On the 22 June 2014 journalist Jane Hansen published a series of three short articles in the Sunday Telegraph. These articles were filled with false claims against Universal Medicine and the many misrepresentations obviously mirrored the material published on Esther Rockett’s blog-sites by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin and other material distributed by the pair in a bogus ‘Press Kit’.
The Sunday Telegraph journalist Jane Hansen had been directed to information that would have alerted her to the calibre of her sources, yet she chose to follow the ill advised path of relying upon exposed cyber-bullies as the source of material for her articles.
Beyond the false claims and misrepresentations, what was also clearly muddied by the journalist was confusion between Serge Benhayon, Universal Medicine and the separate and distinct entity the College of Universal Medicine. In her article in the Sunday Telegraph on 22 June 2014 ‘New-age ‘esoteric’ breast and ovary massage healer under investigation over alleged charity law violations’ Jane Hansen confusingly refers to Serge Benhayon, Universal Medicine, and the College of Universal Medicine as if they share one and the same financial structure or are financially intertwined, they are not. There is only one aspect in which there is any financial relationship between Universal Medicine and the College and that is that Serge Benhayon is a major benefactor of the charity, in this regard his donations and charitable activities are extensive and extend far beyond any personal advantage. Jane Hansen confuses the charitable work of the College with the business enterprise Universal Medicine.
Her approach to Serge Benhayon completely mixed up two separate and very distinct organisations – for clarification (that is not at all apparent in Jane Hansen’s article)
- Universal Medicine is a Northern New South Wales business that offers courses and private sessions in ‘universal medicine therapies’. Mr Benhayon is the founder and an employee.
- The College of Universal Medicine is a registered charitable educational organisation. It is a distinct entity to Universal Medicine and was set up independently. It has no relationship to the business of Universal Medicine and Serge Benhayon is not part of the management structure of that organisation. He is not part of the running of the charity.
At the time that Jane Hansen of the Sunday Telegraph approached Serge Benhayon she did not make it clear that she was seeking information specifically on the College of Universal Medicine, she merely reported that she was “currently compiling a story on Universal Medicine and the College of UM and have some questions I would like to put to you.” When she did not get the response that she sought she added that “Serious allegations have been raised that are now before the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and the Department of Fair Trading. I am a journalist, it is my duty to put these allegations to you for your response.”
It needs to be emphasised that when Jane Hansen contacted Serge Benhayon at first she only referred to complaints to the Office of Fair Trading and it was only later after further correspondence (and not a little pressing on the subject) that Jane Hansen referred to a complaint made to the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and that she had specific interest in asking questions about the College of Universal Medicine.
What was never made clear in this dialogue was that the complaints were in fact about the College of Universal Medicine, not Universal Medicine or Serge Benhayon personally. This was information that at the time was only available to the journalist Jane Hansen. If Serge Benhayon had been apprised of this fact he could have directed Jane Hansen to the College Board of Directors. He also would have explained quite clearly that the College and Universal Medicine are distinct entities.
Indeed if Jane Hansen had undertaken appropriate investigation she would have found that Serge Benhayon was not the person to contact about the College – he is not even a director.
When approached the Office of Liquor and Gaming were only able to say that they had received a complaint through the Office but were not at liberty to disclose the substance of the complaint or the identity of the complainant or even provide a copy of the complaint. Although Office of Liquor and Gaming could not reveal the complainants identity they were quite clear that Jane Hansen’s story did not come from their Office but they did say that they had received a call from a journalist seeking information about it. Furthermore, inquiries with the Office of Fair Trading were unable to establish the existence of a complaint at all, since that Office would neither confirm nor deny it. Indeed, they could not give any information to anyone other than the person who lodged the complaint and it can take 30 days for the complaint to be allocated.
Which called the UM Facts team to question how a journalist knew of this when neither Serge Benhayon nor College of Universal Medicine Directors had been notified of the complaint?
When pressed, Ms Hansen said that she had been tipped off by a ‘politician’ and it has been more recently revealed that Ms Hansen’s ‘tip-off’ was the Opposition Spokesman for Health, Dr Andrew McDonald, who sent Hanson copies of the complaints on June 12 with the obvious implication that they might merit a story. It remains unclear how Dr Andrew McDonald had copies of these questionable complaints before they were in fact duly processed as ‘active’ complaints, however the UM Facts Team notes that the complaints were to departments outside Dr Macdonald’s portfolio. What is more a senior politician, responsible for leaking complaints to the media in this way, might be viewed as attempting to influence the investigations protocols of the government bodies concerned, in essence having declared Serge Benhayon and the College of Universal Medicine guilty in the following media reports until they could prove their innocence.
