Doctor Watson's Diary

Wednesday, 31th March 1999
The children's wishes are not determined by an impartial Family Court Counsellor. Marie Hume released a Family Report pursuant to Order 25 rule 5(2)(a) of the Family Law Rules. The material contained in the report is confidential; but the conclusion was that it is not in the best interests of the children to determine their wishes. Justice Robinson accepted the recommendation and denied leave to make a further application for contact and residence. This atrocity will stand until the children reach 18 years of age and the Family Court of Australia has no jurisdiction. Justice Robinson ordered that her decision should not be published.

The acknowledgement from the United Nations was translated and reposted.

        Date   Scr        Subject                     Forum           Author


   1. 98/06/19 037 " os doutores são enganadore uk.people.fathers Sherlock Holmes
   2. 98/06/19 036 El caso de los doctores de m uk.people.fathers Sherlock Holmes
   3. 98/06/19 036 l'atrocity, déshonneur, abom uk.people.fathers Sherlock Holmes
   4. 98/06/19 036 Il caso dei medici di menzog uk.people.fathers Sherlock Holmes
   5. 98/06/19 036 Die Doktoren sind betrügeris uk.people.fathers Sherlock Holmes

The Director of Paul's Prosecutions will not prosecute Dr. Blake.
The Ombudsman discovered that Dr. Blake mislead the Medical Board.
The Honourable Cannon will not request Dr. Blake to respond.
The Honourable Dean Brown claims his decisions are subject to accountability mechanisms.

How can giving presents to your children be a criminal offence?

Start with a restraint order.
Be present at the time ordered by the Family Court.
Plead not guilty to the charge of breach of restraint.
Appeal to the Supreme Court.
Have the Crown Solicitor argue that the constitutional questions are irrelevant.
Then go to jail.

Monday, 11th January 1999

Today I appeared in the Family Court for an hour of argument. The matter was adjourned to 9:30am on Wednesday 31st March 1999, for the children's wishes are determined by an impartial Family Court Counsellor. I was warned not to breach Section 121, FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 . I gave a teddy bear to Mr. Richard Deegan, solicitor for the wife, to give to the wife in the hope that she may give it to our daughter for her birthday. The Court would not hear the evidence of Dr. Terry Donald.

The Honourable Jan Wade MP, Attorney-General of Victoria has not yet responded to the

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS UNDER SECTION 78B OF THE JUDICIARY ACT 1903 The other Attorneys-General will not intervene at this stage, but may if the matter proceeds.

There are signs outside the Supreme Court of South Australia. The local population ignore the signs as they leave the Christmas pageant, unaware that the signs have been there two years.

Transcript of the Medical Board Hearing under section 54(1)(d) of the Medical Practitioners Act held 8th June 1995

Dr. Blake has a vested interest in promoting false allegations of child sexual abuse. He gains career advantage, prestige among his colleagues, and funding for the exaggerated problem that is perceived by the political decision makers. Dr. Blake may act with the best intentions in an environment where the protection of children is taken for granted as the holy grail (or cow). Critics are dismissed as ignorant or dangerous. The falsification of evidence is considered expedient in the pursuit of child protection. But it's back to Court for me to argue the "truth" on Monday 11th January 1999 at 2:15pm. I feel like a voice crying in the wilderness. But someone may hear, someday. Is anybody out there?

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws