Your comment is awaiting moderation.
If indeed the bias HoBs and the E-Courts ruled in favour to AVCF
as it is in the mind of some people, what would happen to those who had
presented their evidence in sworn affidavits as narrated in the
documents published here? So it would seem endless woes.The Synod in 2010's Congress was ill prepared to send the AVCF away despite he was scolding Mr Andrew Liew for his appropriate comment of the illegal Kokol Prayer Summit and so ADOS missed a chance to 'get well".
Then Synod in 2012's Congress was so messy after ordaining an unqualified Priest against much protest a day earlier. That Congress was illegal from the beginning with proper notice of the Congress, with a detailed Agenda, without any legal motions, without the account properly audited and subject a management report by the honorary auditors, and finally the illegal motions were prepared by Rev Kenneth - once the Diocesan Chancellor - on the spot to camouflage the alleged crimes of AVCF with a deceptive message of support from the Synod delegates who knew nothing of the alleged crimes of AVCF as the PAC Report was delayed in release just after the said Synod.
So Synod 2014, the delegates must nail AVCF to finally close the chapter of sham and shame of AVCF internally without seeing more dirt in the Federal Court if that appeal is allowed before "pagan" Judges.
The Synod by now should be fully awake and aware on BISHOPGATE. Joshua
OPEN LETTER to Synod of Anglican Diocese Of Sabah (ADOS)
The sham of AVCF has been identified in Synod 2010 where the
illegal project in the Kokol Prayer Summit was exposed. That could have triggered the initiation to
remove the AVCF as the Bishop almost instantly with the motion to force him to
resign or failing that further action could have been initiated by the synod to
move another POSITIVE motion in 2012 when the crisis of ADOS which I called
BISHOPGATE had taken central stage to remove AVCF by any means.
My court case against AVCF was started in late June 2012,
and the Synod 2012 was in August/September 2012 where I was “condemned” for the
civil action for bringing AVCF to the “pagan” Judge. Synod 2012 was itself an illegal exercise.
Now a lot of filthy water of AVCF had passed under the
bridge BISHOPGATE culminating in the latest Appeal Court’s Judgement by three
“pagan” Judges that Bolly Lapok set up the Ecclesiastical Court or E-C within
90 days and he releases the full Report of the Provincial Advisory Committee’s
(PAC) including the recommendation report for public consummation.
I think the members of the Synod do not understand the power
of Synod. The bishop of Sabah was technically elected or selected at the Synod
hence it should have the capability to remove the appointment made at the
Synod.
The Synod of ADOS had missed the chance of removing the
bishop with a vote of no confidence in AVCF in 2010, then 2012, and now in
Synod 2014 should take positive action by a motion to punish AVCF for all the
alleged crimes in ADOS and beyond.
Without a thorough review and audit of all the Synod’s
accounts since 2006 under AVCF, it is meaningless or even frightful to allow
AVCF to stay in office.
Now it is indeed very painful for HoBs of APSEA to face the
wrath of the consequence of the civil court’s Judgement and the whole Anglican
Communion near and far face the shame in the eyes of the public. Much of the dirty linen already washed in the
public domain.
Since Synod 2014 is still within the 90 days of Appeal Court’s
ruling, it is now the paramount duty of the Synod 2014 to act as it is likely
ADOS would be without a Bishop proper in August/September 2014. [The case against the Archbishop sought 30
days for the E-C to be set up but the Appeal
Court ruled 90 days.]
So Synod must take the cue now and even start the motion to
remove AVCF as the Bishop earlier.
It is now our duty to put our house ADOS in working
order. God has spoken many times.
Joshua Y. C. Kong
30 May, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment