do anything at all that would place me in a situation where legal proceedings are conducted against me, the legal dispute will automatically be conducted against me as a person who does not at all touch the property of which I am a trustee.
That means that I can be held accountable with my personal property if any court proceedings are commenced against me, or if I am fined. The property is separate from the trustee as a personality and is thereby completely protected.
In the alternative case, if we have persons who are in an incorporated association or in companies then those persons are protected as members of that incorporated association or company and when you sue that person he will say: ‘Not me. They are suing because I am a member of that incorporated association or company, and I am protected, and that association or company will be in dispute with the person who is suing me,’ and in that case the incorporated association or company pays for every breach that he has personally committed.”

With statements such as the above, the bishop has fundamentally misled the Macedonian public in relation to his own controversial reliance on incorporated associations, and in relation to the liability of trustees or members of the trustee corporation under the Bill. The statement falsely suggests that the Bill absolutely prohibits members of the trustee corporation or other trustees appointed by it from having recourse to trust property or other assets and funds of the trustee corporation, if they are sued in relation to the exercise of their functions. It also serves to conceal or cloud the fact that the Bill will create a trustee corporation headed by the bishop, as opposed to making him a trustee in his personal capacity. This misrepresentation is reinforced with a further misrepresentation that the Board members of incorporated associations or companies can under no circumstances be held personally liable for breaches of their duties. Misleading and deceptive statements of this nature are regularly used to persuade people to support the Bill. This gives reason to question the relevance of any letters of support for the Bill that the bishop has procured.

The Bill conflicts with existing Government policy – Similarity to Macedonian Orthodox Trust Bill 2008

9.1 This Bill is substantially similar to the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 1998, which was introduced by the Government, under the false belief that it enjoyed broad support from the Macedonian Orthodox community in NSW. In response to objections to that Government Bill, we received a letter from the Hon Morris Iemma MP, on behalf of the then Premier of NSW, dated 26 may 1999, in which we were assured as follows:

“Following introduction of the Bill, the Government was advised that some Macedonian Orthodox community organisations held concerns about the Bill and that members of the Macedonian Orthodox community are currently involved in a Supreme Court action to this matter.

In light of this court action and the concerns expressed by community members the NSW Government will take no further action to proceed with the Bill until the Supreme Court action has been resolved. The Attorney General has also assured me that his Department will continue to liaise with the Macedonian Orthodox community to establish the level of support for the Bill prior to any re-introduction.”

9.2 The Supreme Court proceedings referred to above have not yet been resolved. There have been no attempts by the Attorney General’s Department to liaise with us regarding support for the reintroduction of legislation similar to the 1998 Bill. Bishop Petar’s contested claim that the properties of the Macedonian Orthodox Church Community “St. Petka” Inc were accumulated and are held in trust for the MOC-OA is the most fundamental matter in the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings, and pending appeals to existing rulings. These proceedings have cost the local Macedonian Australian community millions of dollars in legal fees, ancillary expenses and lost income. They have resulted in the parishioners of the St. Petka church in Rockdale being denied the services of a priest for almost 7 years now, due to interim rulings that this bishop has an exclusive right to appoint a priest and his refusal to do so unless the community hands over its property and funds to him. Apart from that, in his attempts to force the MOCC St. Petka and other Macedonian communities to capitulate to his demands, bishop Petar and his followers have engaged in a ruthless campaign of vilification, defamation and intimidation against all dissenters. This campaign has included:

a) Persistently misleading an uninformed Macedonian public that a church cannot be a real church if it is legally owned by a corporate body, even though he is well aware that the only way to register a non-profit, charitable organization in Australia as a separate legal person in its own right is for it to become incorporated, and even though he is now himself seeking to establish a corporation to hold church property;
b) Blackmailing our communities by ordering Macedonian Orthodox priests not to serve at their churches unless his demands for a handover of properties and funds are fulfilled;
c) Baselessly declaring over ten Macedonian Orthodox priests as defrocked, on trumped up charges, whereas the true reason he has acted against them is only that they have defied his orders to desert or boycott our parishes;
d) Baselessly, maliciously and hurtfully declaring tens of thousands of parishioners of dissenting church communities as “self-excommunicated non-believers”, and their churches as ‘desecrated’ churches;
e) Baselessly and maliciously claiming that his dissenters are motivated by a desire to misappropriate church funds for personal benefit (this has led to some successful and some ongoing defamation proceedings).

10 Bishop Petar’s motivations behind this bill are not in good faith. He has divided the community throughout Australia. His actions do not even represent the will of the majority of bishops of the Holy Synod, the hierarchy that he purports to represent and defend. In an interview conducted on 3 January 2008, posted on the official MOC-OA website, Bishop Naum was asked: What do you think, when will the situation with the property of the MOC in Australia be solved?

He answered:

First peace must reign between the faithful in the Australia and New Zealand Diocese of the MOC, and that will occur when one or perhaps even two new bishops are appointed as the authorized prelates, behind whose work will stand a united Holy Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

For us, in Australia, there occurred a failure of the stages of solving the problems. The problems must first be solved on a spiritual level, and only after that on the material level. The problems must first be solved by prayer, in our heart, and only then outside of us. The church above all is its people, only after come its buildings.

