Monday, July 23, 2012

BISHOPGATE now in High Court

PRESS RELEASE on BISHOPGATE by the Plaintiff

The High Court has awarded a Court Order on 18th July, to the plaintiff of a Writ after an Ex parte
hearing to gather all documents, records of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah ADOS and all
the churches and establishments under the said ADOS for the purpose of scrutiny.

The Court Order with several key conditions has arisen by the Writ of a member and
beneficiary of the Anglican Church in Sabah filed recently with a Certificate of Urgency at
the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak, Kota Kinabalu. The defendants are the Anglican
Bishop of Sabah and the holder Datuk Albert Vun Cheong Fui. The honorable judge was
Tuan Lee Heng Cheong with session held in chambers

The Writ does not involve the Anglican churches in Sabah and normal church activities
can still go on as usual. Members who are concerned and interested to know more should
contact the committee (more details to come) to be set up for this purpose. You may go to
the three websites listed below for further information.

The Writ does not touch on the religious aspect of ADOS  and was served on the Bishop at 2,15pm on 23 July, 2012 at his office in Wisma Anglican.


The Writ or High Court action is a consequence as a part of the process as exposed
in the massive blog since 23 October, 2011 following many unhappy and undesirable
developments surround the defendants since the holder became a Bishop on 25 th April,
2006. The blog is allsaintscathedral.blogspot.com and presently in four titles with
thousands of postings by some known members and many other concerned anonymous
forummers. The other two blogs that had emerged in the Internet are “The Truth” at http://
thetruthasc.wordpress.com and Bishopgate at Bishopgateinanglicansabah,blogspot.com.

The crux of the Writ is about the way the defendant manages the ADOS and some 80
establishments under him including the financial affairs not transparent to the members
and the beneficiaries at large. The Defendant is also the sole trustee of ADOS and his
dealings have been questioned in many situations. This Court case is the first one in
Sabah and compliment the ongoing effort with the ‘Investigation Committee’ of APSEA.

The case by the sole plaintiff is represented by Mr Rakhbir Singh.

NB: The plaintiff wants to remain anonymous for good and valid reasons and no
photography of the plaintiff.
You may contact my learned Counsel for the legal perspective.

59 comments:

  1. This case has appeared in the front page of Daily Express and Borneo Post..

    ReplyDelete
  2. I cannot say much about this case before in the court.

    maybe you need to support in any way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. would anyone want to do a petition?

    ReplyDelete
  4. When is Legal Action Appropriate for a Christian?
    So, to be very clear, the Bible does not say a Christian can never go to court. In fact, Paul appealed more than once to the legal system, exercising his right to defend himself under Roman law (Acts 16:37–40; 18:12–17; 22:15–29; 25:10–22). In Romans 13 Paul taught that God had established legal authorities for the purpose of upholding justice, punishing wrongdoers, and protecting the innocent. Consequently, legal action may be appropriate in certain criminal matters, cases of injury and damage covered by insurance, as well as trustee issues and other specified instances.

    http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/f/christianlawsui.htm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can Assistant Bishop lodged a false Police
    Report?

    Why JY lodged a Police Report when Christians are discouraged to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Read the news tomorrow online or otherwise..

    ReplyDelete
  7. for reference only

    http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120630-356345.html

    Church's remarks could interfere judicial process: Lawyers

    0
    inShare
    AsiaOne
    Saturday, Jun 30, 2012

    Lawyers said the statement made by executive pastor of City Harvest Church regarding allegations of misuse of funds before the case has gone to trial is risky - if not reckless - and could be construed as interfering with judicial process.

    In a strongly worded statement on Thursday night, executive pastor Aries Zulkarnain, 39, dismissed allegations that the church was cheated of $50 million, claiming that the sum was repaid to the church in full with interest.

    Insiders said the church deemed the statement necessary to allay the concerns of its 30,000 members, reported The Straits Times.
    RELATED STORIES

    City Harvest talking points
    Church was not cheated of $50m, says City Harvest
    Sun Ho's $23 million attempt to break into Hollywood
    From $127k HDB flat to $9.3m Sentosa Cove penthouse
    He dared to question City Harvest
    More about this case

    On Wednesday, the church's founding pastor Kong Hee, 47, and four others were charged with misappropriating church funds of over $50 million.

    They were alleged to have funnelled $24 million into a sham bond investments to further the music career of Kong's pop singer wife Ho Yeow Sun. They also allegedly misappropriated a further $26.6 million in church funds to cover up the first amount.

    The five have not pleaded guilty and are due in court on July 25. If found guilty, they could face lengthy jail terms, even for life.

    The statement by Mr Aries was posted on the church's website and sent to the media. In it, he addressed the allegations and maintained that the church did not lose any funds in the alleged transactions. He also said the accused did not make any personal profit.

    He added that the church stood with those involved in the case, including Kong, and that church activities were unaffected. Kong and his deputy Tan Ye Peng could continue to preach at the church.

    Lawyers interviewed by The Straits Times are divided on whether Mr Aries' comments constituted subjudice, a legal concept referring to words or actions that may affect or prejudice the outcome of court proceedings.

    It is an offence to commit subjudice.

    "To address the allegations is subjudice, as the evidence has not been heard in court," said president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore Subhas Anandan.

    However, other lawyers said it is debatable whether Mr Aries' comments were in contempt of court.

    Criminal lawyer R. S. Bajwa told The Straits Times that it remained up to the prosecution to decide if the point about no funds being lost will be a point of contention.

    The Attorney-General Chambers said that criminal charges were before the court and that neither the prosecution nor any other party should comment on issues which will be subject to adjudication and on which evidence will be led in court.

    The police also gave a similar response: "Generally, in law, the offence of criminal breach of trust of monies is established once there is misappropriation of the monies with the requisite intent, regardless of whether there have or have not been subsequent attempts at restitution by the accused."

    klim@sph.com.sg

    ReplyDelete
  8. the statement earlier:-

    SINGAPORE - In a strongly worded statement posted on Thursday night, City Harvest Church is disputing the allegations that the church was cheated of $50 million, claiming that the sum was repaid to the church in full with interest.
    RELATED STORIES

    City Harvest talking points
    Sun Ho's $23 million attempt to break into Hollywood
    From $127k HDB flat to $9.3m Sentosa Cove penthouse
    $50.6m: Amount of funds misused
    He dared to question City Harvest
    More about this case

    "It has been suggested that the church has been cheated of $50 million. This is not accurate," said Mr Aries Zulkarnain, the executive pastor and a founding member of the church since its start 23 years ago.

    "The $24 million, which went to investment bonds, was returned to the church in full, with interest.

    "We didn't lose the $24 million, nor did we lose 'another $26.6m' as alleged. The church did not lose any funds in the relevant transactions, and no personal profit was gained by the individuals concerned," he claimed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/injunction-extended/#comments

    Sept 21 decision on bid to remove bishop

    by Kelimen Sawatan. Posted on August 4, 2012, Saturday

    KOTA KINABALU: The High Court here set Sept 21 this year to deliver its decision on whether a member of a church has locus standi to bring an action for the removal of the church’s bishop.

    High Court judicial commissioner Lee Heng Cheong will also decide on that day whether to maintain or set aside an interim injunction granted to the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from carrying his duties pending disposal of the suit.

    Lee deferred his ruling after hearing the inter-parte arguments from counsel Rakhbir Singh who acted for the plaintiff and counsel Ronny Cham who acted for the bishop and the holder who are named as first and second defendants respectively in the said suit filed in June, this year.

    Lee who heard the case in his chambers also ordered both parties to submit their written submissions pertaining to preliminary issues raised by the defendants.

    In yesterday’s proceedings, the court also agreed to allow the holding over of the plaintiff’s interim injunction and court order granted against the Bishop ex-parte on July 18, this year, up to the said ruling date.

    The interim injunction was that the first and/or the second defendant be restrained from carrying out their duties pertaining to any financial and/or management issues of and concerning the church in Sabah.

    Earlier on Ronny submitted that the civil suit was in contravention of Section 9 (1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 as under the section, it states that no suit can be brought against religious trust without the consent of the State Attorney-General.

    He also submitted that the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an action for the removal of the Bishop under the Constitution of Diocese of Sabah.

    In his suit filed on June 27, the plaintiff among others, claimed the defendants, one or more, jointly and severally, an order or a declaration that the first defendant is not a fit and proper person to hold the position as a bishop and an order that the first defendant be removed as bishop with immediate effect.

    He is also seeking an order and/or a declaration that the trust instrument under the Trustees (Incorporation) Ordinance CAP 148 dated July 3, 1968 is illegal, invalid, null and void and has no further effect.

    Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/08/04/sept-21-decision-on-bid-to-remove-bishop/#ixzz22Z4IVSiY

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some of you can do the following:-

    Present affidavit of support for this cause;
    Go for a press conference to support this case,
    Do a petition – hardcopy and/or online – to support this case..
    Do nothing and talk only means what?
    The ‘mountain’ would be there..

    What is wrong with pressure groups?

    Finally, raise enough fund which can be interpreted as real support if everyone
    gives RM1, 2 or 5 and that can add up…the money can be used for this cause and
    the transition..

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Police Report Karamunsing 013206/12 of 5 Aug, 2012



    Reference John Yeo’s Police Report – Karamunsing 012537/12 dated 23 July, 2012
    5 Aug 2012
    I, Kong Yun Chee @Joshua Kong wants to lodge a Police Report against John Yeo (651129-12-XXXX) who
    lodged a false report (marked J1 & J2) against me and others that on 22 July, 2012 between 9 and 10 am
    came to the office at the 2nd floor of Wisma Anglican, Kota Kinabalu. We did not come to the said office on
    22 July, 2012.
    John Yeo who called himself the Assistant .Bishop Anglican also made malicious and untrue statements in the
    said Police Report about me to instigate/urge/press the Police to take action against me expecting the Police to
    arrest me. John Yeo also stated I was suspected to cause serious trouble at the ground breaking ceremony at
    4pm on 24th July, 2012 in conjunction with the 50th Anniversary.
    I did turn up at the said Ground breaking ceremony and I was closely watched and followed by Puan Pastor
    Susan Tan (016-8190862 handphone; 225997 (h) of All Saints Cathedral and two other men not known to me
    until I left the ground at about 4.30pm. In front of Puan Pastor Susan Tan and one other very tall man dressed
    in black jacket and trouser, the chief church guard (short and stout) of the church pushed me by my right
    shoulder from the back and did not say sorry as I was talking to Puan Susan Tan. The guard was silent when
    I told them it was an assault. So all these criminal and intimidating/harassing action is likely instructed by John
    Yeo and Bishop Albert Vun.
    I am the plaintiff in a civil action against the Bishop Albert Vun Cheong Fui filed in the Kota Kinabalu High Court
    in June, 2012 reference BKI -22-128/6-2012.(marked J3)
    I want the Police to take the appropriate action for false report against John Yeo and others especially the chief
    guard in the related action under the Penal code as I feel unsafe to go to the All Saints Cathedral, Kota Kinabalu
    where I am a member and also attend the church services there with my wife.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please act fast now...