What had eluded Serge Benhayon’s attention, and had certainly not been divulged by Ms Hansen was that the complaints were against the College of Universal Medicine, a charitable educational institution, not Universal Medicine. Ms Hansen had a full copy of the complaints from her ‘tip-off’ and knew who they were against and who had made them, yet she never clarified her position that she was approaching Serge Benhayon in relation to complaints about the Charity. Confusion and misreporting in her article is the result.
The UM Facts Team safely assumed and were later confirmed in our suspicions that the complainant was Lance Martin, one of a group of cyber-bullies who have amongst them initiated a string of baseless complaints to government authorities against Universal Medicine and anyone that they consider associated with that organisation. Esther Rockett and Lance Martin had been alluding to action against the College of Universal Medicine for some time, based on a false belief that the charitable educational institution is in some way a rort and the completely unsupportable allegation that Serge Benhayon would somehow benefit from the charity. It is a shame that the journalist concerned did not research the charity properly herself. If she had she would have been appraised that the College was set up with the benevolence of many contributors, Serge Benhayon being a major benefactor, that there was no financial cross-over between the two entities (Universal Medicine and the College of Universal Medicine are completely separate) and that there was no financial advantage flowing to Mr Benhayon from the College, rather a significant financial loss.
This latest complaint about the College of Universal Medicine by Lance Martin takes its place in a long-line of baseless complaints that have already been either lodged or initiated by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin against Universal Medicine (all of them to date dismissed) with the College simply being a new target for their malice. Like all the complaints made by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin previously, it is likely this latest offering will be found to be baseless.
It is easy to predict the calibre of the complaint if consideration is given to Lance Martin’s profile and blog contributions and the bogus ‘Press Kit’ that falsely condemned Serge Benhayon and Universal Medicine with outrageous claims of money laundering, sexual misconduct with clients and with minors and covert hypnosis to name a few. All such claims are easily proven false, but this has not prevented Rockett and Martin repeating them and repeating them, with an aim that if they are repeated often enough their lies might be treated as fact.
Their allegations have consistently relied upon arousing suspicion through false innuenedos, references to ‘witnesses’ that are never produced, and misleading statements that hint at wrongdoing but if examined have no substance to back them up. Such material has been designed to manipulate the reader to consider that there must be some truth in the bizarre accusations, yet there is none whatsoever.
Lance Martin’s next foray into a complaint against the College of Universal Medicine will no doubt follow the same ilk. It appears that journalists like Ms Hansen may have been taken in. However, a lie remains a lie no matter how many times it is told or however artfully it is framed.
Was it a co-incidence that Ms Hansen received the complaints from her ‘politician’ having started following Esther Rockett and Esther’s alter-ego, Venus Darkly on Twitter a week prior to these complaints coming to light?
However Jane Hansen came to have the complaints in her possession, Lance Martin and Esther Rockett, the source of the allegations in the complaints, are not credible sources in regard to anything related to Serge Benhayon, Universal Medicine or the College of Universal Medicine.
We have to ask, what credibility can a journalist have who relies upon the lies of exposed cyber-bullies and internet trolls? The lies Esther Rockett and Lance Martin have promulgated on Esther Rockett’s blog sites are extraordinary, and become ever more so, as they manufacture increasingly outlandish and disgraceful lies, built on innuendo and deceit. Any reasonable reader might have pause to question the truth of such allegations simply by examining the sheer breadth of them. What also is extraordinary is that a journalist, of what appears to be a sound background, is listening to them!
Given the source of Ms Hansen’s story and her ‘angle’ it was predictable that Ms Hansen would report that a complaint had been made and make this the foundation of the story. The report would of course use the complaint as an implication that there must have been wrongdoing since a complaint somehow validates the accusations. It of course does not, a complaint is merely that – a complaint. It does not suddenly get authentication as truth because it is made. But it is the false assumption, that a complaint somehow validates what are no more than spurious and fictitious complaints, that has given Lance Martin and Esther Rockett traction with the media.
What was a surprise was that the target of the complaint was the College of Universal Medicine and that it was being investigated for financial wrongdoing.
