We note that Jane Hansen has, it seems, stepped up on the revenge trail – recent communications from her have threatened an expose of the FACTS site in the Sunday Telegraph, claiming that we conduct an exercise (so she says) of Universal Medicine intimidating its critics, accusing us of ‘name calling’ and ‘attacking credibility’.
We note that Jane Hansen has been busy lately sending personal emails to a number of contributors to the FACTS site comments complaining about their assessment of her journalism as, well, lacking.
What appears to have caught up with Jane is that when you write an article and make up lies or take others lies as truth without investigating the facts it may impact upon your life in a small town.
Journalists often do not know their ‘victim’, so they often publish whatever they like with impunity – but in this case Jane published an article in a community where everyone knows everyone.
Jane Hansen was faced with many she knew in the local community reading our FACTS blogs and discovering that she does not check her facts when she writes her articles.
Did she ask Ira McClure for verification when Ira told her she had spent $35,000 at Universal Medicine on Universal Medicine therapies?
Obviously not. The woman had not spent one cent.
Well, she could not have, there was no evidence, the case suggesting misappropriation of charitable funds had no basis and nothing to support it – like all Martin’s many complaints it was dismissed.
Did she publish a correction when the OLGR made a decision that affirmed what Serge Benhayon had told her all along; that there was nothing behind the complaint against the College, absolutely nothing?
NO she did not.
Did she consider that when Esther Rockett stated she “Imagined” she might have been sexually assaulted, it was only her imagination? Did Jane Hansen consider that even if she combed the globe she would find no one to verify Esther Rockett’s claims that Serge Benhayon was in any way ‘sleazy’?
The answer is on both counts NO.
Did Jane Hansen ever present a balanced view in her articles that all complaints made about Universal Medicine can be directly or indirectly linked to the same source – Lance Martin and Esther Rockett and that her sources for her articles and all the complaints ever made about Universal Medicine could be traced back to personal antipathies and in particular Lance Martin’s stated hate campaign to bring down Universal Medicine?
Seemingly this small detail was a fact that Jane Hansen swept under her rather large carpet.
Given her fascinating and seemingly troubled history with facts, perhaps it should not come as a surprise that Jane Hansen has now adopted Esther Rockett’s cries of being intimidated without looking at the history behind what Esther Rockett has been doing for over two years. Or perhaps evaluating and self-assessing why we might feel the need to publish the facts in light of her own pursuit of Universal Medicine with the publication of complete lies and fabrications.
Esther Rockett is not a whistleblower or a victim. Esther Rockett is a perpetrator of online abuse
We have amply shown why Esther Rockett has no foundation on which to claim she is being victimised or indeed is, as she claims, a ‘whistleblower’. A whistleblower has something to blow a whistle about – in Esther’s case she had three or four sessions in 2005 and although she made claims seven years later that she MIGHT have been sexually assaulted if she had allowed it, she attended one weekend workshop soon after those sessions in 2005, seemingly unconcerned about what she claimed MIGHT have happened.
Esther Rockett does not have any intimate knowledge of Universal Medicine, Serge Benhayon or anyone else she has viciously blogged about, for example Natalie Benhayon and Simone Benhayon, who Rockett has claimed were sexually abused by their dad, amongst other things, and the many women she has openly attacked.
Jane Hansen appears to remain oblivious to the fact that if someone (Esther Rockett) spends two years making up scurrilous lies about another person – calling him a pervert, falsely inferring he is a paedophile, stating he teaches sexual abuse and intimating financial corruption and exploitation just to name a few of the lies – and then also attacks numerous professionals because of their association with him with whatever lies appear to be the flavour of the day – including that they use their position of trust to be cult recruiters, or that they are Nazi death cult doctors, sexual abuse apologists or even that they sexually abuse their clients as well as being brainwashed and suffering from dissociative disorder, AT SOME POINT SOMEONE IS GOING TO SAY STOP.
In this case it was the Universal Medicine FACTS team. As a group we decided enough was enough – many of us, or those we know, or family members, had been abused on Esther Rockett’s blogs for no other reason than a close association with a man we call a dear friend. It is of no surprise that all those affected by the lies have also chosen to take a stand and allow the truth to be told.
It is all very well for Jane Hansen to claim an orchestrated attack, but what if the truth is actually more interesting?
How does one man who has been the subject of scurrilous lies printed in the media and continued false and vexations complaints made by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin (over 24 at last count and those are the ones we know about) keep standing? How is it that his business flourishes in spite of the continued attacks?