    We need your support to go about removal of the Bishop even with the interim injunction.

    Someone must act in that temporal scenario and APSEA cannot act as there is no vacancy.

    The Court can act if you people support this move and my lawyer can go on to the Court to do it.

    With the CoC the defendant would go to that ‘place’ hence there is a vacuum even right now..

    so….don’t despair as a new beginning for ADOS without any ‘mutiny’ is on the cards and we need
    to launch SAFE now.
    Reply

    ReplyDelete
  14. Some of you can do the following:-

    Present affidavit of support for this cause;
    Go for a press conference to support this case,
    Do a petition – hardcopy and/or online – to support this case..
    Do nothing and talk only means what?
    The ‘mountain’ would be there..

    What is wrong with pressure groups?

    Finally, raise enough fund which can be interpreted as real support if everyone
    gives RM1, 2 or 5 and that can add up…the money can be used for this cause and
    the transition..

    ReplyDelete
  15. Some one in thetruthasc wrote
    Quote: “‘Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?…”


    Actually this brewing problem could have been solved before the Saints on 1st April, 2012 at the AGM 2012, but the Chairman chickened out on a ‘time’ agenda to do something in his known modus operandi.
    Since he was not there to be ‘tried by the Saints of more than 500 for five hours, he has lost all that treatment, and should be ‘arrested’ by the Saints as he had lost all confidence of the Saints as he was voted out as acting dean/dean which he refused to go.
    So after that we called for dialogue and EGM, but none could be convened and useless with the Bishop’s prerogative power as exercised.
    AVCF did not reply to my AR Registered letter sent to him in early April soon after the AGM.
    So it is final item to go to Police Report on 11 April, but aborted and with that we had his reply on 15 April, 2012.
    So what is next is the legal action but only happened after AV sued me.
    The Archbishop also did not reply to me on the same AR registered letter to AVCF as extended to the Archbishop Bolly Lapok.
    So why still want to give chance to AVCF as his character is exposed when he used six terrible words in his affidavit..?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The judge is a Christian hence we do not go anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AVCF wrote his own judgement...


    Bishop’s Pastoral Letter 5th August 2012

    On the eve of our Jubilee Celebration, Joshua Kong served an interim injunction to stop me from performing any management duties and to make any financial transaction. The service of the injunction was published in the newspaper on the day when we celebrated the 50thanniversary of our Diocese. Despite the negative publicity, I am glad that the celebration was not dampened in any way.

    I know many have been very concerned to have our church matters now disputed in the public arena. In our defence, I have Mr. Ronny Cham, Datuk Stephen Foo (Diocesan Chancellor) and Rev. Kenneth Thien to advise and act on my behalf. Mr. Ronny Cham represented us in the hearing on the 3rd August to set the injunction aside. I have submitted to the court my sworn affidavit based on truth. The judge heard lawyers from both side in his chamber. Mr. Ronny Cham had on our behalf, raised 2 very pertinent legal points. Lawyer from the other side requested for an adjournment in order for them to file written submission. The judge wanted to hear arguments from both sides before making his judgment. In the meantime, the judge made an order to the effect that the injunction be of no more effect until he has made his final decision on our applications on 21 September 2012. With this latest development, we no longer come under the restriction of the injunction served on us. We pray and hope, the judge will decide in our favor to strike out the injunction and the suit.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Plaintiff had won 2 rounds on 18 July and 3rd Aug and would there be a third round in Court?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Who can believe that AVCF acted alone in his pastoral message Bishop’s Pastoral Letter 5th August 2012?

    Did the three stooges also professional lawyers tell him so?

    So who should pay for this subjudice material possible for contempt of court?

    So dreaming about settle out of court...and on what terms?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now it is only right for the Archbishop of Anglican Province of SEA to change his stance and come and support my High Court case for an easier settlement of the BISHOPGATE.

    more updates soon...

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://allsaintscathedralsabah.blogspot.com/2012/06/gods-righteouness-shall-prevail.html#comment-form


    Quote: "Anonymous29 June 2012 01:50

    If our Bishops Albert & John are portrayed " clinical clean ", will both of them declare & lay bare their asserts & bank accounts for all God's fearing Anglicans to see ?
    Was Albert not in the speeding spree buying up landed asserts ?
    Having a big fat bank accounts in Ireland already ?
    You should buy up sterling pound, rates very cheap at the moment & it will
    shoot rocket high after the Olympic games.With RM 14 million will translate to
    Sterling Pound 2.788 million, at current exchange rate.
    Did John Yeo, did you not buy a semi- D house fronting All Saints School in Likas Bay ?
    You guys should invest in Gold, anything happens to both of you after the investigation, both will be able to hold on the Gold investment or have a secret bank account open in Swiss.
    Good luck with both your investments & don't forget to sow back generously to ASC.,it will increase 1,000,000.00 folds.
    Amen. "


    This issue of RM14 million must be exposed properly now, and no more rumour here...