Thus other Macedonian bishops have recognised bishop Petar as a force of division, who has damaged community harmony so severely that the wounds cannot be healed without his replacement. bishop Petar will undoubtedly use this Bill as just another offensive instrument (like ex-communications, defrocking of priests and anathematizing believers), for his material and political aims, not for the people of the Church, but at the expense of the people of the Church.

11 Passing the Bill will amount to political support for bishop Petar’s hostile and unfounded claims that all Macedonian Orthodox churches and related properties in Australia are and should be held in trust for his Diocese or the MOC-OA. Such support will undoubtedly be used to deflect the public criticism he has received in Australia and Macedonia over the astronomically expensive litigation against the Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St. Petka Inc. It would serve as moral and political support for him to continue to try and coerce or vilify communities that dispute his claims to their properties, and to commence fresh litigation against communities that resist other forms of coercion.

12 The premise of this Bill as presented is misleading. Its true motivation is the furtherance of bishop Petar’s partisan war of attrition against Macedonian Orthodox communities in this State and throughout Australia. The NSW Parliament should not permit itself to be so used.


Igor Avramovski Aleksandrov
President
Association of Macedonian Communities in Australia Inc

[aleksandrov]

If I may suggest, either post all of the document on a separate thread and, with the approval of MTO Admins, have it locked and made a sticky and then link to it here or send it to RTG/SOM and have one of them do the same. Another option would be to use a document hosting service such as Google, which Chris Stefou (aka Risto Stefov) uses for his "Macedonian Digest" monthly and post a link to it.

I've decided to start a blog dedicated specifically to the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 2010. With the level of deception that some people are engaging in to have this extraordinarily dangerous Bill passed at any cost, I think it deserves special attention. I invite all members of this forum to help us increase and spread awareness of what this Bill is truly about. Please send a link to this blog to everyone you think might be interested:

http://amca2010.wordpress.com/

If the administrators don't mind, I can repost significant questions and answers from the blog on this thread.

[Prolet]

Spolaj Ti Buktop

Thats pretty much how it was run here before Bishop Petar came along, i think at one stage the churches were sendng funds to Stari Kraj.

[Risto the Great]

Spolaj Ti Buktop

Thats pretty much how it was run here before Bishop Petar came along, i think at one stage the churches were sendng funds to Stari Kraj.

So you would agree we have gone backwards Prolet? And you would also agree Petar is the reason for this?

[Prolet]

Thats a very good question Risto

Bishop Petar has played his part, but the responsibility lies on our whole community. I've seen arguments given out by the people who strongly support the Bishop that had these law suits not gone ahead, we would have had nursing homes for our elderly, Kindergartens for our children, Social Clubs for pensioners and so forth.

I do think better security measures need to be taken in order to prevent anybody to transfer or sell any church,monastery or any other properties associated with our church. I agree with Aleksandrov that no Bishop,Sveshtenik,Community leader or anybody else should be able to transfer land or property to another Eparhija or Church like a Serb,Greek or Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

I still want to see what Buktop's response is when he gains more information on this matter, if he confirms that the structuring of land and property is pretty much the same over there as it is here then it would be a good argument to use in MPC. I also think somebody needs to have a meeting with Bishop Metodija for him to share his experience on this manner, Bishop Kiril would also be a good person to speak to.

[indigen]

I've decided to start a blog dedicated specifically to the Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 2010. With the level of deception that some people are engaging in to have this extraordinarily dangerous Bill passed at any cost, I think it deserves special attention. I invite all members of this forum to help us increase and spread awareness of what this Bill is truly about. Please send a link to this blog to everyone you think might be interested:

http://amca2010.wordpress.com/

If the administrators don't mind, I can repost significant questions and answers from the blog on this thread.

Good work on getting the blog started but please go over the text and check for typos and/or missing info details and correct them as required.

Secondly, this blog needs to be propagated on the internet via links by news sites, public forums, blogs, and similar. Search engine submission would be a big plus, either free and/or paid service.

Google search - Search engine submit.


Lastly, to bring to your attention, the Jole K. DISINFORMATION PROPAGANDA MACHINE has reacted and has slanderously attacked you in a new disinformation piece in mn ("Makedonska nacija"):

Недела, 29 Август 2010
Срам до срам-Кога се распаѓа династијата веќе почнува да се губи и разумот

[....]



Превземено од радио илинден

http://www.radioilinden.com.au/

Дончо Ангелоски

I would suggest that you paste a copy of the propaganda piece here and dismantle all the lies and expose Joles K.'s dirty tricks done dirt cheap campaign yet again.

As for MN, it is (or looks like) a front for DMPNE, IMO!

http://www.mn.mk/impresum

Главен и одговорен уредник: Мане Јаковлески
Вебмастер: Дејан Донев

Уредници:
Тихомир Каранфилов Гордана Димивска
Тихомир Каранфилов Гордана Димовска
Катерина Климоска Емил Јакимовски
Јанко Томов Ана Србини

Perhaps a direct reply would also be worth pursuing.