Jane Hansen’s Sunday Telegraph offerings played right into the hands and agendas of Esther Rockett and Lance Martin. In addition to the article on the College, the other two articles focussed on predictable stories about Universal Medicine and Serge Benhayon (not the separate entity the College of Universal Medicine). Esther Rockett’s tired story of the ‘ovarian reading’ that never in fact took place was a predictable angle, although it was perhaps a surprise that a seasoned journalist would buy Esther Rockett’s story and fail to report that the first complaint Esther Rockett made was 7 years after her supposed experience. It was also predictable that the journalist would jump on the theme of broken families that are the product of a ‘dangerous cult.
The ‘broken families’ fiction was spread by Lance Martin to anyone who would listen and was part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to incite negative media interest in Universal Medicine. In Jane Hansen’s article Matthew Sutherland, Lance Martin’s former housemate, steps in to provide the fodder for this false narrative – offering a different voice to the Lance Martin ‘poor me’ my wife left me concoction. Matthew Sutherland became involved in Lance Martin’s hate campaign in 2012. He left his relationship with Sarah Baldwin and moved in with Lance Martin for a period after the separation. To some it would seem that his increasing contact and developing connection with Lance Martin influenced his decision to leave his young partner. However he has apparently adopted Lance Martin’s habit of re-framing the past to suit his own narrative and sources say he vocally blames Sarah Baldwin for leaving him because he refused to join a ‘cult’. A matter that is worth noting is that there is a 14 year age difference between Matthew Sutherland and Sarah Baldwin and that whilst Lance Martin has been vocal about the 17 years age difference between Serge Benhayon and Miranda Benhayon he has evidently not had the same criticisms of Matthew Sutherland’s relationship.
Esther Rockett clearly had the heads up of the content and imminent publication of the articles with her excited tweeting advertising Ms Hansen’s articles with a post on her blogs encouraging her readers to:
‘scuttle out and grab a copy of the Sunday Telegraph for the latest UM story.’
Esther Rockett obviously had no doubt that the content of the articles would suit her purposes. Jane Hansen has not published anything new – Esther Rockett, Lance Martin and Matthew Sutherland have been actively spreading the same lies about Universal Medicine and any associated parties for the past two years to anyone who would listen. That Jane Hansen has been taken in by their lies is somewhat disappointing, as she appears to have had some conviction for truth in her previous work. The stories were hardly a scoop for Ms Hansen – Esther Rockett and Lance Martin had published all the material already.
What is obvious from Jane Hansen’s articles is that there are only three stories about three people repeating lies already disseminated on Esther Rockett’s blog-site. Regarding Esther Rockett you have to engage in suspension of disbelief to actually go along with her stories – did Jane Hansen consider the contrary available evidence provided on this site? Did she look at the veracity of her sources? Did Jane Hanson take into account regarding an ‘ovarian reading’ that there has never been such a treatment offered by Serge Benhayon and a modality of a similar name – ‘ovary massage’ did not even exist in 2005 when Esther Rocket claims that the fictitious ovarian reading occurred? This information is freely available on this site had Jane Hansen sought any balance in her reporting.
She got some of the most basic facts wrong, for example claiming that Serge Benhayon has offered Esoteric Breast Massages or Ovary Massages – he never has. Even a cursory examination of material, that is publicly available on the Universal Medicine official website, would have provided Jane Hansen with the simple fact that these modalities are only offered by women practitioners.
We note it is only Esther Rockett and Lance Martin that have promulgated this lie that Serge Benhayon offers these services. What is to be said of a journalist who fails to check the facts provided by her sources?
With respect to Matthew Sutherland he makes an outrageous claim to have spent $15,000 on treatments and workshops. Jane Hansen did not check the truth of this. Given that, according to his ex partner Sarah Baldwin, Matt Sutherland was rarely required to pay for his attendance at events due to his financial circumstances, this is farcical; and furthermore, as Sarah Baldwin has stated that even on a generous estimate they spent no more than $4000 between them over a number of years, it is hardly ‘news’. Also since they were sporadic attendees at most, to assert it took over his life is ridiculous.
We note that Sarah Baldwin was not contacted for her side of the story.
Similarly all the other financial accusations across the three articles are false and there is not a single shred of evidence to support any of them. Esther Rockett and Lance Martin (under the cloak of anonymity) have made the repeated false allegations that Universal Medicine only takes ‘cash’ for courses and Sutherland is quoted by Hansen as claiming that Universal Medicine took $400,000 in cash for one course. No verification of this ludicrous claim was sought by Hansen. Esther Rockett and Lance Martin have been bleating on about the College of Universal Medicine for quite some time and have absolutely no evidence to back their accusations. They are in no position to be a reliable source about the financial affairs or internal management of the charity, which by the way, are conducted impeccably, and subject to annual audits and the oversight of the Australian Tax Office and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.