    How can the person mentioned be so rich?

    The investigation committee of HoB must have a close look at this.

    MACC also needs to into this..

    ReplyDelete

  22. http://allsaintscathedralsabah.blogspot.com/2011/12/call-for-repentance-to-bishop-of-sabah.html#comment-form

    Quote:Anonymous29 March 2012 07:37

    ASC member writes...

    Bav, ytc and the Lo's only talk about money and want the congregations to give more.

    Bav now travels throughout the world to earn extra money through his talks and sermons - using ADOS time and money to pay his airfares and Mary Vun's airfares.

    Last year, he earned no less than 18,000 English Pounds giving a talk on cell church in England. Each English had to pay 60 pounds a day and 130 pounds for 3 days to listen to his talks.

    This year during Chinese New Year, he went to Port Harcourt, Nigeria and earned about RM20,000.000. He wanted to go to Nigeria even though it was a very dangerous place to go - all because of the large sums of money he can earn.

    After Nigeria, he flew to England and preached at an independent church and earn 10,000 pounds on 29th January 2012.

    All these trips used Diocese moneys and time. But bav pocketed all the extra income himself.

    Did he pay tax on these extra incomes earned outside Sabah??

    Now we know why bav likes to fly away all the time - ytc and pastor stella lo can look after ASC for him. These 2 get extra allowances and big pay to hold the fort for bav each time he is away.

    Do we still give more to ASC?

    Very soon bav will sell the Heritage church shoplots (used by Canon Ronnie Liew's congregation) when the small group of worshippers there drop further.

    Very soon bav will sell the Likas Land where the former Prison Fellowship old building is found.

    Bav is only good in selling Diocese lands bought or applied by Bishop Chhoa and Bishop Yong.

    Bav did'nt buy big pieces of empty land to replace the 14 acres of Likas land he sold for RM31,000,000.00 in 2008. He should'nt have sold this land, now worth at least RM50,000,000.00.

    Bav only bought some shoplots and small pieces of expensive native title land in Sipitang - no prospects of big appreciation in value.

    Instead of writing on the blog, Anglicans should engage a non-Anglican lawyer to sue Bav and his cronies and put them in jail for abuses and personal benefits. It is difficult for an Anglican lawyer to take action because there will be too much pressure for him or her to drop the case.

    Set up a legal fund and we can protect our church properties and prevent the excesses and abuses too painful to list down here.
    Reply
    Replies

    MIGS-SABAH30 March 2012 04:41

    ASC member wrote "Last year, he earned no less than 18,000 English Pounds giving a talk on cell church in England. Each English had to pay 60 pounds a day and 130 pounds for 3 days to listen to his talks.

    This year during Chinese New Year, he went to Port Harcourt, Nigeria and earned about RM20,000.000. He wanted to go to Nigeria even though it was a very dangerous place to go - all because of the large sums of money he can earn.

    After Nigeria, he flew to England and preached at an independent church and earn 10,000 pounds on 29th January 2012."


    If this is true and not challenged by BAV, then a range of action can be initiated by ASC and its members and see how this will go forward.

    Income tax is not for us to get worried as it is foreign source.

    Joshua Y. C. Kong"

    still silent on it???

    ReplyDelete
  23. For those who want to see all lands transactions done by BAV should now apply to the High Court to have those transactions declared null and void.

    Who want to do it?


    First apply to the state AG for permission to sue the trustee to be safer although any aggrieved member can do that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://allsaintscathedralsabah.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-bishops-address.html
    INTERIOR15 November 2011 22:27
    Unforgetable memories at 26th DOS SYNOD....

    Bishop Vun loudly,boldly,arrogantly declared that....
    1. We must obey,listen to him as we have no choice bcz he's the current bishop.
    2. He intend to execute ALL his authorities & never surrender, even 1 inci.
    3. a Synod member got shamed from bishop vun for critise the trouble kokol project just because his church didn't donated much for the project.
    4. Eagerly in changing kk landscape.

    As an mature Anglican we ought to know how our financial situation. At the year ending 2009, our a/c had 49million.Major contribution from land sold to IJM (31M), our assessment amouting to 4M annually(squeezed from head to toe nonstop). major spending are salaries nearly 2.8M & young rev keep on increase,other expenditure are,mission ,evangelism,medical,outreach,scholarship,theological,welfare,education,repair & maintenance,renovations,vehicle,water,electricity & etc....
    Clearly this mega project can't sustain in long run..& truly unfair to us as it only benefit ASC.
    Bishop Vun kills the hen rather than taking their eggs.

    Do bear in mind our Bishop Vun are the next Archbishop.


    HOPING FOR THE BEST CHRISTMAS GIFT.???


    Where is the RM49millions now?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have been receiving some expectations on the remedies of the Court case especially on the outcome and the transition.

    My friends, please think about this and tell me what do you want to see to happen to ADOS for a better tomorrow.

    It is for God's glory.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have submitted to APSEA a dossier of 200pages on 16 Aug in conjunction with the Investigation of AVCF. Nothing to do with this case in High Court.

    E Court and High Court can be held in parallel.

    My focus was on this:--
    based on the Provincial and Diocese constitution on infirmity of mind and misbehaviour of the Bishop of Sabah..

