338. Good riddance ???

 July 9, 2014 - 5:18 am joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

APSEA has submitted Notice to the Court for leave to appeal in the Federal Court.
Should not Rosalind file a case to strike out the Notice for leave of appeal as it is meaningless to declare oneself as Non Legal Entity and yet can apply for further hearing. There is no other ground to appeal.
Also it was a “misjudgement” by the High Court to declare APSEA as non legal entity when APSEA has a valid Constitution which gives it its legal entity like Malaysia is governed by the Federal Constitution.
I believe Ronney submitted Res Judicata regard my case when it was not heard at all. So it is perjury on the part of Ronney to have misled the Court.
APSEA also had applied for 21 days from the day it filed notice to submit the paper, which I believe was to be for the purpose of Synod as 90 days would be outside the ruling by the Appeal Court to have convened and settled the Ecclesiastical Court.


Finally on 20 June, 2014, Ronney filed the notice for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

I don't know on what ground the appeal is based.  If it is on the non legal entity, how can APSEA go on to appeal?
 APSEA is founded on a Constitution which gives its legal entity like Malaysia is governed by its Federal Constitution.

So Rosalind should file a case to strike out the notice based on wasting time and money as AVCF just want pass by Synod in Aug/Sep 2014 to play dirty at the Synod.  Joshua


Do we know what is happening now as the appeal to the Federal Court is soon time barred?
E-Court?  Bolly goes to jail?  AVCF sets up his own province in Sabah without sanction from Archbishop of Canterbury if AVCF is not forced to resign?  What is Archbishop of Canterbury doing?  Anglican Province in SEA is a history now? The message of God is ending soon. Joshua




I think Bolly is retiring as his term of Archbishop of APSEA of 4 years  is ending.  So if Bolly retires, then who would be the Archbishop?  Is it Bishop of Malaya?  But if Bolly does not retires before the 90 days for the E-Court to be established, and he fails to convene it with all the obstacles in his path, then what is next?  Joshua




Where would the E-Court be established or sitting if it is ever to be held?  Kuching or Kota Kinabalu?
Have we considered the costs to be involved?  How long would the E-Court be sitting?  Who would be panel of Judges?  If it is by the 3 bishops and some selected clergy and laity, I strongly believe it is a gone case as far as the decision to be made by this panel likely all the AVCF men except that all the dirty linen would be washed "clean" or "cleaner" with HoBs washing powder at the E-Court for the public to imagine.  Also the two bishops namely the Singapore and Kuching are going to be buddies to AVCF, leaving the odd one out and on that count with the weight in favour of the HoBs, AVCF would likely escape the appropriate punishment.  What kind of impact on the likely judgement that would  be swayed by the clergy and laity as these selected or appointed ones would be just sitters like those in the Synod's biennal General Assembly.  So why should we have this kind of questioned scenario?  The Bishops have gone so far as laughing stock and nothing is going to embarrass them any longer if they just choose to be continued laughing stock.  So it is going to be messier.  It was already very messy even with washing of feet (AVCF had no part in this) and that was the "evil" practice of two non Anglicans to shame the Anglicans in none other Moses Tay and Herbert Tong and soon God would know how to deal with them to shame Christians with falsehood.  Joshua

May 28, 2014 - 12:51 pm joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

All Saints Cathedral members,
Please don’t be lulled by this sudden victory in the Appeal Court and we do not know it is already appealed to Federal Court but a lot of work need to be done and more work in evidence if the E-Court is suddenly convened to "out-play" or thwart those persons involved with the complaints and the PAC investigation with unprepareness as most people are busy with own life. Also as it is a new maiden case in E-Court, we do not know what to expect? So we need to get ready with all the “bullets” to give no change for AVCF to escape the final episode with the finality that is fatal indeed.



What actually happened to the High Court judge who declared APSEA as non legal entity.  We all know that the three Christian missions Anglican, RC and Basel had the concession to be self regulatory.  If APSEA with a Provincial Constitution all rectified by the four Anglican regional bodies namely Singapore, West Malaysia/Malaya, Kuching/Sarawak, and Sabah and had been functioning until AVCF played it up, has become non legal entity, then Malaysia (Federal Constitution), Sarawak, Sabah all have their own Constitution should also be non legal entities but Malaysia is a legal entity.  If Constitution is an issue Ronny Cham should have filed a case to the HighCourt for this ruling separately.  It is a deception of RC to have not acted on it.  Also how did the judge Azahari know anything about my very complicated case which was simply ruled on locus standi status without a trial proper and yet RES JUDICATA was raised in the High Court in the APSEA case.  All miscarriage of Justice and can I blame Ronny Cham, Stephen Foo and others especially the news article by Stephen in Daily Express by an anonymous writer on 6th March, 2014   Joshua

Maybe this is just a story where A had a sweet "vengeance" now as A wanted to be the head then as A was more senior than B but C - the one to have the final say then-was not happy with A hence B got it and a very disgruntled person wrote the script and put into action and finally the Anglicans are shamed in Civil Court for the sham established by A.  You all know who is this C.  easy ABC to rescue the Anglican as the person may go to the prison when the RC could not know where B resides and possibly A was his client and his soul.  A had always declared A never lost anything before and now the loss is "death" for A.  Joshua 

 

 

May 27, 2014 - 1:02 pm joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

RC and AVCF have been lulled by two wins when AVCF and RC did not real win my case against AVCF in substance. It is obvious Bolly had possibly delegated the case of EC to avcf and washed his hands and that may now land Bolly to prison for contempt of Court. Should RC be the counsel of Bolly or the watching brief for AVCF? Can RC put the two identities of Bolly and AVCF together hence he could not know where the two reside together? Is it God’s will that RC be confused by such a simple question to expose his “evil” deed for moral victory as he was called in my case by the Judge in December, 2012? Joshua


Are these great jokes of ILLUMINATI?

