Seventh Day Adventists

ukusaoz · is under review Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 5 Location: USA

I am the father of two girls abducted by the sda mother and her then lover (now spouse) from my former home in South Australia. The Sda do everything they can to obstruct contact. The school the girls atend is in Adelaide Australia and ignores the Family Court Order I got at the suggestion of sda hq senior counsel, so that I might receive copies of scholar reports. sda hq make all sorets of untrue claims on their website (we want to know what makes you happy, etc etc) and the school (Prescott College) also claims to want parental involvement yet ignores my very many communications on my offers to help.

These are very difficult people todeal with. sda hq (President Office) refuses to intervene. Its been 5 years now since I saw my children. What do you suggest? I now live in the USA and started Court proceedings in Adelaide in Feb 2003 but no hearing date yet. The Australian aauthorities are incompetent, negligent and corrupt I have discovered. Given that SDA HQ sanction such dishonesty, I can expect to encounter this rotten ness and evil, at the SDA locally and this has been found to be the case. I have done nothing wrong!

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:10 pm Post subject: You have much to explain

Dear ukusaoz,

The only thing I can do is encourage you to tell your complete story here. It will be noticed by forum members and also made available worldwide, easily accessible to surfers and researchers who search the internet for information. All the popular search engines such as google index everything written here.

For starters, please give us an idea of both sides of the dispute by posting the URL of the "SDA HQ" website that makes untrue statements about you. Do you have a more detailed answer to the false accusations? It would help your case if you could be more specific.

I assume that your two girls are now young adults attending Prescott College. Could you please explain why your own now very mature daughters are reluctant to make contact with you or why it's difficult for them?

ukusaoz · is under review Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 5 Location: USA

Thank you for your reply. I will post a history below. In answer to your specific questions, the orig State Schools (Golden Grove and Wynn Vale) obstructed email contact presumably because of their earlier negligence (see below) in accepting enrollments by the Mother. The Mother has refused to have internet access at home and this situation has not improved with the involvement of the Adventists at Prescott (see below) this past two years. My eldest relies on the Mother or the Male for transport to a local city library where she can get internet access on (I think) Wed PM, during a free period.

All of which contravenes the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.
A/44/49 (1989entered into force Sept.2 1990, esp. Article 9. which the Adventists choose to ignore. They also refuse to reciprocate the freedom of information act. Christian? Never. Evil? definitely!

Then there is the disinterest in child abuse by the Adventist male in the house. The Mother is believed to exert corrupting influences leaving the children to ralize that the Adventists will not protect them from child abusing Adventist members. Its obscene of course.
See if you agree!

1) The MOTHER is a Nurse believed to be still employed within the South Australian Health Service, an agency of the South Australian Government. The MALE OTHER is a mental health nurse believed to be employed also by the South Australia Health Authority and to be trained in mental health. This status explains why the South Australia Nurse Registration Board are unwilling to investigate whether any breaches of their published Code of Conduct occurred in the denial of independent consultations regarding my eldest daughters complaints of child abuse by the MALE OTHER. Clearly the South Australia Government does not want its employees behaviors examined in a thorough, transparent and competent manner, for undisclosed reasons.
2) Children abduction # 1. Mother granted restraint order without reference to FATHER and not because of any domestic issues, because none existed, but rather to gain access to Adelaide woman’s shelter, which she did, resulting in complete loss of direct and indirect contact between the father and the children.
3) MOTHER obtained this RESTRAINT ORDER against the APPLICANT FATHER without any evidence to justify it, and as a vehicle to obtain sole custody by using this instrument as a ‘passport’ to a women’s shelter where she was to commit child abuse (see below) that was sponsored by the incompetent and corrupt Australian Authorities.
4) FATHER denied any direct or indirect contact with the girls even though he was neither charged, suspected or had any previous record worldwide of any offence other than driving. This is the evil that is the Adventists
5) THE MOTHER has acknowledged committing physical and psychological abuse to eldest daughter K whilst resident in this shelter, under oath to the FAMILY COURT
6) No Family and Community Services Social Worker attended the shelter facility; obviously because of the MOTHERS employ status. as a 'nurse' within the South Australia Community Health Services, meant that she was able to exert corrupt influences over her professional’ peers and colleagues so as to deny the children contact with a social worker. This is typical of the corruption, cronyism and unprofessional conduct that prevail in Australia. This bias and prejudice by the South Australia Community Health Service was demonstrated previously when the APPLICANT FATHER visited the Community Health Center to ascertain why the two children were removed from school early in the afternoon. Why did the Community Health Services Manager not realize that children’s best interests are served by their attendance at school? Because it interfered with the preferences of the SA Government employed MOTHER! Elsewhere this would be regarded as unprofessional conduct by the MOTHER and by the COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES MANAGER.
7) MOTHER attends former marital home with the South Australia Police to recover various items of womens clothing, childrens toys. Police objectionable to the process of examination of effects by the FATHER prior to the removal of these effects from the house by the MOTHER. Quite why two patrol cars, four officers and another were present to gather sundry items of clothing/underwear is an example of the behaviors of the South Australia Police. The complaint by the FATHER to the Police Complaints Authority was upheld. During a visit to the Whyalla Police the APPLICANT FATHER was advised not to avail himself of services at the Whyalla Community Health Center, the MOTHERS former place of employ because of the RESTRASINT ORDER (the APPLICANT FATHER was not then able to take the children there after their recovery for counseling for example). The FATHER later learned that the children were left at friends with strict instructiuons that they not be permitted to use the telephone.
8) FATHER unable to ascertain location of the MOTHER and/or BOYFRIEND due to the refusal of the South Australia Authorities who frequently ignored correspondence
9) After some 6 months of effort FATHER discovers girls location independently of the biased prejudiced and corrupt South Australian Authorities. This bias and prejudice is regretted.
10) FATHER regains custody through Family Court & AFP Recovery Order. Judge perceived reluctant to grant this order.
11) MOTHER and LOVER/BOYFRIEND later visit the girls at the former marital home even though this is in default of their restraint order (see above).

