For my earlier case, there was no Judgement on the case proper except struck out for lack of locus standi under Government Proceeding ACt 1956 and "wrong party". The Truth must be exposed to the full. What is it now res judicata??? Any learned lawyer here? We need to refile my case. Or we can can start the perjury case now. Joshua
http://thetrutheng.com/2014/03/06/daily-express-reports-on-the-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-9947
Re: Article titled “Suit against Anglican Bishop dismissed” of DE 6th
March, 2014 p9
START OF PRESS RELEASE
I would like to lodge my personal
protest over the inaccuracies/misrepresentation and defamatory insinuations in
the above article.
The defamatory insinuations and
statements as published may or may not refer to the Diocesan Chancellor Datuk
Stephen Foo as the article started with “Datuk Stephen Foo refused to comment
on the legal case brought by some
disgruntled Anglican parishioners against the Sabah Anglican Bishop,
when asked by Daily Express. The
question of confusion is that if Foo refused to comment, then where did the
defamatory words “some disgruntled”
come about? Did the Daily Express
with unnamed writer coin such words?
Also who made the mistake both in the heading and the quoted sentence
when it was the Archbishop Bolly Lapok as one of the defendants and not Sabah
Anglican Bishop? Then the confusion to
the readers could link me to be disgruntled as my name appears toward the last
portion of the article. When was I a
disgruntled parishioner?
Surprisingly very naughty and
even seditious in the context of Christianity to suggest that statement later
and I quote “Christians should not resort to legal action as stated in the
Bible. A lot of accusations as published
were hearsay” and was this statement made by Foo or Daily Express or an
unspecified person? If accusations as
published were hearsay, surely there is a recourse to punish such activities
otherwise whoever had said this is guilty beyond doubt.
Further salt to injury against
parishioners was added by Foo when he was reported “The freedom of speech
includes the freedom not to say or publish anything.” In this misplaced statement
of Foo, I would like to remind him of his response to the Daily Express’s
article “Bishop under probe” dated 12 July, 2012 page 2 indicating several
items of Criminal Breach of Trust and his subsequent response as published in
the letters forum in Daily Express of 22nd July, 2012 in which he
acknowledged the unnamed Bishop was an Anglican Bishop and that he mulled
litigation against that article, after the Roman Catholic Church had disclaimed
that their bishop was not under probe.
Did Foo initiate any litigation process against that article? If not why not? Christians should not have short memory.
I am not to dwell into the recent
case by two plaintiffs against the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province
of churches in South East Asia (APSEA) as I am unsure of the issues raised in
those Court documents. What I know is
that there is full Judgement by the High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari
Kamali Bin Ramli after adjournments during the final process and including some
changes in the trial Judge. The case was
started on August 30, 2013 and the
Judgement came about on 29th January, 2014 after several hearings in
chamber on 3rd December, 2013, 17th December, 2013 and
final decision was supposed to be on 24th
January with VC in open court but again postponed to 29th January,
2014 in Chamber of the Judge for the full Judgement against the Plaintiffs on
the “non legal entity” of APSEA with a possibility of Appeal of 30 days thereof
with costs of RM15,000 to the defendant.
As my name was mentioned in the
sixth paragraph from the end of the said article, some professionals and
readers maybe confused why my case was also included when the Judge on APSEA
case as reported that “On this ground (non legal entity) alone I am of the
opinion that the Plaintiff’s application should be dismissed and I so
order.” The said article seems so happy
to add on the terms “Res Judicata” and “Estoppel”. Was this in the Judgement of the honourable
High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari?
I hope Daily Express can publish the full Judgement please.
As far as my case is concerned
started in late June 2012 with an Exparte hearing on for an Order on Anton
Pillar in mid July by High Court Judicial Commissioner Lee Heng Cheong (transferred
later) to obtain documents for the Anglican Diocese of Sabah and ended in mid
December, 2012 and widely reported in the press initially without my name and then
my name was revealed in the press to show courage and not cheap publicity. In this article of 6th March,
2014, why should my name be brought in when there was no full Judgement as the
full trial did not take place except arguments on technicalities such as locus
standi and wrong party. So how is it
that the legal principle of Res Judicata comes into play with the case against
APSEA? The bulk of my legal documents
presented in Writ of Summons and several bulky Affidavits and supporting
documents to the High Court were just ignored by the defendants..
I wonder why DE did not refer the
matters to C Fu and I prior to the publication of the article to get a balanced
disposition to the enlightened readers of all faiths. The
article as it is does give a picture of “contamination” of some “disgruntled”
Christians when the undesirable words used like “disgruntled”, “freedom of
speech”, “accusations” and “hearsay” need to be defined in the proper
perspective for true justice as such words are regularly in the lips of the
bishop both from the pulpit and official bulletins of the Church to which
parishioners have no avenue to reply.
I hope your paper would publish
this letter/press release/article in FULL to clear the air of sort of deception
and contamination by the yeast coming from some quarters.
End of PRESS RELEASE OF JOSHUA Y.
C. KONG.
Thank you,
Joshua Kong
No comments:
Post a Comment