Note that the documents are not arranged in a chronological order since many documents have become available to me quite later than when it actually happened. The college was compelled by court order years later to disclose those documents .Note that all the documents mentioned and displayed here are stated in the affidavit sworn in court by the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland (see the appendix)
I) Document 1 shows the minutes of the examination committee meeting in 4/4/1997, the registrar Dr.T.J.McKenna acknowledged my solicitor request for the appeals procedures and promised the committee that he’ll send my solicitor both the appeals procedures and the byelaws.
II) Flowing from the above meeting, Document 2 (letter dated 23/4/1997 to my solicitor,the shown document is the one in the college file) shows that Dr. McKenna has only sent to my solicitor the byelaws, with no appeals procedures as he promised the exam committee, Dr McKenna was certainly fearing that an appeal from me might result into an investigation by an independent appeal committee into the exam corruption he was involved in (see chapters 4, 6), only when I alerted the president then Dr. Stanley Roberts, the president himself sent me the appeals procedures which were subsequently flouted by Dr.McKenna from his position as a registrar (see chapter 9).
III) The fabrication of the written marks (see chapter 3) and the clinical marks/ reports (see chapter 4) were considered “appropriate procedure” by Dr.McKenna (see First paragraph of Document 6). In addition, document 6 implied that my exam papers were reviewed(my anser papers were mislaid and unavailable see chapter 3 but this was another lie according to this meeting's minutes which is in my possession.
IV) The registrar was always in the habit of misrepresenting the cases in the college meetings( see chapter 9) and in the following pertaining correspondence of these meetings see III above), not abiding by the meetings decisions (see II above) and not declaring self interest when he should have(see chapter 6) .No mechanism was in place to observe the registrar's actions.When I complained him to the censors, they only (according to the minutes in my possession) counted on his "heresay" denial without any probing because they simply intended to "turn blind eye".
V) In paragraph 2 of Document 3 the censors claim that the matter was reported to the council meeting in 6th February 1998 this was not true as explained in V) below.
VI) Document 4 is an excerpt from the affidavit (the full affidavit sworn by the college in court can be seen in the appendix) which shows a list of all the college meetings’ minutes in which my case was reported to, no council meeting minutes of 6th February 1998 is shown on this list, this proves that the censors’ claim of document 3 that they reported my case to the council in February 6th 1998 meeting isn’t genuine.
VII) In reply to my assertion to the censors that Dr.T.J.McKenna has conflict of interest in dealing with my appeal being a clinical examiner in 1996 exam which is the subject of my complaint, and that Dr.McKenna moved to the registrar office after I lodged a complaint(see chapter 6), the censors replied in paragraph 3 of Document 3 that Dr.T.J.McKenna was never an examiner in any of my exam attempts, this was another lie, as Document 5 shows Dr.T.J.McKenna was a clinical examiner in 1996 the very exam I was appealing from as Document 6 shows, the same document 6 shows that Dr.T.J.McKenna reviewed his work as a member of the exam board and considered it as appropriate and considered the matter closed (last paragraph of Document 6) without sending me the appeal procedures (see II above).
VII) The censors who are supposed to uphold the rules approved swapping documents before presenting those to the council!!(See chapters 9 and 10)
The censors are the law court of the college, the viability and stature of any body(or state) is always judged by the level of Integrity and credibility of this body’s court, Judging by the discredited performance of the censors as shown above (and also as shown in chapter 10) the college as such isn’t a viable entity.
See also the new information under PS: of the second paragraph of chapter one