[indigen]

Maknews (LU) previously held the best ideological position possible on the final resolution of the Macedonian Diaspora church issue in relation to the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which aligns with my position for the optimal outcome for the Macedonian Diaspora and Macedonian Nation on this matter - the establishment of an INDEPENDENT MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (based in the DIASPORA)!

As for the Maknews website and its relation to UMD, if I am not mistaken, it is the UMD who provided about $5000 US a few years back when LU was in need of funds to keep the site going and one SHOULD EXPECT that UMD would not like to see Maknews forums being used to discredit it as an organisation. If my assumption is correct, I can appreciate and understand that and, IMO, so should others! As I see it, any other organisation would act in the same fashion if placed in a similar situation.

[Risto the Great]

Thats a very good question Risto

Bishop Petar has played his part, but the responsibility lies on our whole community. I've seen arguments given out by the people who strongly support the Bishop that had these law suits not gone ahead, we would have had nursing homes for our elderly, Kindergartens for our children, Social Clubs for pensioners and so forth.

They were two questions and you answered neither Prolet.
Which has always been the case (for you) in relation to the church dispute.

[Risto the Great]

BLOG: Macedonian Orthodox Church Property Trust Bill 2010

http://amca2010.wordpress.com/

[Phoenix]

Maknews (LU) previously held the best ideological position possible on the final resolution of the Macedonian Diaspora church issue in relation to the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which aligns with my position for the optimal outcome for the Macedonian Diaspora and Macedonian Nation on this matter - the establishment of an INDEPENDENT MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (based in the DIASPORA)!

I think the problem with Maknews in this regard wasn't about his ability or otherwise to deliver a solution to the 'problem', regardless if it meets your ideas (rightly or wrongly) the issue was in the patronizing manner in which it was delivered, that the North American diaspora was capable of sorting out our 'issues' here in Australia, if only we would 'accept' their 'help'...

As for the Maknews website and its relation to UMD, if I am not mistaken, it is the UMD who provided about $5000 US a few years back when LU was in need of funds to keep the site going and one SHOULD EXPECT that UMD would not like to see Maknews forums being used to discredit it as an organisation. If my assumption is correct, I can appreciate and understand that and, IMO, so should others! As I see it, any other organisation would act in the same fashion if placed in a similar situation.

Vangelovski wrote:
Clearly not, UMD has pulled a really good job on you. Unless of course they are financing your forum here?

Maknews wrote:
I disagree with the UMD whenever I believe they should be doing something differently. What I don't do is run around spreading vile rumours and lies about members of the group in order to denigrate them.

If the truth be known, my biggest financers by far have been some of the members of the Macedonian Truth site.

http://www.maknews.com/forum/general-discussions/macedonians-demand-end-to-name-negotiations-t20104-40.html

[indigen]

I think the problem with Maknews in this regard wasn't about his ability or otherwise to deliver a solution to the 'problem', regardless if it meets your ideas (rightly or wrongly) the issue was in the patronizing manner in which it was delivered, that the North American diaspora was capable of sorting out our 'issues' here in Australia, if only we would 'accept' their 'help'...

OK, I take your point! It seems that he is flip-flopping a lot lately on various issues, from the solution to the church dispute in Australia (or the Diaspora) to the rejection or embracement of the BUGAROMAN MPO and support for RM accession in EU and NATO, amongst other issues.

Vangelovski wrote:
Clearly not, UMD has pulled a really good job on you. Unless of course they are financing your forum here?

Regardless of what LU says now, I distinctly remember him writing that the UMD came up with (a BIG FAT SUM) approximately US $5000 for "www.maknews.com" to keep going. That, IMO, means UMD has SOME SAY in the editorial of the forums, especially in relation to strong criticism of its ideology and political agenda. One could say UMD owns Maknews and one should not expect much from such a website. And, clearly, criticising UMD on its own website (regardless of the MN mask) is NOT going to go down well with the STARBUCKS KIDS! :-)

[Phoenix]

OK, I take your point! It seems that he is flip-flopping a lot lately on various issues, from the solution to the church dispute in Australia (or the Diaspora) to the rejection or embracement of the BUGAROMAN MPO and support for RM accession in EU and NATO, amongst other issues.


Regardless of what LU says now, I distinctly remember him writing that the UMD came up with (a BIG FAT SUM) approximately US $5000 for "www.maknews.com" to keep going. That, IMO, means UMD has SOME SAY in the editorial of the forums, especially in relation to strong criticism of its ideology and political agenda. One could say UMD owns Maknews and one should not expect much from such a website. And, clearly, criticising UMD on its own website (regardless of the MN mask) is NOT going to go down well with the STARBUCKS KIDS! :-)

I wouldn't be surprised, I can think of very few other reasons why Maknews would protect at all costs the already severely tarnished image of the UMD. I merely wanted to post his most recent reply regarding financing, from the horses mouth so to speak...if indeed your memory serves you correctly then we can assume that Maknews is a liar and without credibility or impartiality...