Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court against the presiding bishop of the Georgian Orthodox Church in North America by three Georgian Orthodox monasteries-- two in Maryland and one in Oklahoma. The abbots who head the monasteries are also plaintiffs. They contend that the bishop (Bishop Saba) engaged in a series of actions, including defamation of two abbots, designed to take for himself the properties of the three monasteries. The complaint (full text) in Hanson v. Intskirveli, (SD NY, filed 8/14/2026), alleges in part:
4. The Defendants began their public campaign to discredit and besmirch the Monastic Plaintiffs immediately after the Monastic Plaintiffs voiced conscientious objections to certain actions that Bishop Saba had taken, including his proposal to enact a church constitution that would facilitate seizing for himself any and all monastic property.
5. The campaign against Monastic Plaintiffs featured the Defendants falsely declaring that the Monastic Plaintiffs had been deposed and laicized (i.e., ... that Abbot Christophoros and Abbot Athanasios were to be stripped of their priestly and monastic status). Such sanctions are among the most severe and stigmatizing in the Orthodox community.
6. The Defendants knew their declarations were false because they knew such declarations were baseless....
8.... Bishop Saba never suspended either abbot from conducting their clerical duties; nor did he appoint substitutes for them. Yet, despite knowing that the process was unsound, Bishop Saba ...purported, through broadly publicized declarations, to laicize Abbot Christophoros and Abbot Athanasios....
10. The Defendants’ defamatory acts are part of a larger course of conduct involving Bishop Saba’s attempts to control and claim title to the Monastery Plaintiffs’ property. Before the defamatory campaign, Bishop Saba drafted and advocated for language that would ultimately form Article 21.7 of GAOCNA’s constitution. Article 21.7 provides that, upon an alleged “heresy, schism, or defection, . . . title, management, administration and control” of the property of an affected monastery “shall immediately revert to the Diocesan Bishop.”....
12. The Plaintiffs dispute that Article 21.7 gives Bishop Saba any right to claim title over the Monastery Plaintiffs’ property... A declaration is necessary to resolve that present property dispute and prevent Bishop Saba from unlawfully seizing the Monastery Plaintiffs’ property.
13. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek redress for the Defendants’ false, defamatory, and misleading statements, a declaration that Bishop Saba has no right to claim title to their property under Article 21.7 of GAOCNA’s constitution, and justice for the profound injuries the Defendants have inflicted upon them....
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Reigionlaw for the lead.]