Where does you client reside?  A question Ronny Cham cannot answer???why?? Did he represent AVCF?
If RC represents AVCF, he should be removed from SLA/ Court official.

Three great Muslim judges telling Bolly Lapok what to do or he will end up in prison soon.

 





http://thetrutheng.com/2014/05/25/appeal-court-ordered-hob-to-convene-ecclesiastical-court/comment-page-1/#comment-11343

May 26, 2014 - 10:32 am joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

HOB of APSEA and Bolly was so happy that it was ruled “non legal entity” as Stephen Foo was so happy to tell the world and brought in the Res Judicata as an ingredient to shame himself when he knew that my case in High Court was never heard properly except struck out. Enough is enough. Maybe now Bolly is prepared to go to the “prison” to shame others who brought him to civil court as the strategy of AVCF to kill two birds in the ongoing crisis with avcf outside the “prison”…hahaha…Bolly serves well.

Reply

How do you see this Appeal Court’s Judgement?

I wish the legal expert would tell us of the consequences of the Appeal Court’s Judgement at the Kota Kinabalu Court House by All Saints’ Cathedral “not disgruntled” but concerned key parishioners against the HoBs of Anglican Province of South East Asia (APSEA) and the Archbishop Bolly Lapok now the Respondents. (I hope this status is right).

The Appeal Court under the Chairperson Justice Datuk Rohana bte Yusof sat in Kota Kinabalu on 23^rd May, 2014 and ruled in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent on two decisions namely demand by the Appellant for the total release of the socalled “confidential” Provincial Advisory Council (PAC) full report submitted to the Respondent sometimes in August, 2012 and to proceed to set up the Ecclesiastical Court (EC) to try Bishop Albert Vun for all the alleged crimes as earlier investigated by the Provincial Advisory Council both within the next 30 days.

Whether the Respondent can appeal to the Federal Court within the next 30 days is doubtful as the Appeal Court did not grant such an Appeal on 23^rd May, 2014 in the afternoon.  There was no official stay of execution hence the Respondent must comply with the rulings of the Appeal Court.

With this Judgement, what Stephen Foo wrote in Daily Express of 6^th March, 2014 look indeed very “childish” and a “mockery” of the Judiciary and possibly an ingredient for the subjudice of the High Court decision which ruled the Defendants then as non legal

entity.

I think many would like to know how it is now a case to “punish” Albert Vun in the pipeline with the EC.  Many would also doubt that the Respondent would indeed proceed to try Albert Vun given the precedence so far exercised by the Respondent with great disappointment in the unjustified departure of the Constitution of the APSEA.

What is now your take on the consequences in the next 30 days?

Indeed it is an open wound now as the church had submitted itself to the “pagan” Judges which Albert Vun was totally against it.  Would the open wound deteriorate into a bigger wound with all its contagious implications should the case proceed to the Federal Court to be again before more “pagan” Judges?

What would the wise biblical Solomon think of this Judgement?  What would Jesus think of such decision? I strongly believe that the latest Judgement as very fair and restore whatever that had been amiss at the High Court under several Judges as changed. We have a learned honourable Judge with the name of Rohana Yusof meaning it is likely the decision of the Spirit of God as in Roh and Joseph who had saved the Christian church.

So has God spoken for the aggrieved parishioners who had gone all out to bring Justice of God back to the Anglican church and many parishioners of the other Christian denominations have been closely watching this development in the context of evangelism for Christ.

With this latest decision, there was no element of Res Judicata as so clearly stated by Stephen Foo to fool others.

What is now in your minds now?

What are the opportunities for the Respondent to escape taking action against Albert Vun?  The doors are now locked against Bolly Lapok and Albert Vun with the latest decisions in the absence of a further appeal.

Did the Appeal Court consider that this is an internal matter and must be resolved internally and the idea of non legal entity should not arise?  The church leaders irrespective of their positions and status must be dealt with in the Provincial Constitution. So it is now at the feet of the Respondent not to abscond his responsibilities as so clearly stipulated in the Provincial Constitution to which all the Bishops have pledged sincerely to that.

Now non legal entity is irrelevant, and the Respondent must act against Albert Vun accordingly.  If the respondent or Bolly Lapok remains adamant “neutral”, prison maybe waiting for him as it would be contempt of court. Would Bolly Lapok resign now to avoid such possible path?  Would Albert Vun resign to avoid EC?  Would the Province be dismantled now for the stubbornness all round?

Keep on praying, keep on watching, keep on sounding out for the crimes against God should face the appropriate ending.

Thank you for reading and your comments are welcome.

Joshua Y. C. Kong     24 May, 2014