Ronny Cham sue all those who defame you because you are good lawyer.
The Truth
Seeking the truth behind Anglican Diocese of Sabah's Crisis
May 26, 2014
Sad, Sad Day http://thetrutheng.com/2014/05/26/sad-sad-sad/comment-page-1/#comment-15616
In fact they have also abdicated the defence of this court case to Bishop Albert Vun. This is a case between an Anglican member versus Archbishop Bolly Lapok who was represented by Ronny Cham. Yet when a judge asked Cham where does the Archbishop reside, Cham could not answer. The plaintiff’s lawyer Roderick Fernandes gave the answer to court. How can Cham not know where his client resides? Lest we accused a senior lawyer of being sloppy, his client is likely to be BAV. The next question is why did Bolly allow BAV to act on behalf of the Province? It fuels the speculation the HOB is in cahoots with BAV. Can we expect the three Bishops to be impartial at the ecclesiastical court?The Truth
Seeking the truth behind Anglican Diocese of Sabah's Crisis
· 中文, BM
· About
January 5, 2015 http://thetrutheng.com/2015/01/05/hob-conceded-finally/
HOB Conceded Finally
We are glad that the legal case we took up against the House of Bishops (HOB) is finally behind us, after the Counsel for HOB, Ronny Cham withdrew the Motion for leave to the Federal Court on 24th November 2014. It was also agreed that there will be no order for Cost in the Federal Court. This means the case is finally closed.
Finally, the HOB accepted that it had lost the case and could not win at the Federal Court after the Court of Appeal gave its judgment against them in May. This is a wise decision on their part, because going forward may cost them more financially and bring greater humiliation if they lost again. This decision, although made at the last minute before the Federal Court started to hear its application, may be the most intelligent decision they made in this crisis.
We have yet to receive the refund of cost paid by us, amounting to RM 15,000.00 after the High Court awarded cost to the Defendant. When the judgment was overturned on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Defendant was ordered to refund us the money. In addition, the Defendant was also ordered to pay cost for the High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings amounting to RM30,000.00. These claims are long overdue. However, Ronny Cham had given our lawyer his word that HOB will settle the debt. Once these claims are received, we will write up the account and honor the pledge on how the fund shall be utilized. They have up to 7th December 2014 to pay the sum of RM 45,000.00 or else contempt action will be taken against them.
We had fought a good fight and we want to take this opportunity to thank our lawyer and our plaintiffs for their sacrifices. We also want to thank all who had support us in this cause, financially, with prayers and with encouragements. We thank God for His Grace to let truth be established and revealed. Let it be a lesson to all who are in authority that no one is above the law.
Legal Action Task Force
Share this:
· Twitter
·
Related
4 comments
What say Stephen Foo who decided to go on and on? Why stop now???
2.
3.
Dear The Truth,
5.
Can it be make possible to post on the investigations, findings & recommendation done to HBO on the wholesale abuses
of BAV ( 40 abuses ) soon ?
ADOS parishioners has the absolute rights to know nothing but all the truth on the abuses done by the late BAV.
On behalf of my group, I thank you sincerely for an excellent job done, without this channel, things would have been swept under the carpet & ADOS would has gone bust by now.
of BAV ( 40 abuses ) soon ?
ADOS parishioners has the absolute rights to know nothing but all the truth on the abuses done by the late BAV.
On behalf of my group, I thank you sincerely for an excellent job done, without this channel, things would have been swept under the carpet & ADOS would has gone bust by now.
6.
7.
The disputed items of income – Fixed Deposit Interest and Properties Rental
9.
Michael Tong, who succeeded Paul Chong as the Honorary Treasurer of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah from the year of 2012, had responded to the widespread criticism of church leaders’ dishonest behavior and acted “appropriately” by disclosing the Fixed Deposit Interest and Rental Income for the years of 2012 and 2013.
10.
He might have realized the serious consequences he has to face up if a conduct in which there is a design of an ulterior motive to commit deceit of the church funds is uncovered. His positive response, possibly due to professional ethics, has reflected the leadership’s recognition that it needs to improve governance, transparency and respond to public opinion.
11.
The aforementioned income and that of Year 2010 and Year 2011 is given below for public information:
(A) Interest Income from Fixed Deposit at an average sum of RM35,000,000.00
Year 2012 – RM 926,226 / Year 2013 – RM876, 471
Year 2010 – RM 356,482 / Year 2011 – RM 0.00
(A) Interest Income from Fixed Deposit at an average sum of RM35,000,000.00
Year 2012 – RM 926,226 / Year 2013 – RM876, 471
Year 2010 – RM 356,482 / Year 2011 – RM 0.00
12.
(B) Rental Income from Diocesan’s properties
Year 2012 – RM 468,036 / Year 2013 – RM456, 398
Year 2010 – RM 0.00 / Year 2011 – RM 0.00
Year 2012 – RM 468,036 / Year 2013 – RM456, 398
Year 2010 – RM 0.00 / Year 2011 – RM 0.00
13.
The above comparison has revealed a fact that may cause suspicion upon church leaders’ integrity. Church members are inclined to ask the following questions:
1. Why did the church receive only RM356, 482 as fixed deposit interest income for Year 2010? What was the prevailing interest rate in that year?