12) Child Abduction/Kidnapping # 2
13) FATHER notifies Australia Federal Police Adelaide but advised by Melbourne office, the police station closed for the day (Monday Jan 2 2000))
14) FATHER notifies Family Court Adelaide, 6 Forms (2 sets of 3) received completed and returned on January 4th 2000
15) Further set of 3 forms received Thursday January 5th 2000, with note from Family Court saying an error was made. Forms again completed and returned.
16) All nine applications ignored by the Family Court of Australia Adelaide Registry. For undisclosed reasons.
17) FATHER still under constraints of restraint order frequently ignored by the MOTHER.
18) Restraint Order forbids FATHER from claiming unemployment benefits even though long term unemployed, as Centerlink Social Security office Nicholson Avenue Whyalla which is adjacent to the MOTHERS former place of employ; the Whyalla Community Health Center and which facility was nominated in the restraint order. Advice received by the FATHER from a Senior Officer at Whyalla Police after the apologies for excesses committed by the South Australia Police.
19) FATHER discovers eldest child has been enrolled in Golden Grove School without that school checking status of custody (whether the children were subject to Court Custody Orders) or the school notifying the CUSTODIAL PARENT who at that time was the APPLICANT FATHER, even though this is required on the enrollment application form.
20) FATHER discovers youngest child has been enrolled in Wynn Vale School without the school checking existence of custody status or Family Court Order or the school notifying the CUSTODIAL PARENT who at that time was the APPLICANT FATHER even though this is required. (Refer school enrollment form were MOTHER instructs school not to disclose any details without her consent.
21) South Australia Education Department ignores requests for comment on very many occasions and WYNN VALE Schools denies APPLICANT FATHER email contact, even though the APPLICANT FATHER has done nothing wrong.
22) FATHER decides that due to the incompetence, negligence and corruption of the South Australian Government and of the Family Court, he had better rebuild his life elsewhere. After consultation with the Salvation Army and the Pastor at his Anglican Church, Father Michael Hillier, FATHER returns to the UK.
23) Child Representative attorney Adey appointed. Adey refuses to address questions put by the FATHER in respect of how the children might initiate contact with him. Party Adey neither meets with or contacts his Clients either by telephone or letter, the two children.
24) Complaints in respect of Attorney Adey made to SA Legal Practitioners Conduct Board managed by the party Withers. Complaints rejected even though Adey failed to adhere to the Guidelines for Child Representatives in that he neither met with or contacted either child and indeed refused and objected to providing the APPLICANT FATHER with answers to the question “How can my daughters initiate contact with you?’ Clearly adherence to these published Guidelines is arbitrary and discretionary. The question of how an Attorney can competently, adequately and professionally represent a Client he neither meets nor contacts nor discloses how his Clients might contact him, was obviously disregarded by the LPCB, the Lay Observer and more recently, the SA Ombudsman, the party Biganovsky. Such standards are not acceptable, as they do not inspire a confidence in the integrity of services. No explanations have been forthcoming to explain these failures, which through denial of the complaints patiently made by the APPLICANT FATHER, must be by default, be acceptable to the South Australia Authorities. Quite how an Attorney can competently, adequately and professionally represent a Client he neither meets nor contacts nor discloses how his Clients might contact him illustrates the standards that prevails and can only be adequately described as fundamentally rotten and corrupt.
25) Childs Rep Adey retains a psychologist to interview and prepare a Report on the two children. It is noted that in this Report the MOTHERS sister was invited to provide commentary upon the APPLICANT FATHER as was a Mrs. Kondylas a teacher known to the APPLICANT FATHER. No invitation to the APPLICANT FATHER to nominate respondents was ever received. This is the biased and prejudicial behavior of the Family Court of Australia! The psychologist made erroneous statements that were subsequently challenged by the APPLICANT FATHER through the family GP Dr Paul White of Whyalla. A complaint to the SA Psychologists Registration Board by the APPLICANT FATHER was upheld and the psychologist retained by the attorney Adey, was dismissed from further involvement.
26) Complaints against the Attorney representing the MOTHER were also denied by the LPCB. These complaints arose from the descriptions gleaned from the Family Court of Australia website. Here is stated that the Family Court will deal with the distribution of family assets, but it makes no mention of third party assets. In accepting the seizure of third party assets the Family Court is in breach of its own guidelines in not requiring that South Australia Attorneys perform due diligence and ascertain the title of assets they are contemplating seizing. The item seized was a prototype sports care some 80% complete and the product of some 17 years of effort in research, development and design. It was to be put into manufacture. The owners have never received official notification of the seizure of their assets despite this being requested from the Family Court on their behalf. This behavior is regretted.
27) Numerous attempts were made by the APPLICANT FATHER to obtain copies of documentation from the South Australia Government pertaining to the enrollment `of the two girls in contravention of the Family Court Order in place at the time (Dec 1999), but these have been routinely ignored as have requests for access to copies of scholarly records. This situation was compounded by the refusal of the Seventh Day Adventist organization who operate the Prescott School currently attended by the eldest child K to also allow the APPLICANT FATHER to access scholarly records. It is noted that the ADVENTIST ORGANIZATION did not show any concern for the complaints of CHILD ABUSE. This refusal to respond is a common tactic adopted by various Australian Authorities including the Child Support Agency (CSA) in an attempt to deny competent, thorough and transparent investigation of issues and complaints regardless of the errors made or negligence, incompetence and/or corruption demonstrated.
28) Complaints made to the SA Ombudsman; the party Biganovsky about the failures of the SA Nurse Registration Agency to adhere to their own guidelines, about the LPCB and the party Withers to adhere to their own guidelines, the SA Education Dept to adhere to their own enrollment guidelines, but all were rejected. The party Biganovsky issued contradictory statement on consecutive days confirming that SA Government Agencies will not intrudes upon the findings and decisions of the Family Court, then on the next day, seeking to justify the failures of the SA Education Dept to adhere to their own enrollment guidelines and seeking to explain why the SA Education Dept do not have to respect Australian law. Quote In your letter of the 25th July, at para 4 you state
29) “It is neither administratively appropriate nor lawful for another government agency, such as FAYS, to make arrangements which would in any way interfere with orders of the Family Court”.
30) Given that the South Australia Education Department, which is “another Government Agency”, did demonstrably did interfere with orders of the Family Court, I am bound to question your ……. further demonstrated failings.
31) All this is nonsense designed to protect the SA Government and its Agencies from being responsible and accountable for their failures and the damage and distress they cause.

