On 19 March 2019 I gave a talk in Lismore on the Unimed cult’s disruptive behaviour in the Northern Rivers. A lively audience of over 200 people came to the Lismore Workers Club to hear me speak for an info packed 2 hours. The recording with the slideshow is now available on YouTube.
Just a few remarks have been edited out of the final copy as there were some contentious comments that I am unable to verify as based on facts.
Outline of the presentation
Beginning: Benhayon v Rockett findings
07:00 Brief intro to my publishing, my campaign to bring UM to account, and UM’s reactions
20:00 The reason for doing the talk – informing the community and bringing it together to protect from further UM exploitation. I make recommendations for putting a local management plan in place. It’s not possible for me to continue the campaign. I must rebuild my life and get back to work.
28:45 Action taken since the trial – the problem of the Girl to Woman Festival and the action taken by Ballina Shire Council
40:30 Background of UM – its structure, its personnel and profits
01:04:30 Incursions in the Northern Rivers – activities aimed at children, forays in the health sector, higher education, Chambers of Commerce, politics, and other critical or publicly funded workplaces
01:48:30 Management plan – how to use the Supreme Court judgment to protect community, and also minimise harm to everyone involved. Visit this link for the recommendations and template on making notifications.
01:52:00 Possible legal and regulatory remedies.
01:53:30 Q and A – why hasn’t Serge been locked up?
Suggested plan for local committees dealing with Universal Medicine
- Understand UM in general
- Gather information on local UM identities
- Monitor UM activities in the area
- events related to UM and its promoters,
- UM identities participating in community organisations, schools etc.
- Use notification template to notify stakeholders and request that
- nothing UM related is to be promoted within the organisation in question
- UM identities make full disclosure of their links to UM and whenever they promote, endorse or introduce anything or anyone UM related to the organisation.
- Liaise with media to keep UM under scrutiny
- Liaise with public representatives. Ask them what action they propose to take to protect the community from UM’s anti-social behaviours
The Q and A wasn’t very long, so some people missed out. If you had a question, please put it in the comments area below and I’ll answer it there
After the talk someone asked whether Serge can appeal the court’s finding. The answer is no – for a number of reasons. According to the rules an appeal has to be lodged within 28 days of the final determination and that lapsed months ago, but SB’s lawyer told us shortly after the jury made its finding that he would not appeal. Legally there was no chance of him succeeding with an appeal. To win, I only needed one defence to succeed for each imputation. Three separate defences were upheld for the majority of the imputations making it an overwhelming and basically bullet proof verdict. Also a jury decision is very difficult to overturn. Juries are not required to give reasons for their decision. There are therefore no reasons to argue against. Serge would have to argue that the jury’s decision was perverse, but there’s no way that would fly.
Keep it civil
Locals have also privately expressed concern that the ‘naming and shaming’ aspect of bringing UM to account has the potential to go too far. In my talk I appealed for everyone to stay on the high road. My objective has always been to miminize harm to all concerned. I did not stand up to an anti-social group so that others could exploit my progress to behave anti-socially toward others. UM needs to be dealt with firmly and assertively, but please be mindful of how that can cross the line into harassment. I won’t support mistreatment of anyone. The way that some people are talking and behaving could unfairly target people who are engaging in harmless activities, and it is causing distress to other locals. Please be careful of airing poorly founded suspicions and how that might unfairly tarnish innocent parties. Don’t say anything that you can’t back with material evidence or witnesses willing to testify. Please keep it civilised, reasonable, constructive, and strictly legal.