2. There was no fixed deposits interest received for Year 2011. Were there any special arrangements with the banks for the sum of RM35,000,000 placed with them?
3. Why did the church not receive any rental income for the years of 2010 and 2011?
4. Can Michael Tong release more details about the relevant income for the period from Year 2006 to Year 2009?
1. Why did the church receive only RM356, 482 as fixed deposit interest income for Year 2010? What was the prevailing interest rate in that year?
2. There was no fixed deposits interest received for Year 2011. Were there any special arrangements with the banks for the sum of RM35,000,000 placed with them?
3. Why did the church not receive any rental income for the years of 2010 and 2011?
4. Can Michael Tong release more details about the relevant income for the period from Year 2006 to Year 2009?
14.
Perhaps, there are some other reasons that we do not know about and we need church leaders’ explanation.
15.
16.
The maze-like Financial Report of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah
18.
“Did Michael Tong rectify the past years’ accounting errors prior to his preparation of the Diocesan’s Financial Statements for Year 2012 and 2013?” This is the question that has been repeatedly asked by church members — solely due to the leaders’ lies and deception which have shattered their trust in them.
19.
Some of the accounting errors, which should be more appropriately regarded as “intentional mistakes” , were allegedly designed to siphon out church money , have aroused a great deal of church members’ interest in finding out how the entries involving the lost of more than 10 millions of Ringgit were posted in the ledgers.
20.
For example, the late Bishop Vun, believed to have been misled and instilled with a sense of superiority by the Standing Committee, had blatantly violated the Diocesan’s Constitution by acquiring properties in Thailand and registered under private ownership. Not only did they went against the Constitution which does not allow them to buy properties outside Sabah and Labuan, they had for unknown reason posted the relevant entries under expenses instead of fixed assets in the ledger. Did the acquisition, which was factually transacted against the normal procedure, constitute any criminal offence?
21.
Unless there is a persuasive explanation that would justify this disputed issue, church members have every reason to believe that church leaders are dressing their unethical schemes under the guise of doing missionary work.
22.
23.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
25.
No through road, first the auditors for ADOS for 2012 and 2103 is unconstitutional as it is not honorary and so the precedence of illegalities aplenty of AVCF had been perpetrated like criminals. (please read the ADOS Constitution). Don’t expect anyone to do justice to the accounts after the rottenness since 2006. All those in the standing committee should be charged for criminal offence. Let them come forward now.
26.
27.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
29.
With this milestone case, ADoS much impact a sea change to the Province of Anglican Churches in South East Asia by transformation in concept, structure, supervision and management of the affairs of the church as a better vehicle to bring back the confidence of the public at large. Whatever happened in the past had been shrouded with secrecy and hidden agenda.
Ronny Cham and his gang of questioned lawyers should apologise to Anglican churches.We are glad that the legal case we took up against the House of Bishops (HOB) is finally behind us, after the Counsel for HOB, Ronny Cham withdrew the Motion for leave to the Federal Court on 24th November 2014. It was also agreed that there will be no order for Cost in the Federal Court. This means the case is finally closed
RC had withdrawn the application for notice of Appeal in the Federal Court on 24 Nov., 2014 and so he and his gang must publish an apology to the Christians and Anglicans for the disrepute to all.
Even when Albert (his defacto client) was not around since July, 2014, he made no effort to stop the rot since then but chose to drag on until Nov 2014 when all the way since 2012, the rottenness of Albert was known.
Ronny chose to ignore that even with my laborious suit against Albert in July, 2012 when his modus operandi was known.
So Ronny Cham ask your client Bolly Lapok to release what the High Court or later the Appeal court had dealt with - all the rubbish of Albert - to be exposed for proper cleansing and not to be swept under the carpet.
Ronny, you should know what is Contempt of Court and how can an article by Stephen Foo appear in Daily Express on 6th March, when the content is deemed a CoC. Apply to the Court to redeem yourself and your gang in this CoC so that you all can find some peace in JAIL. Bring with you Bolly Lapok as well and that is true justice to Christians.
I will move a motion in ASC AGM on 29 March, 2015.
I don't know whether this blog is still active. On this day, 19/11/2019, I just stumbled on this blog be accident. Being misinformed is worse than ignorance. The Court of Appeal's decision dated 1.10.2014 was decided by Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahim JCA, Rahana Binti Yusuf JCA and Abang Iskandar Bin Abang Hashim JCA, ordering (1) HOB to provide the 'complainants' the Report and Recommendation of the Provision Advisory Committee and (2) to convene a hearing of the Ecclesiastical Court. I withdrew FC application for leave to appeal on the legal issue of whether HOB can be sued. High Court found that HOB cannot be sued because HOB is not a registered body. Court of Appeal reversed it. (I can send the Judgment to anyone who wish to read.) To fight against Court of appeal decision, I have to maintain that the High Court is correct, i.e., HOB or therefore Anglican Diocese of Sabah is NOT a legal entity (therefore illegal?). I professionally and in my spirit, felt that such argument will be gravely detrimental to the Church. I withdrew on the basis that there is no order as to costs, rather than being ordered to pay costs. I fought for the Anglican Church pro bono basis, was there any lawyers in Anglican Church to fight for it? I am not an Anglican.
ReplyDelete