Lance Martin’s complaints, against the College of Universal Medicine, like all those against Universal Medicine and Serge Benhayon by the group, will be found to be baseless.
In her story Jane Hansen got many facts wrong, in particular she published a litany of false claims about the College of Universal Medicine and Serge Benhayon:
- As a start she failed to distinguish between the charity (the College of Universal Medicine) and the separate business entity, Universal Medicine – this is shoddy journalism at its best.
- She claimed that Serge Benhayon ‘runs’ the College of Universal Medicine – he actually has no part in that, it is run by an independent board of Directors, Serge Benhayon is not one of them, nor is he involved with the day to day running of the Charitiy.
- Mr Benhayon has not ‘raised more than half a million dollars using a charity licence’ – Serge Benhayon has no such license and the statement that he has raised half a million or any funds at all from fundraising activities under any such licence or otherwise is equally untrue. The College of Universal Medicine has a licence to raise funds to meet its objectives including acquiring a school building.
- Serge Benhayon receives no personal benefit from the Charity or its fundraising – Jane Hansen’s report implies this is not the case. Jane Hansen was told, prior to publication that Serge Benhayon makes no ‘untoward personal gain whatsoever’ in fact that ‘there is personal loss for the sake of true Charity’.
- Jane Hansen reports that Lance Martin’s complaint asserts that the CoUM charity directly benefits Universal Medicine commercial business. This allegation is completely false. The charity does not benefit Universal Medicine’s business financially, directly or indirectly. Serge Benhayon’s charitable activities and donations to the charity far exceed any possible business advantage, the business Universal Medicine has also donated previously commercial activities to the fundraising activities of the college; and
- The College of Universal Medicine is a properly run charity which is a separate and distinct organisation from Universal Medicine, sharing only part of the name of that business, it has its own financial charter.
- Jane Hansen presents the complaints made by Lance Martin as if they have some substance – they do not. Making a complaint does not make the allegations it contains any more true. It does not even mean that there are reasonable grounds for making a complaint. A complaint merely states alleged grounds for a complaint. It is always open to decide that whatever is claimed is indeed false.
What Jane Hansen also got wrong was relying upon information that can so easily be discounted as false and defined as driven by a malicious, self-interested agenda. Jane Hansen was given notice of this agenda in correspondence with Serge Benhayon, which she chose to ignore.
Jane Hansen’s approach to Serge Benhayon exposes that the Daily Telegraph journalist was not approaching her subject in an open and unbiased way. It became apparent that the journalist, apparently seasoned by her time with A Current Affair, had lost none of the techniques employed in that style of tabloid journalism applying an already guilty approach to her subject.
After receiving Jane Hansen’s request for an interview, Serge Benhayon requested that Ms Hansen provide the questions that Ms Hansen would like to ask. Jane Hansen duly responded with a number questions:
I am currently compiling a story on Universal Medicine and the College of UM and have some questions I would like to put to you.
First of all, can you tell me what the charity’s aim is with regards to the College?
Is the aim to build a school to teach you (sic) esoteric teachings?
I see your courses cost anywhere from $100 to $1800 so these will be taught at the College?
Will you be making money out of that?
What is esoteric breast massage and why is it needed?
You have claimed it can help treat women’s health problems such as endometriosis, what science do you base that on?
You have conducted ovarian readings on women…can you explain what an ovarian reading is?
I understand there are now esoteric uterine massages, can you explain how that works?
UM has been described as a cult, what is your response to that?
Its been said you earn up to $5 million a year through these teachings..is this true?
Can you clarify the Leonado Da Vinci reincarnation you purport to be? How do you know?
It is alleged UM preys on vulnerable women with female health problems..is there any truth to that?
I am running this story on Sunday, so my deadline is Friday mid morning on the 20th of June
For those not familiar with Esther Rockett’s and Lance Martin’s complete writings as Darkly Venus and Pranic Princess, Lord of Form, Concerned Partner, You Know Who, You know whose brother (just to name a few), the questions were obviously framed from information gleaned from Esther Rockett’s blogs or were perhaps provided to her by the exposed cyber-bullies. If we consider Ms Hansen’s questions they are framed word for word, idea by idea from Esther Rockett’s blogs.
It is Esther Rockett (and her cohort Lance Martin) who has alleged and promulgated the lies about the College of Universal Medicine suggesting implications of fraud and wrong doing and questioning its charitable status and objectives, who has repeated and repeated her tired and unsubstantiated claims about the Esoteric Breast Massage, ‘ovarian readings’, Serge Benhayon’s income and Universal Medicine being a ‘cult’. Again the information is tired and old, hardly a fresh and interesting story for a journalist.