Esther Rockett and Lance Martin have tried selling the story that we are all under the thrall of Serge Benhayon. But this simply does not explain the groundswell of support of those willing to stand up and support him – Those willing to open themselves to attack for simply standing up to be counted in support in the face of lies. And attacked we are.
I invite Jane Hansen to look at what Esther Rockett, writing as Darkly Venus and Pranic Princess has said about Miranda Benhayon, Natalie Benhayon, Simone Benhayon, Paula Fletcher, Charles Wilson, Desiree Delaloye, Sarah Davis, Rebecca Baldwin, Eunice Minford, Rachel Hall, Maxine Szramka, Neil Ringe, Marianna Masiorski, Brendan Mooney, the list could go on, not to mention the 120 people she has labelled as cult recruiters and unqualified practitioners on her ubiquitous naming names page.
Jane Hansen makes her intentions known
I had observed Esther Rockett’s conduct for some time and after personal emails from myself were stolen and then published by Esther Rockett I decided that enough was enough – that the truth needed to be told.
It is necessarily a truth that those who are exposed will not like – and it seems that Jane Hansen was livid – making crude allegations on Twitter, trying to incite people into a rage about being blogged about and claiming that I had ‘brought her dead baby’ into matters.
Since this painful element of Jane Hansen’s past had been dealt with in utmost respect, this was somewhat of a surprise – particularly as the questions that were raised about her professional career might give most pause for thought – however, rather than examining why she might be questioned for her integrity, she went on what can only be described as an all out Twitter war. Her revenge is obviously nigh.
Her letter to Serge Benhayon on Thursday 5 March makes her intentions known:
There is no doubt as to her intentions – Serge Benhayon has received emails from Jane Hansen previously where the story is already written, the questions simply posed with a slant to give her ammunition – you cannot deny or answer without being damned.
Jane Hansen’s email exposes more than perhaps she intended – we are told “I am writing a story regarding how Universal Medicine deals with it’s critics” – in other words “I have already written my story”.
Jane Hansen does write the word “question” and does use question marks but that is the only thing that identifies these statements as questions. There is no answer anyone can give to these ‘questions’ that would change what Ms Hansen is forcefully and misguidedly directing – as she states her questions are asked merely lip service to ‘standard practice’. What is evident is that the story here is already written and Jane Hansen is merely after a comment or two or not, it doesn’t seem to matter. This was the same with the articles written by her in June 2014.
Here we can apprise the public of the facts that will never be properly presented by Jane Hansen:
No, Serge Benhayon does not direct anyone to write the FACTS blogs – Ask the FACTS team, Jane Hansen didn’t.
We note that Jane Hansen has not approached the UM Facts team with any inquiry as to the inspiration for the blogs. Her approach to Serge Benhayon is questionable in itself – this blog site is not anonymous, we all put our names to our work and have clearly stated our intent in presenting these blogs – will Jane Hansen explain that in her article?
I can say that the inspiration for all that is published here is the content easily found in the vile antics that Esther Rockett and Lance Martin parade across their hate blogs. If you read the UM FACTS blogs very carefully you will see that what is exposed is how Lance Martin, Esther Rockett and others such as Jane Hansen have made lie after lie.
The actual facts are presented to counter these lies; there is no abuse, no condemnation of the individuals, simply a calling people to account for their conduct and their lies.
UM FACTS has not engaged in name calling, but Esther Rockett and Lance Martin have
UM FACTS has not engaged in name calling, other than appropriate labelling of Esther Rockett and Lance Martin for their online activities as cyber-bullies and serial complainants and Jane Hansen for irresponsible journalism falling below the standards of fairness and balance.
This calling to account contrasts to Esther Rockett and Lance Martin’s obvious threats and name-calling. Lance Martin for instance refers to Serge as ‘a little worm’, ‘a two faced prick’ ‘gutless turd’, ‘low life shonk of the worst order’ and ‘total narcissistic moron or a total sociopath moron.’
As for only one of many of the disparaging comments made by Martin with regard the Universal Medicine student body he has alleged:
And threats he has made:
‘Just let it be known that the sting may have gone, but the resolve hasn’t. Bringing you down is a commitment and it will happen.’
As for Esther Rockett’s name calling, among the charming missives she has thrown at Serge Benhayon are:
and most concernedly, given the seriousness of such a false allegation,
She further declares that Serge’s family are, ‘a bunch of unqualified underachieving parasites’;
Universal Medicine is, according to the label and name applied by Esther Rockett, ‘a narcissism and death cult that molests sexual abuse survivors’;
And names those who support Universal Medicine as ‘a bunch of damaging parasites’, ‘sexual abuse apologists’ and ‘grasping, disingenuous turds.’