    ReplyDelete


  27. Criminal indictment handed down against Bishop Dorai: The Church of England Newspaper, June 3, 2011 p 8. June 4, 2011

    At its Nov 30 meeting of the Executive Committee of the CSI Synod declined to take disciplinary action against the Bishop in Coimbatore. The bishop remained suspended from office, but the synod voted to allow the criminal case to guide the proceedings of any ecclesiastical trial.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am worried ecclesiastical Court of APSEA as too long to come.

    Anything also can happen to the E Court as it is a test case on a difficult case.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think anyone including the High Court can initiate Contempt of Court against AVCF, and
    any volunteer now and start drafting the Writ and I can supply the details.

    This round can be consolidated with my Writ against the defendants..good isn’t it?

    jknow823@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  30. Some update from the NOP--
    Before 30 aug, submission of affidavits from both parties and another replies within the next week n hearing on 21 Sept.

    Any suggestion of items, please get in touch with me..

    If you do hearing any rumours like "political interference" please let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://allsaintscathedralsabah.blogspot.com/2011/10/response-to-bishops-address.html#comment-form

    Very simple and clear message...



    Anonymous21 August 2012 05:02

    A letter for reference only


    From: Fu Tham Lau
    Date: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM
    Subject: Crisis at ASC.
    To: vunalbert@gmail.com
    Cc: thiamchoy@hotmail.com, stellalo@ymail.com, ascath@tm.net.my


    20/8

    Dear Rt.Rev.Bishop Datuk Vun,
    My name is F.T Lau from St.Patrick Tawau. I have been following the blog & thetruth and compelled to agree with some of the issues raised.
    Have Rt. Rev. Bishop Datuk engaged the parishioners and addressed all those issues raised, today the Churches in KK will not be so divided.

    The main issues raised is your leadership style, no transparency, accountability & you are always behaving more like a street fighter then a spiritual leader, a BISHOP of SABAH. Unfortunately, you have not change much, you behaved like what you did during your
    years in Tawau.

    The problems our mother Church, ASC is facing in KK was because of you. You are the root of all the issues and problems.

    If you have the hearts of all Anglicans in Sabah, in the name of Jesus Christ, I beg you to resign gracefully with dignity.

    God Bless and will reward a repent Bishop.
    Amen.

    Yours in Christ

    F. T Lau
    St.Patrick, Tawau
    Reply

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/my-confession/

    Quote: "There are only two routes for change: House of Bishops and the civil court.

    Thank theTruthasc for this focus now as you used to say that only HoB can resolve the Bishopgate.

    Now we need an agenda in SAFE to fulfil these two routes in complimentary role and interchangeable to get the ultimate results fast.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Extract from the Bishop writes – ASC Bulletin 26 Aug., 2012

    When Canon Thiam Choy convened a meeting for me to clear some of the misconceptions in a written objection submitted to the Diocese office, someone published in a local paper another of a “dialogue” in the name of Anglicans of the Sabah Diocese inviting all Anglicans to attend. I have never agreed to any such meeting. We were forced to call off our original meeting to avoid confusion. That was very unfortunate. And it was also presumptuous for anyone to publish a notice in the newspaper in the name of Anglicans of the Sabah Diocese. He/She has no right to represent all our members without consulting us. I ask all our members to maintain a high level of courtesy and mutual respect in dealing with our church matters. Even if there are disagreements, there are guidelines in the Bible to deal with them. To publish in the newspaper, to bring matters to court (where an unbeliever is asked to rule over us) and to shout in the worship service are certainly not what the Lord approves of. Let us all help to one another up for the common good. Let us not easily believe gossips and allegations that are untrue. Let us show ourselves matured and not be easily deceived by loose talks. In all that we do and say, let us remember to do everything in the far of the Lord and in the spirit of peace.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/same-old-excuses/comment-page-1/#comment-893

    Quote: “The truth is not all the 130 members were equally important to the Bishop. After scrutinizing the photos of the meeting published here, and the dossier compiled by the Bishop’s scouts, he called up several VIPs who attended Wednesday night’s meeting, including The truth is not all the 130 members were equally important to the Bishop. After scrutinizing the photos of the meeting published here, and the dossier compiled by the Bishop’s scouts, he called up several VIPs who attended Wednesday night’s meeting, including State Attorney General, Anthony Roderick Fernandes. If he didn’t call you after Wednesday night, it means you are not important enough to his survival.. If he didn’t call you after Wednesday night, it means you are not important enough to his survival.”

    Quote: "State Attorney General, Anthony Roderick Fernandes"

    why iS State AG involved with this case? Is he an Anglican member?.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good news for many---

    After getting consent from my learned and leading Counsel, I will be giving a Press Conference next saturday 8th Sept, 2012 and then a briefing for members who are interested.

    Thank you for your support in so many forms.

    The time and venue will be updated when confirmed.

    The major item is about the injunction as many people want to know the status.

    Please confirm if you are coming so that the venue is big enough.

    Joshua Y. C. Kong 012 8380897

    ReplyDelete
  36. PR called off..

    Private meetings OK.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Press Conference this saturday called off.

