Fifteen Days to Confess a Crime You Didn't Commit
- Special Correspodent
- Aug 22
- 5 min read
On August 18, 2026, the Temporary Board of Trustees mailed a letter titled "Prior to Termination of Membership in the Church-School Congregation" to parishioners. It opens with a paragraph about the Body of Christ, fraternal care, and the "sincere hope of reconciliation". It then accuses them of "organized obstruction" preventing Divine Liturgy and of social media posts that "caused harm to the reputation of the Church" — and gives them fifteen days to write a statement expressing repentance, or face expulsion from the parish they have belonged to for years.
Read the letter once for its language, and once for what it actually is: an ultimatum, dressed in the vocabulary of pastoral concern, from a board that has spent ten months demonstrating exactly what it does to people who don't comply.
What this Board has actually done, laid out plainly — because the letter asks parishioners to answer for standing outside a church, and the record deserves the same standard applied to the Board itself:
Pursued the eviction of Fr. Dragoslav Kosić, a priest on medical leave protected under Article 25 of the Diocesan Regulations, while five of his six guaranteed months of salary went unpaid — and while pension contributions on his behalf went unpaid as well.
Arranged, twice, to have his mail blocked at the post office on a false claim that he no longer lived at his own address — confirmed by USPS records, not just alleged.
Had one of the parish's oldest members nearly towed off the church's own parking lot on Petrovdan — the same incident already documented, with police called, a man lifted into the air, and an 80-year-old woman with a walker among those targeted.
Issued a criminal trespass citation against a parishioner for standing on the grounds of her own church.
Had the Board President physically assault a parishioner, documented on video and in a police report (CAD 250068389).
Had the assigned parish priest publicly accuse parishioners of being thieves — of stealing communion wine and prosfora — before he had even set foot inside the church, on the steps, before any investigation.
Discarded the foot of the Mother of God, thrown away rather than treated with the reverence due to a sacred object — from the same administration currently quoting Scripture about grace.
Told the Dean, in a recorded statement, that Fr. Dragoslav's salary had been paid in full — while it had not.
Called police for a "welfare check" on Fr. Dragoslav six days before Petrovdan and two weeks before his eviction hearing, falsely telling police he was a "former priest" already in the process of being evicted — neither of which was true at the time (CAD 260039071).
Terminated the director of the parish folklore group with less than 24 hours' notice to return decades of costumes and props.
Seated itself in a configuration that violates the Regulations' own ban on nepotism in parish governance — at least six of fourteen appointed members connected by marriage or godparentage, in a parish well above the size threshold where that exception would even apply.
That is the Board writing this letter. Not a neutral panel weighing a parishioner's conduct — the same body, the same names, the same ten months.
And then there is the applicant no one can name.
A parishioner applied for membership in the Church-School Congregation and was rejected, on the record, citing the same accusation this letter uses: participation in the obstruction outside the Cathedral. There is one problem. She had never once stood outside that church. She had not attended a single gathering, protest, or demonstration before the date the Board cited against her. The accusation was not a mistake about degree — it was invented entirely.
That is not selective enforcement of a rule. That is a rule used as a weapon against whoever the Board decides needs to be cut off, true or not. If the Board will fabricate a participation record for someone who was never there, the fifteen-day letter sent to actual parishioners deserves exactly zero benefit of the doubt about what "has come to the attention of the Board" actually means.
There is a second name behind this same date, and it cuts even harder.
November 9, 2025 is the exact date this letter cites as the day of "organized obstruction outside the Cathedral preventing Divine Liturgy." One of the parishioners the Board has targeted since — mail blocked at the post office, car nearly towed off the lot on Petrovdan — was not outside that day. She was inside, at Liturgy, the same as any other Sunday. One week later, on November 16, the Board offered her a seat on the Temporary Board of Trustees itself.
Sit with that sequence. The date the Board treats as evidence of anti-church activity is a date on which one of the people they'd go on to target was demonstrably inside the building worshipping, and trusted enough that same week to be invited to help run the parish. Either the Board knew exactly who was and wasn't outside on November 9 and is choosing to misstate it now when convenient, or its own recordkeeping is so unreliable that it cannot be trusted to accuse anyone of anything. There is no third reading that makes this letter's citation of that date credible.
What the letter asks for, and what it is actually for
The letter demands a written statement that "distances" recipients from "unchristian and anti-church activity," expresses "repentance for actions that have caused scandal," and promises the conduct "will not be repeated." Read plainly, that is not a request for repentance. It is a loyalty oath, with expulsion as the penalty for refusing to sign it — issued by a board that has not once, in ten months, written a comparable letter to itself.
There is a sentence near the end reassuring parishioners that nothing in the notice limits their ability to "seek reconciliation and pastoral guidance from the Parish Priest at any time." The same parish priest whose signature is on the letter. The same parish priest recorded falsely telling the Dean that Fr. Dragoslav had been paid. The offer of pastoral guidance is signed by one of the people this article documents accusing parishioners on church steps before he had looked at a single fact.
A board that tows cars, blocks mail, files eviction papers, and physically assaults its own parishioners does not get to send a letter asking anyone else to repent first.
The letter cites the Regulations. The Board itself is a violation of them.
This letter leans on Article 31 of the Diocesan Regulations to demand compliance and repentance. It does not mention Article 45 of the same Regulations — the article that bans exactly the kind of family and godparent network this Board is built from. At least six of the fourteen appointed members are connected by marriage or by kumstvo: a Board Vice President whose husband, brother-in-law, and two godsons all sit on the same body with her; a Secretary whose own father was the prior Board President; a husband-and-wife pair filling two more seats. The Regulations allow that arrangement only in parishes too small to field a board any other way. St. Sava, with 120-plus families and $1.8 million in property, is not that parish.
So the Board that is demanding parishioners sign a statement of repentance for allegedly violating church order is itself sitting in a configuration the church's own order expressly forbids. They quote the Regulations at them. They do not quote the part written about themselves.
Let me finish that chart for you -
Nina - never a parish member
Branka - never a parish member
Bozo - never a parish member
Why are there people blocking doors?