As examples of names she has called targeted Universal Medicine supporters:
Respected Irish General Surgeon Dr Eunice Minford is in her words ‘full of shit’ a ‘cult doctor’ and an ‘euthanasia apologist’, dentist Dr Rachel Hall is allegedly a ‘shameless, dishonest piece of work’ and lawyer Paula Fletcher is, ‘reprehensible and another vile, bullying, high status hypocrite’ and like Dr Minford is apparently ‘full of shit.’
Such name-calling is unfounded and crass. Is pointing that fact out ‘victimising’ the writers?
Presenting the facts about someone’s behaviour (with no offensive name calling), and exposing that behaviour for what it is, is not an attack on credibility – the conduct of the exposed is doing that all by itself – this is brought to the public eye as a service to the public in exposing corrupt conduct, lies and what is more completely irresponsible journalism. If the shoe fits…
Esther Rockett and Lance Martin have gone to greater and greater lengths concocting lie after lie, and we have met each lie to expose how ridiculous it is. It takes no time to make up a lie, but considerable effort to show that it is not so – perhaps that is why Jane Hansen has found it easier to jump on the lies for a story than investigate the truth.
What is more, exposing the facts that lead others to question someone’s credibility is appropriate when lies are being written about people and the journalist who is supporting these lies refuses to correct them even when provided with the fact that the complaint she based one of her stories on was baseless and, when she supported the stories of two men about their ex partners without even checking with these women as to their version of events.
What choice do people have but to express the truth on the Internet when journalists are in bed with liars?
Universal Medicine has not embarked on a social media campaign to harm anyone – but Esther Rockett has
Esther Rockett has been very busy with a social media campaign; so busy in fact Twitter suspended her account because of complaints. It was Esther Rockett who created her blogsites and engineered her search engine optimisation no doubt to tarnish and attack her target to the greatest extent possible. She sought to muddy Serge Benhayon’s name and own it. Twitter and the Internet are how we communicate in the world, as Esther Rockett has sought to incite support for her campaign against Universal Medicine with an all out Twitter war against any event or person she conceived might have a connection to Universal Medicine – it is only obvious that those affected would respond.
What is fascinating to consider is, how is it that Jane Hansen does not see that all the groundswell of support of people standing up for the truth against the lies told by Esther Rockett, Lance Martin and Jane Hansen actually EXPOSES SOMETHING IMPORTANT?
Why is it that hundreds and hundreds of comments have been made supporting the FACTS blogs? Some blogs have over 1000 comments. Is it possible that too many people have been affected by the tiny handful who congregated on Esther’s hate site?
Is it possible that Serge Benhayon’s business ethics, the service he provides to the community and the deep loyalty he garners from all those that know him because of his personal integrity and care in all he does, is enough to make hundreds of people stand up and say no to the abuse metered out against truth?
Universal Medicine Facts is not about Esther Rockett, Lance Martin or Jane Hansen – there is a bigger picture
It is also true that it is not really about Serge Benhayon. In the bigger picture what the HUNDREDS of contributors on the UM FACTS blog are saying is that cyber bullying by Esther Rockett or ANYONE is not acceptable, that irresponsible journalism is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Dear Jane, this does not need to be a matter of social engineering or a social media campaign, it is simply that something that is dear to people and that we should be standing up for is at stake – an online environment not used as an excuse for anonymous bullying and hatred but for positive social engagement and a media that has responsible investigative journalism at its heart upholding the principles of balance and fairness.
Is it so harmful to call abuses of these? For Jane Hansen, we suggest you have abused your position as a journalist and in the report you have already written you abuse that position again.
Universal Medicine has not ‘censored the internet’. Does Jane Hansen champion hate speech?
As for censoring the internet – when lies are being spread about you why would you not hire someone to seek to have the offending material removed? It is actually commonplace for companies and individuals to seek professional services, particularly when they are being subjected to an Internet hate campaign of the proportion waged by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin.
It is implicit in Jane Hansen’s question that she infers that there is something wrong with restraint on the internet. Is the domain of the Internet to be regarded as the kingdom of free for all hate speech conducted without restraint? Or should we be able to expect more from social media platforms?
It is an interesting line Jane Hansen is taking – apparently it is not permissible for the criticised to answer their critics.
Esther Rockett has again and again screeched ‘answer our questions’ and when they are answered she cries victimisation – and pours more vitriol onto the pyre.