    SAFE is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  38. When the Bishop is removed…

    Constitution of Diocese of Sabah Article XII (Archbishop’s Advisory Board) and Article XV Vicar –General would be called into play
    Whether these two Articles are to be considered simultaneously or otherwise, it is not known as it has not been put into practice since 1962.
    Whichever in the present BISHOPGATE crisis, when the Bishop is removed by the High Court it is best the illegal and Constitution of Diocese of Sabah be suspended for the following reasons:-
    1. The ADOS Constitution needs to be reviewed and a new one to be created to resolve the many shortcomings as observed under Bishop Albert Vun.
    2. The Diocese Chancellor as head of the Archbishop Advisory Board would be temporarily in charge. The present office holder has failed in his duty as per Article XVII as the legal advisor for the Bishop and the Diocese. He is bias to the Bishop A Vun.
    3. The Diocesan Synod as per Article XII (2) would be bias as the delegates are largely appointees of Bishop Albert Vun.
    With such scenario, no revamp would be possible unless a transition committee is set up to clean up the many irregularities mainly due to the bias and illegal Constitutions of the Province, The Diocese and All Saints’ Cathedral.
    So a set of provisions by the Court Order to supervise the transition would be desirable to set a proper resolution of the BISHOPGATE in Diocese of Sabah.
    NB: DC as legal counsel certifies illegal, invalid, expired document as genuine to be used for official transactions of the trustee.

    Prepared by Joshua Y. C. Kong 4th September, 2012

    ReplyDelete
  39. who want to be my second plaintiff and get a sponsor to help with the costs of legal fees?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Now another three days to see action on 24 Sept. 2012.

    Pray for all especially the Judge.

    ReplyDelete
  41. September 17, 2012 - 8:57 am Anonymous

    PROPHETS, LAW COURTS & JUDGES

    1. PROPHETS

    The topic of prophets was not an intended subject of discussion. Since the subject came as a by product of a blogger adamantly calling himself a prophet, we might as well take a tour and treat it as part of our Bible Study here where God reveals to us His true teachings. Let us go to Deut 18: 19 – 22 (NIV):-

    19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

    21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

    It is clear there is a warning in the Bible we do not take it lightly, by simply claiming to be a prophet and take it as joke. According to the passages above, the sentence for person who presumed to speak in God’s name on anything God has not commanded is death.

    2. LAW COURTS

    Many in this blog and others claim that the ONLY way to resolve the AV issue is through the Ecclesiastes Court (EC) only. They say it is NOT Biblical to bring a Christian to a Law Court by quoting 1Cor 6: 1 – 6, which were quoted out of context and ignorance. The judge is a Christian judge. In the Synod, AV also claimed that it is unholy that someone should bring him to face a pagan court. AV conveniently forgot he sued the plaintiff BEFORE he, AV, was sued in the Law Court. This is the unprincipled type of man we have running ADOS. He will use the Bible (or anything else at his disposal) to suit himself or for his benefit. It is clear he is a “Do as I say; Don’t do as I do” man.

    We now go and see what God teaches us in the OT under Deut17: 8 – 13:-

    8 If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, LAWSUITS or assaults—take them to the place the LORD your God will choose. 9 Go to the Levitical priests AND TO THE JUDGE who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. 10 You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. 11 Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. 12 ANYONE WHO SHOWS CONTEMPT FOR THE JUDGE or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH. You must purge the evil from Israel. 13 ALL THE PEOPLE WILL HEAR AND BE AFRAID, AND WILL NOT BE CONTEMPTUOUS AGAIN. (emphases added)

    It is clear God allowed Law Courts to be set up. Yet AV as priest trained in the Bible deliberately chose to ignore this. He is even contemptuous of the Court Order given tcono him by the Judge and defied the instructions given in the Court Injunction. He is fortunate he is not living in the OT days, where the penalty for Contempt of Court is death. Such is the “holy man” we have running ADOS.

    to be continued--

    http://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/what-bav-doesnt-want-you-to-know-part-3/

    ReplyDelete
  42. cont'd

    3. JUDGES

    Under Deut16: 18 – 20, it says:-

    18 APPOINT JUDGES and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and THEY SHALL JUDGE THE PEOPLE FAIRLY. 19 DO NOT PERVERT JUSTICE OR SHOW PARTIALITY. DO NOT ACCEPT A BRIBE, FOR A BRIBE BLINDS THE EYES OF THE WISE AND TWISTS THE WORDS OF THE INNOCENT. 20 FOLLOW JUSTICE AND JUSTICE ALONE, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD your God is giving you. (emphases added)

    Once again, it is clear judges were allowed in the OT and God instructed that the judges are to judge the people fairly, not to pervert justice or show partiality, not to accept bribes and TO FOLLOW JUSTICE AND JUSTICE ALONE.

    Coming back to the AV case, surely AV would prefer to face no court at all. Be it EC or LC. If he has a choice, AV would prefer to face the EC only as it can at most sack him, defrock him and cut off his worldly benefits. Surely, he and his henchmen and women do not wish him to face the Law Court as the sentence of a Law Court, if one is found guilty of Contempt of Court or Fraud or Criminal Breach of Trust, is a custodial jail sentence
    Reply
    September 17, 2012 - 12:50 pm Dustin Lam

    Well said. A Law Court case would open up a can of worms. ..get rid of these (those involved), and we’ll experience recovery through discovery of the mess Albert has created. Question is: Who will he take down with him? If greed is the fundamental drive to his demise, then we should not underestimate how conniving he is. Won’t surprise me if he is now planning to stash some cash before the final hurrah while still having the stewardship at his disposal.

    ReplyDelete

  43. PRESS RELEASE by Plaintiff Joshua Y. C. Kong Vs Bishop of Sabah

    The defendants writing in his message “I will defend myself and my office as the Bishop of Sabah. And to help our Diocese to know that we have done everything above board, time will be given in this Synod to go through all our land and property transactions so we can answer any queries and hopefully clear all these for all our Synod delegates.” Source – 27th Diocesan SYNOD, Diocese of Sabah held at All Saints’ Cathedral, 30th August – 1stSeptember, 2012.
    Yet since the case emerged on 23rd July, 2012, the Defendant had relied on the Locus Standi of the Plaintiff under the Government Proceeding Act 1956 and the power to remove the Bishop to avoid going into the wrongdoings as alleged committed by the defendants since 2006. If every thing was done above board, why fear a proper trial in the Civil Court on the merits? There are no other way to clear those very serious alleged crimes except by the Civil courts.
    What the Judge did was a technical item by setting aside the ex parte Court Order of 18th July, 2012.
    The public especially the Anglicans of Sabah would like to know what the Bishop wants to tell them through the Courts.
    The Counsel of the Plaintiff would not appeal on the ruling of the Judge but instead would refile the case to go on the merits
    The Merits of the case is very important and needs to be addressed accordingly.
    The plaintiff would like to thank the Counsel Mr Rakhbir Singh and the Honorable Judge Tuan Lee Heng Cheong for the ruling.

    Joshua Kong

    ReplyDelete
  44. come back for an updated one after the Notes of Proceeding and Decision Paper are obtained from the Judge.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The decision of the case on Court Order is all in the 4 newspapers - Borneo Post front page; Daily Express - page 2 top; Utusan Borneo - page 5; New Sabah times - page 10.

    I want legal opinion if Ronny Cham goes to the Public trial in the newspaper, can I also do likewise to expose his arguments as flawed and also to expose what Ronny Cham trying to cover up the merits of the case?

    so it would be decided by a PUBLIC trial soonest possible and then convict the defendant...


    still pending NOP and grounds for decision...

    ReplyDelete
  46. From TheTruthASC:---

    Quote: “LIM

    To Joshua Kong

    Thank you for your great effort to bring AV to court. Perhaps you need to get more advice and learn proper procedures before filing another suit as It do cost money and a lot of your time. Study it more in detail and please do not jump the gun. Also do not make “frantic’ statement openly when present at the church. It is uncalled for. (No offence.)”

    Thank you for your comment. I wish you and others were there when I first called for action first with Police Report and then it is up to God to lead me where I go – almost all alone -[ you can check the process in ascblog].

    In any legal case, we do not know what the other side would throw things – anythings back.

    Even learned top lawyers like Tan Sri CKK and Ansari also lost simply of locus standi in the mazu case..

    I wonder what “frantic” statement you mean? I seldom stay long in church since early this year.

    Anyway, my writ is still ALIVE …and so would you come in now?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Daily Express 25th September, 2012

    Court allows objection raised by Bishop
    Jo Ann Mool,
    Kota Kinabalu: The High Court here allowed the preliminary objections raised by the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Sabah pertaining to the suit brought by a member and beneficiary of the church.
    Judicial Commissioner Lee Heng Cheong made his decision on three grounds, namely, that the Plaintiff Joshua Kong had no locus standi to take up the action against the Bishop Datuk Albert Vun Cheong Fui.
    Lee, according to counsel Ronny Cham, who represented the Defendants, also ruled that there are uncertainty of party or the wrong party being sued and also cited the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956.
    Lee set aside the Ex parte interim injunction granted to the plaintiff on July 18 this year, which allowed the plaintiff to gather all documents and records of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah for the purpose of scrutiny.
    Kong had on June 26 this year filed a writ of summons against Vun in his capacity as the Bishop of the Anglican church of Sabah, as well as himself as the first and second defendants respectively.
    In his statement of claims, the plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had breached his duty of care as a trustee of the congregation of the church and that the way the defendant managed the Diocese and some establishment under him including the financial affairs was not transparent to the members and the beneficiaries at large.
    As a result, the plaintiff claimed the congregation had suffered serious financial losses.
    The plaintiff among others, sought an order of declaration that the first defendant is not a fit and proper person to hold the position and should be removed as a bishop with immediate effect.
    Among others in the defendants’ preliminary objections, Cham had submitted that it was a case of suing the wrong party as the first and second defendant was the same person, therefore, it was not a case of joining the wrong parties as there was only one defendant.

    Cham also submitted that the plaintiff sued a first defendant who does not exist legally, as the defendant does not hold an office of “trustee of the Anglican church of Sabah” as in the heading of the summons which referred to Vun.
    Cham also submitted that the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an action for the removal of the Bishop and management, administration and disposition of the funds of the Diocese under the provisions of the Trustee (Incorporation) Ordinance Cap 148 of Sabah or under the provision of the Constitution of the Diocese of Sabah.
    He said it was because the power to appoint and the power to remove the trustee under the said Ordinance or under the provisions of the Constitution of the Diocese of Sabah was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and now devolved upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province of the Anglican church in South East Asia under the provision of the Constitution of the Province.
    He also submitted that the ex-parte injunction automatically expired on Aug 8 by operation of Order 29 rule 1 (2B) of the Rule of the High Court 1980.
    Cham urged the Court that the ex-parte order dated July 18 should be set aside and the suit struck off.
    Meanwhile counsel Rakhbir Singh, who represented the plaintiff said they would not appeal the ruling of the Judge but instead file afresh to hear the matter on the merits. .


