In this day and age it seems like every new Church claims to be Orthodox or Old Catholic.
We had some former bishops who walked away contrary to the canons start to claim our identity and claim, long after they left this Church, that they were us under a new name that is close to our name and infringing our Registered Service Mark since our name is part of the Registered Mark.
To prove these individuals who will remain unnamed on this web site until we file a lawsuit against them, are and have been old catholic we will direct you to a few facts.
a. One such "bishop" has it posted on the internet that his former Church was an old catholic mission.
b. He performed a wedding that would never be allowed in the Orthodox Church.
c. He claimed he acted in a certain manner and walked away w/o the required letters.
d. He later claimed additional acts not previously mentioned when he left.
e. He was consecrated before the canonical age mentioned in the Rudder for a bishop.
Another "bishop" was ordained and consecrated by what appears to be old catholic clergy.
He can claim numerous lines of Apostolic Succession which is an old catholic tradition since orthodox claim 1 main line from their Church.
This individual acknowledges publicly matters usually reserved for the Roman Catholics.
Another "bishop" is listed on the internet as a member of a bishops organization that accepts the Creed with the filoque clause.
All determined the Rudder (canons) is wrong and they all believe they have the individual right to ordain anyone they want to contrary to the Canons and the traditions of the ethnic or SCOBA Orthodoc Churches. When this was no allowed by the presiding bishop they jumped ship and ended an email with they voted to leave and stated they "did not depose the presiding bishop".
Later they claimed they had retired the presiding bishops title and that they removed the presiding bishop from office. All contrary to the "Orthodox" canons.
Why contrary to the Canons?
The Rudder clearly states what you must do to remove a bishop and not one act was done as required. The first act is that charges must be made. They supposedly voted to leave and did not depose the presiding bishop at that time and after they left they decided to "claim" to be us under a different name. After they left they could not file charges and they violate the law by claiming to be us under Federal law.
Their voting to leave and not following the canons, especially after they were offered a way to leave a few weeks earlier on friendly terms and they rejected that speaks volumes.
This individual was sued in Federal Court for Copyright infringement with contributing Service Mark infringement, Identity theft and defamation. At this point we await a Judgment from the Court.
a. Carl posted our Registered Service Mark with includes our corporate name on many pages on his web site.
b. He sent a defamatory email to the presiding bishop that he sent to numerous others by email stating the bishop was proably a felon for filing papers with state and federal agencies.
c. He sent a Charter with his Church name on it as well as with our full registered service mark to the IRS by mail claiming our church name and his church name as the same entity.
d. He claimed our church name and history on his web site and posted what appeared to be fraudelent documents.
e. He even incorporated in Fla. using our (registered) name which is part of the service mark, and changed the word "North" to "N." in his Dec 2007 corporation.
Using his 2007 corporation he declared he was THEOCACNA and that we were not the original Church and Corporation headed by Abp. Atimios Ofiesh.
It appears after the lawsuit was filed he moved from his residence to a new address a few hours away from where he had lived.
He is a former Roman Catholic priest and can be found on pokrov.org under the name Metropolitan Alexander A/K/A Carl D. Bartholomew.
This man is the successor of Francis Forbes, a former Antiochian priest who left that Church, was consecrated by 2 independent bishops wo were never associated with theocacna. His actions have harmed the good name and memory of the late Abp. Forbes.