Not only are the questions asked by Ms Hansen so obviously framed to suit Esther Rockett and Lance Martin’s agenda, the questions asked by Ms Hansen come with a style of interrogation that imply an ‘already guilty’ subject, instead of a sincere attempt to gather facts.
Serge Benhayon was all too aware that the questions were obviously framed to prove the guilt of the interrogated and also supported the agenda driven by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin. He was aware of the inevitable use of the ‘complaints’ to drive a media story, to create the impression of guilt before the facts were known. All this was present in Serge Benhayon’s mind when he considered Jane Hansen’s approach for an interview.
Most if not all would have buckled under the pressure and ferocity of the 2-year hate campaign directed towards Serge Benhayon and the organisation Universal Medicine. The anonymous campaign has bullied this man, his family and everyday members of the community who are students of Universal Medicine. Numerous threats have been made anonymously online as well as government organisations being targeted with bogus complaints – wasting time and tax-payers money; from health care regulators to the border security and the ATO.
Attacks on Mr Benhayon’s personal and professional life have been relentlessly launched at every angle – all have run out of steam as they were mere accusations generated for publicity – and this was the outcome that the haters were wanting – online publicity.
The standards of tabloid journalism are so low that we must ask if many journalists acknowledge that they are dealing with and writing about other fellow human beings.
Reputation is everything in this digital day and age. Anything published in a newspaper has big weight in the online stakes and across the 24/7 online news cycle, trashy articles that in times gone by would have deservedly been collecting dust in a library archive, or even better serving as kitty litter – are today readily available at the touch of a keyboard. Indeed, Google ‘Universal Medicine’ and you have ready access to misleading and malicious digital records (over 400 in the total syndication of articles from July 2012 to present) as well as access to online abuse from anonymous blog forums.
Getting information published in the tabloid media is now easier than ever with declining standards due to the arrogance that comes from the centralisation of media ownership and the pressures of the 24/7 news cycle on journalists to produce a story that sells. This is unfortunately what drives the print media – selling papers at the cost of care, decency and oh yes, truth.
And yet, in the midst of all of this, a letter such as the one below is written. Not one ounce of reaction or retribution is apparent as author Serge Benhayon calls journalist Jane Hansen to uphold standards of decency and integrity in her powerful role as a journalist. But as long as journalists seek a story before they seek the truth, and as long as they ‘cut and paste’ what has been written before with no verification of accuracy, the tabloid arm of the profession will run on accusations and hearsay rather than a respected press who make it about people, truth and integrity.
For a benchmark on these most important human qualities, and a lesson 101 in true journalism, see the letter that follows.
I trust this communiqué is understood and respected. And note that I have made effort to meet your intrusive demand.
Firstly, my surname is spelt Benhayon and not Benhanyon as you have it in your email to me.
My second point arises from the aforementioned intrusion. I have received your two direct emails and notice of your other emails to our office as well as the various phone calls. It appears that your ‘deadline’ is of utmost importance to you. I can respect your predicament however, have you considered your imposition into my current workload, that is, that I also may be on similar time restraints with regard to my work?
Is it your normal to intrude and demand a response by a deadline that suits you with little regard as to what it is or might be for another? Aside from the factor of common respect and decency, what type of journalism is that?
It would seem, from this push of yours to meet your timing demands, that you need a response to tick a legal box and at the same time have a response you can manipulate into whatever your already made up story needs. Is this right Ms Hansen? Correct me if I am wrong with a pure factual piece.
If you are going to pillory me, as have the other scurrilous journalists before you, lies they chose to tell the public, why do you need me to comment? Token, legal, appear to be fair, show some decency and not give away too much the not-so-hidden agenda?
Am I right here Ms Hansen or am I utterly wrong and you are not anything like the complicit liars before you?
On the subject of your interests in me, my business and our charity, it is clear as to where the source of your information has come from.
Are you in any cohort with the discredited and exposed cyber-bully and communications device stalker Esther Rockett and her co cyber-bully and informant Lance Martin? See link for the facts on this cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking gang — www.universalmedicinefacts.com
If the accusations made by Lance Martin and his various mouthpieces are true, then why place so much effort into anonymity and real character describing pseudonyms? Use link for the facts — https://universalmedicinefacts.com/lance-martin-exposed/
As for Ms Rockett, she is now re-badged as a ‘health care activist’. Be whatever name she seeks excuse in she cannot erase a 2-year digital cyber-bullying footprint, utter filth and vitriol she has penned against numerous individuals under the guise of Pranic Princess, Nobody’s bitch, and Darkly Venus. Imagining herself as ‘Esther Rockett, Health Care Activist’, will not make her lies and distortions true.