A case in point was Esther Rockett’s response to the numerous teenagers who explained very clearly that there was not any hint of sexual abuse or anything untoward in their relationships with Serge Benhayon.
Rather they described the support and strength derived from their connection with Serge Benhayon and the entire Benhayon family. The teenagers also discussed, since Esther had asked SO many times why did young people stay at Serge’s house, that young people stayed with Serge Benhayon and the family as they are friends with his own children, and received the support offered by this warm and caring family home.
What did Esther do with this? – She attacked them, suggesting they could not write or think for themselves and maintained, even in light of evidence to the contrary, that they were all victims.
We ask you Jane Hansen, you have two people claiming that Serge Benhayon has an indecent interest in young girls, with not a shred of evidence bar their two year hate blogs, and you have the actual individuals implicated by Esther as these so called ‘victims’ stating they have an amazing care filled and healthy relationship with the man – What do you do with the evidence?
Well, we published it so people like you Jane Hansen would be apprised of the truth – And what do you do with that information? Do you cast the facts aside and ignore them? Apparently so. Do you put blinkers on to only take in what suits your agenda? Apparently so. Do you choose your agenda based on lies or truth?
History will eventually bring the truth for all to see and remember Jane Hansen, if you make lies your reality eventually and inevitably the truth catches up with you. Do you really want to create another blot on the landscape of your career?
Serge Benhayon answers Jane Hansen’s ‘questions’
Into this blog I have the privilege of placing a copy of the response Serge Benhayon has sent to Ms Hansen. We publish it here, for it is inevitable given Jane Hansen’s record of reporting less than the truth, that what the public will receive will be far less than what is contained here:
What will Jane Hansen concoct?
It will be fascinating what Jane Hansen makes up and concocts when she has been provided with the facts here proved. Will Jane Hansen pursue her story that is based on a lie that Esther Rockett is a ‘critic’ who is being victimised with no reference to a hate campaign conducted over 2 years with seemingly no conscience for the lies that have been made up? Esther Rockett is not a victim. Jane Hansen is not a victim, and Ira McClure is not a victim.
Serge Benhayon received a response from Jane Hansen that suggests she considers she has been the victim of cyber-abuse – apparently believing she has had a ‘fair taste of it’ since she printed her (incorrect) story about the complaint against the College of Universal Medicine and obviously shows the bias of her hand in her comment:
And thus we have it, this is personal, it is not the case of a journalist with an ethical and professional obligation to bring a fair and unbiased account. Jane Hansen seems to have conveniently ignored the rants and lies of Esther Rockett that inspired the creation of this FACTS blog site in the first place, and has cast aside any awareness of Esther Rockett and Lance Martin’s history of lies layered upon more lies.
It may be news for Jane Hansen but a clear and ultimately fair critique of her work does not amount to cyber-abuse, it is actually investigative journalism, and is a long cry from the abuse she has meted out to the subjects of her tabloid stories.
As far as enduring abuse herself, perhaps Jane Hansen should consider the impact of repeating a litany of malicious lies, with not a shred of evidence, that inferred that her target was financially corrupt, rorting charities legislation, sleazy and providing treatments that were a front for ‘grooming’, and consider that she, Jane Hansen, was responsible for those lies being pasted across a national newspaper with a readership of over 1.3 million people. Not to mention giving credibility to an internet troll and a cyber-bully who have made making up lies an art form. And not only that, Jane Hansen had been apprised of the truth, she knew EXACTLY what she was doing, but chose to present only one side, and we might say, the wrong one.
Will Jane Hansen write a story with no reference as to the credibility of her sources, their conduct online and no discerning evaluation of a vexatious complaints history (24 plus failed complaints – and counting)? We expect so. We invite Jane to surprise us with a balanced and fair account.
It concerns me that a journalist can turn a blind eye to the many false claims made by Esther Rockett, including lies about sexual abuse that never occurred with not a single person to validate her claims, and yet champion her cause.
In conclusion we note that it might serve Jane Hansen to ask why did Darkly Venus come out from behind her vitriol and begin to use her own name? It was not of her own volition but because she was exposed upon the FACTS site. Esther Rockett only became what she has conveniently called a ‘whistle-blower’ because once she could no longer hide behind her vicious anonymous identities she had to find an excuse to cover for her lies and vitriol. But consider this Jane Hansen, a whistle-blower needs to know something about the organisation they are exposing, in Esther Rockett’s case the nothing she knows is enhanced by complete lies. Jane Hansen, it is perhaps a history to explore thoroughly before you champion her cause.