    NOP is at hand now.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Is there any 'drama' on Ronny this morning in the Court over his 'exposures' as alleged?

    ReplyDelete
  49. why a defence now so quick after 24th Sept 2012?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I need a second plaintiff to go on with the court Case.

    Just contact me on jknow823@gmail.com.

    or 012-8380897

    ReplyDelete
  51. from thetrithasc

    https://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/stand-comm-misses-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-2486

    Quote: Anon,
    "A forensic audit on the diocesan accounts, all the church accounts and all the projects under AV will be the only way to nab the culprits. Anything less will not bring closure to this sad episode of ADOS."

    The forensic audit is too costly and can be unreliable if the audit firm is linked to this group 'fm', forensic audit is incapable to do much if most records are missing or badly manipulated.

    So the closest effort is my civil court case on secular matters and I need some help here...contact me on jknow823@gmail.com or 012-8380897, no need to spend any more money now.

    ReplyDelete
  52. https://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/stand-comm-misses-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-2487

    quote ":October 5, 2012 - 3:42 pm Kenneth Chia

    Go For Criminal Prosecution ! Not Civil court Action. Several Crimes have been committed such as CBT , Fraud , Grand Theft ,Misuse of Fund, Labour law & human right violation , Corruption. Paul Liew as Diocesan Secretary , who is also a member of the SC as such he is also bear the responsibility , He is NOT merely a Messenger for the SC. The Committee ‘s decision & responsibility is Collective . !"

    Tell me how to go about this. Isn't this the job of the Police and Federal AG?

    You got good connection to do it fast?

    You know what happen to the MACC case on Musa Aman and the Federal AG over the deal in transfer of S$16m?

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  54. EARLY edition


    Press Release of Joshua Y. C. Kong – the Plaintiff in a Civil Court against the Bishop of Sabah 12th October, 2012



    At today’s Pre-Trial Case Management on my Writ of Summons of 26th of June, 2012 by the High Court Judge Justice Datuk David Wong Dak Wah, we expect to have some clarification of what is about to emerge in my case.



    This case has attracted much public interest and I as the plaintiff did not abuse the honourable court by filing this case against the Bishop of Sabah who is also Registered Trustee under the Trustees (Incorporation) Ordinance (Sabah Cap 148) which is under challenge in my Writ. Whether the position of the Registered Trustee is legal or otherwise, it is triable be it I have locus standi or not. What is wrong from the beginning the first Defendant took office as Bishop of Sabah, he automatically was made the sole trustee of the Diocese of Sabah as a tradition, but several major questions of his appointment need to be addressed. What Ronny Cham said in the Daily Express on 25th September, 2012 about this trusteeship is superficial.



    Whether the wrong party was sued does not really arise and definitely I did not sue the Church which has triggered the concept of “Religious Trust”. Nevertheless, there was no wrong party in the mind of the Defendants as the Bishop of Sabah has repeatedly pledged in writing to the members of the Anglican church that he will defend himself against the elements of the court case. So why the Defendants choose to be hiding under locus standi and the Government Proceeding Act 1956 to avoid a full and fair trial to clear all the allegations in the Court documents?



    Ronny in the said Daily Express titled “Court allows objection raised by Bishop” that the Plaintiff as a member has no locus standi and right to demand the removal of the Bishop but it is public knowledge in the other Anglican communions where the Civil Court had done justice to mete out sentences and removal of Bishop. If the Anglican Provincial Constitution of Church in South East Asia allows anyone to lodge complaint to the House of Bishops in the Province against any clergy including the Archbishop and Bishop, so my effort is in order to bring to the Civil Court for proper justice especially secular matters with respect to trusteeship and violations thereof. So let the High Court decide on the removal of Bishop of Sabah especially on the question of abuses of trusteeship and not handling with fiduciary care over the assets of the Diocese.



    The Daily Express had also stated “Cham urged the Court that the ex-parte order dated July 18 should be set aside and the suit struck off.” The demand to strike off my Writ does connote a conflict of interest and fear related of the dirt to be exposed for his client who had written much about his writing truth and speaking the truth, and if the 2nd Defendant is really innocent, then let the case go on to prove his innocence.



    So today, my lawyer considering to refile the case would find out what are expected of this case for trial on the merit of the case and I would urge any concerned person to give support to this case.





    Thank you,



    Joshua Y. C. Kong

    Plaintiff 012-8380897; 013-8394513

    ReplyDelete
  55. The fact Ronny failed to strike out my Writ of Summons on 15th October, 2012 is a victory for God's church..

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous wrote: "If he is not suspended,he can use the church funds to fight in his court case which is not fair to JK who has to find his own funds to fight for the truth"

    Questions:-

    1. As long as he is in office, AVCF is using church funds and resources to 'cover-up' his case with LIES at the expenses of the church. Many whammies, and yet the socalled 'holy people' can tolerate this.

    2. The church I am fighting for with no personal gain should also help out with costs and fees, allowances etc. God bless all.

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

    ReplyDelete
  57. We need more legal opinions in this case..

    ReplyDelete
  58. The key phrase there is "maintain state funding". To some bureaucrats, there is no greater crime than to lose some funding from some higher govt authority.Criminal Attorney NY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Chill,

      What do you intend to tell me what to do next in this case.

      I presume you have read of the fact of the this case and would appreciate your opinion please.

      Thank you.

      Joshua

      Delete