A lie is lie Ms Hansen, no matter how many times it is repeated, or dressed.
May I present the fact that we exposed the Lance Martin led cyber-bully and cyber-stalking gang from under the cloak and cowardice of anonymity. They did not come forward of their own volition. Unlike your stance on ‘pro-vaccination’, which I agree and support, there is no real conviction from these cyber trolls, just pure revenge. The latter, the ‘revenge’, is increasingly heating up as the numerous baseless complaints meet with their right destiny – dismissed by each government agency they waste time and resources.
Of these self-made detractors, we are also very aware of their various ‘press kits’ and the ridiculous accusations they make. Enticing, shocking and full of all that we do not want in society. It is not clever, it is just lying. In these ‘press kits’ and contact with MPs, media, employers etc, they use their real names. But interestingly, if you have any interest in truth, is that the only bases they can rely on are their own manufacture; their own fabricated lies dressed as public warning complaints.
Truth is what is lived, there for all to see. It is not an assembly from one’s head or lack of where a mouthpiece is concerned.
My interests and my business is founded on the basis that we are not living as healthy as we naturally should, and our bodies are telling us so. The marvels of modern medicine, which I am a strong advocate of, are doing, as I term it, a marvelous job. But it is not enough, evidenced by the fact that just in one small part of the world alone, where I am currently – ‘49,936 women and 349 men in the UK were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2011’ – Cancer Research UK. Saving you here a further 900 pages of statistics and facts that will clearly depict the real state of modern man with regard to health and well being and a further 900 on our ill and or indecent behaviours, now trickling unfettered into the palms of our young children via their hand-held devices.
In 1999 I began presenting on the energetic fact that most of our malaise resulted from our lifestyle choices, and that it was important, as hard as it is, to deal with our hurts and not press on as we are usually told. Many clients have responded to these simple principles and are today enjoying the vibrancy and real joy and love in their lives. Please refer to http://www.universalmedicine.net/before–after.html Here you will see real life photos, the best proof of all. And inclusive of the amazing pictorial turnarounds is the real everyday living quality now enjoyed by many hundreds of people, worldwide. Not bad from an Australian based business pioneering factual and sustainable results that are going against the global ill-health trend.
Perhaps this is the real story not yet told Ms Hansen — the worldwide success of an Australian business in the field of true health, relationship and lifestyle choices.
Hence the question that bears no judgment but comes with my thus far experience of the wielded lies, distortions and corruptions from the small group of journalists I have to date encountered …
Are you going to tell your readers about the hundreds of people worldwide who have had extraordinary and miraculous health, lifestyle and relationship turnarounds in their life?
Are you going to tell your readers how the accusations of Lance Martin, Esther Rockett and their gang have yielded no results simply because they are baseless? This is a fact. It is not due to the lack of power of a Government department but because they look at the facts not the lies.
Or, I ask …
Are you like those journalists I have encountered who had no interest whatsoever in the actual facts or the truth with regards to myself, my business Universal Medicine, our charity or the very respectful Esoteric Breast Massage modality that is obviously an easy target when it is disparaged by mere words, not facts and not by real women testifying the new found self-connection or profoundness?
Are you simply fulfilling your predetermined agenda based on the lies of the aforementioned revengeful gang?
Of course, some find my presentations too challenging. Respectfully they have a right to walkaway. I unreservedly hold in trust and teach the fact that not a single person can be persuaded, coerced or ‘brainwashed’ against their own will. Science is on my side here. People are much smarter and wiser than some will like to accept. I hold and treat all to the fact that they do know and hence are capable of their own decisions. I don’t look down at anyone and especially not women.
I find the line of questioning you pose as rather revealing, revealing that they are the same cunning narrative as exercised by the revengeful detractors. Therefore, I trust that whatever you write will also tell the public that you have a cyber-bully gang as your source of information.
Finally, and I could say more, I am willing to answer your questions if you are willing to show real decency, though in-truth, the questions you ask are already well answered by the revengeful cyber-gang’s failure to get anywhere other than a few complicit stories in the media. In other words, and very clearly, their narrative and accusations are all false.
I am sure you will understand my position and hence the cordiality and respect I offer in asking you some questions also.
