FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

On Jan 15, 2015, Mohammed A. Hegazi wrote:

​ Dear Gwen,

I am preparing for an appeal against the payment of $3,086.83 in legal fees to the Association’s barrister. I am of the opinion that [ deleted for legal reasons ].

Appeals have to be made within 21* days from the magistrate’s decision. I need to know if the Committee are agreeable to this action. Had it been an action against Johnsen or Miller, I would not have hesitated. Unluckily, the action would be against the Association, and is sure to stir another round of media negative publicity, regardless of the outcome.

I am only clearing my conscience before lodging the appeal. I would not lodge the appeal if the Association explicitly agrees to pay the barrister the sum of $3,086.83 on my behalf.

Please note that I have already exerted much effort to prevent the escalation of this dispute. In the process, I have made enough financial sacrifices.

I expect your email reply soon, due to time constraints.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Hegazi

*I was wrong there, this should be 28 days

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 20, 2015, Mohammed A. Hegazi wrote:

 Dear Secretary and committee members,

 I refer to my email of Thursday 15/01/2015 in relation to my intention to appeal [ deleted for legal reasons ].

 I have stressed the element of time. An appeal must be filed within 21* days from the magistrates’ court decision of 05/01/2014.

 It is not up to me to advise you as to how you would come to a quick decision via deliberation by email, followed by a communication to me by the Secretary, not the President. The President in this context is only one vote out of nine, with no chance of a casting vote.

 I am seeing my solicitor on the morning of Thursday 22/01/2014, with the intention to carry out one of the following two alternatives:

 a. In the case of the committee agreeing to pay the cost ordered against me, I would pay my solicitor his fees and close this shameful case for good. I would also give my word to continue to ward off any media attempts to revive the story.

 b. In the absence of the civility of a reply from the Secretary by 9 am of 22/01/2011, I would issue my instructions to my solicitor to file the appeal and to brief a barrister.

 Please note that this email should not be misconstrued as being a threat from me, by way of obfuscation by one or more members of the committee. It is only a question of time limitation and the need to turn the page by putting this matter behind us. It has already caused enough damage to the Association and myself.

 Six years have elapsed with CJ and MM insisting that they were right, only to admit that they were wrong after those six years.

 Regards to all,

 Mohammed

 * 21 should be 28

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 20 January , carol johnsen wrote:

 Dear Mohammed,

 In reply to your demand for payment of costs awarded against you, the Committee has decided that it will not pay them.

 Yours faithfully,

 CAROL  JOHNSEN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 On Jan 20, 2015, Mohammed A. Hegazi wrote:

to Gwen, Barry, mal, Marj, Natasha, Norma, Rob, Trevor, carol

 Dear Secretary,

 Please confirm that the committee has delegated the authority to the President to deal with this matter.

 Thank you,

Mohammed Hegazi

Member of ASPA(Vic)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 In the absence of a reply from the Secretary, I assumed that the Committee has decided by way of vote to give the President a free hand to handle this matter. My solicitor received my instructions accordingly.

I will report back to you with the date and location of the appeal hearing. With my limited legal  knowledge, it could be the County Court. Media attention might surpass that at the magistrates’ court. Hopefully, the information passed on to the public might be less sensational and more factual.

From the above correspondence, You can see that such expensive exposure was not my choice. In the case of me winning the appeal, which is the more likely outcome, the cost to ASPA members would be hefty. In the case of me losing the appeal, due to unforeseen legal technicalities, I would still be satisfied by exposing the incompetents. The price would be worth it.

Hopefully, by the end of this needless litigation, or maybe before then, our Association would be blessed by wiser management that does not indulge in conduct unbecoming a committee, in order to achieve narrow vindictive personal whims. In civilised societies, the end never justifies the means.