I very much look forward to your response. I will be publishing this email and other facts.
Jane Hansen provided a response that highlighted her evident intent, that Serge Benhayon answer questions she had about the College of Universal Medicine charity, however, she never made clear that she was pursuing this line of questioning because the complaints she had been tipped off about concerned the College.
Jane Hansen did not do her homework to find out that Serge Benhayon was not the person to discuss the charity with. Her mistake might be assumed to be because she had clouded her own judgement with the fabrications and false assumptions made by Lance Martin and Esther Rockett. Indeed, it appears that Jane Hansen did not seek to clarify, merely find support for the accusations that pair had made.
On 20 Jun 2014, at 9:44 am, Hansen, Jane wrote:
I’m sorry you find my questions intrusive. I respectfully contacted your office with the purpose of obtaining an interview with you. Ms Serryn O’Reagan promised an interview as a proxy for you on Wednesday but the next day she backed out of that and told me she was no longer available. I then spoke with your PA who asked me to send these questions to her, as requested by you, so the ‘intrusion’ as you term it was actually solicited.
Serious allegations have been raised that are now before the the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and the Department of Fair Trading. I am a journalist, it is my duty to put these allegations to you for your response.
Yes it is a legal requirement as much as it is a professional requirement. And yes, deadlines can be quite difficult to negotiate which is why I contacted your office as early as Tuesday.
Can you please answer the questions about the charity specifically?
Can you tell me what the charity’s aim is with regards to the College?
Is the aim to build a school to teach you esoteric teachings?
The college will be built on you land, does that not commercially benefit you?
I see your courses cost anywhere from $100 to $1800 so these will be taught at the College?
Will you be making money out of that?
Will the College be a commercial enterprise?
Jane Hansen’s questions, unsurprisingly mirror what has been promulgated about the College by Esther Rockett and Lance Martin – with accusations that the Charity is merely a profit making venture for Serge Benhayon and that he will benefit financially from it. Her sources Esther Rockett and Lance Martin had been blogging furiously on this subject of late, but Jane Hansen should be reminded that just because material is published online, and repeated many times, does not provide your sources with credibility.
Jane Hansen’s response belied the fact that she had obviously not read the email Serge Benhayon had sent her, as he gently reminded her in his response:
Please read and refer to my email again.
I do not find your questions intrusive. I did not write that so why are you not able to at least have that fact/aspect accurate? The intrusion is you asking me to comply with your deadline with a subject that has been concocted by pure revenge. You have reported on and written articles that are motivated by truth and or a seeking of it. This one, if you go ahead, will not be one of those. I can assure you that what I wrote will be what is found to be true.
Again – you have been informed of allegations that will go nowhere. Yes, they look good for a journalist, dressed as if there is something wrong. But, like all before, it will be nothing more than trumped up allegations. A complaint to an authority does not make the complaint true Ms Hansen. And the tactic of a journalist riding a complaint is well known to me. Though I must say that at first, I was amazed at how low one would stoop to do their job and chase a possible award, but thanks to time, truth and its natural justice, I see that for some the sensation and the thrill is greater than truth and common decency. Is it a wonder why the public do not trust the media? No, it is not because they are not as stupid as they are held to be.
As an alternate possibility, you may want to write about an extraordinary Charity, where real philanthropy is its core design and as such will be its delivery. Now there is an unusual, don’t you agree?
Consider this Ms Hansen, unlike many, I have the resources to sue Mr Martin and Ms Rockett for defamation. But why haven’t I? It is an easy victory given that they have no proof because there are no facts to their allegations. And with no assets or funds to pay for their crimes. When you have nothing to lose one can be as recklessly unaccountable as they please. Concocted lies do not convert to truths. Thus, what better way than to welcome with full transparency any complaint or investigation. Two years of vile accusations with no results. I ask you to consider if there is more at play here than you have been led to believe.
Of interest, we do know of your twitter association with the discredited and exposed cyber-bully Esther Rockett. You are just another one of her gang’s strategies. Of course, you have the right to align to whatever you choose. And thus, I ask you this Ms Hansen, (asked with due and sincere respect with regard to much of your past work) — is it a case of you being used for the sake of their revenge campaign and you in turn using them for the sensation their lies can deliver, for the sake of some readership arousal? Or Ms Hansen, will you draw on your senses and consider different here?
Finally, I will give you a small glimpse of what will be found — with regard to the Charity and it being on my land and my building: there is no untoward personal gain whatsoever for me. In fact, there is personal loss for the sake of true Charity. Unusual yes. But then again so is much of what we have set new standards for over the last 15 years.
Ms Hansen, there is a great story here if the truth is told. Perhaps, it is too good to be told. I understand if the newspapers do not consider great Australian stories readership quality. But then again, it may be worth it.
I look forward to your reply to my questions
He added a repeated request for the journalist’s sources:
I have one more question for you — did you have the complaint or know about it before it was lodged?
From: “Hansen, Jane”
Subject: RE: questions for Sunday Telegraph
Date: 20 June 2014 5:18:28 pm AEST
To: Serge UniMed
Ms Hansen later revealed that the politician concerned was Dr Andrew McDonald, Opposition Spokesman for Health, it remains a mystery how Dr Macdonald came across these complaints that related to a different portfolio and took an interest in them. That he sent them to a journalist suggests that there is more to this story than meets the eye.
And then the final correspondence before publication:
If you read my emails and understood them there can be no question of you being insulted in any way. On the contrary, I am questioning why would you be involved with a revengeful group when your past work carries the note of conviction. I mention this. Revenge and conviction are vastly different motives. I have read your personal story, it directly relates to my situation, almost exactly. Ergo, and to be honest, it does not make sense for you to be roped into this farce that is still held by lies with little true media expose of the sources making them. Hence my appeal for you to consider. Also, my thus far experience with journalists who are first informed of the lies as a basis for their questioning has not been what I would at least deem a fair treatment not to mention the refusal to hear the truth.
Again, I will state that there will be no wrong doing found as have all investigated complaints met with our very high levels of integrity.
Please consider that there may be another story here.
Jane Hansen’s response reverts to resting upon the ethical standards of journalism to imply that she might actually be giving an opportunity for fair and balanced reporting:
We have simply asked you to put your case forward as is our charter and we have given you ample opportunity to do so only to be met with insults to my journalistic integrity.
However, balanced reporting is not simply giving lip service to the fact you need to approach both sides of the story, it is certainly not approaching your subject with an obviously pre-conceived bias that is evident from a particular line of questioning. There was no scope for Jane Hansen to actually present a balanced report, she had already adopted a line of reasoning based upon the quality of her sources – known cyber-bully Esther Rockett and her revenge driven collaborator Lance Martin, and she had muddied in her own mind the link between Universal Medicine, Serge Benhayon and the College of Universal Medicine and thus her investigations and her final report reflected this.
An Australian audience is well acquainted with the style of journalism in programs such as A Current Affair, where Ms Hansen spent some time and ended up under the Media Watch spotlight for her particular brand of reporting. It takes one side of a story and then pursues the other side for confirmation of whatever sleazy lies are being peddled. Journalism standards calls for more Ms Hansen, it calls for an objective and reflective analysis of the material.
In response to this correspondence we prepared a thoughtful analysis of how Ms Hansen came to write her ‘stories’. Ms Hansen obviously did not like this exposure and we were met with demands to remove our story.
From: “Hansen, Jane”
Date: 22 June 2014 2:28:15 pm AEST
To: Serge UniMed
Best take this defamatory blog down about ridiculous inside jobs etc…since I am in possession of an email from Dr Andrew McDonald, Opposition Spokesman for Health who sent me copies of the complaints on June 12
Jun 12 (10 days ago)
Do you know anything about this?
Is this a story?
It seems like an unusual co-incidence that Jane Hansen had been following Esther Rockett and Darkly Venus on Twitter since 5 June, and the complaints mysteriously came into her possession on the 12th on June. There is perhaps more to this than will ever meet the light of day.
We have our own questions about these matters:
What is the relationship between Jane Hansen, Esther Rockett, Professsor John Dwyer and Dr Andrew Macdonald?
The answers to some of these questions will be considered in future posts.
Jane Hansen’s approach to the story on the College of Universal Medicine and Universal Medicine were not dissimilar to previous approaches to the subject of Universal Medicine by journalists such as Byron Kaye where the story was already written, all that is sought from the interrogated is a way of confirming the angle of the story that has already been decided. Indeed the presence of a complaint that at the time of the news story is known only to the journalist suggests the tactics used by previous journalists like Byron Kaye are afoot – use a fabricated complaint to make up a ‘news’ story based upon that complaint and never report that the complaint turns out to be dismissed by the relevant authority. You can hang your subject and never take responsibility for the consequences. It is a journalist’s job to be impartial and objective in how they report their story. It appears that journalist Jane Hansen’s approach is merely another failure to meet the most basic of journalism standards, that of fair and balanced reporting.