32) “Quote from the SA Government website:
“New Honesty and Accountability Measures
The State Government has introduced into the State Parliament Australia’s most comprehensive honesty and accountability legislation.
The legislation will enshrine in law the honesty and accountability of my Government and all future South Australian Governments.
My Government is committed to ensuring more open, honest and accountable government in the future and to rebuilding the standards of government in the eyes of the community.
These new measures will apply to Ministers, senior public sector executives, all public sector employees, consultants and directors of government boards”.

33) Clearly, this legislation is ineffective and of no legitimate value. All of which undermines any claims to integrity or credibility you or your office might contemplate. Honesty and truthfulness go a long way to earning respect and demonstrating integrity. Absurd claims that you have some supernatural powers that enable you to predict that future outcomes or events would not be different had your Government peers respected Australian Law as embodied in the Orders of the Family Court confirm that you select the desired outcome most favorable to your colleagues, and work backwards.
34) Further, that child abuse alerts are only valid if they are witnessed and are not ‘broad and ill defined’ and capable of detailed description far beyond the grammatically capabilities of infants and children, confirms again your unsuitability for office.
35) You are challenged to provide the writer with advice as to where this protocol is documented.”
36) Complaints highlighting the absurdities and bias and prejudices of the Ombudsman were disregarded by the party Biganovsky, who in the opinion of the APPLICANT FATHER is unfit and should resign forthwith.
37) Numerous complaints made to the Child Support Agency (CSA) Manager Sheila Bird were ignored. After denying the existence of a Family Court Order the CSA ultimately acknowledged that an Order referred to by the APPLICANT FATHER did indeed exist, but the CSA refused to abide by it and sought to incorporate clauses which did not exist. Complaints were rejected by the party BIRD. The CSA does not enjoy the liberty to reword orders of the Family Court and their behavior caused much distress. This is regretted and is unprofessional. It is recorded that the CSA also failed to adhere to their own guidelines.
38) Applications for physical contact were initially made to the Family Court in February 2003 but these were rejected because of format, because of colour coded pages, because of the USA contact address and other reasons equally frivolous..
39) Applications reworked and resubmitted using numbered paragraphs and pages and color coded sections (Yellow for Applications, Blue Affidavits, White Exhibits) but these were again rejected.
40) Applications photocopied at local Kinkos on white paper and resubmitted a third time but were again rejected due to the APPLICANTS ADDRESS being in Oklahoma, USA
41) APPLICANT FATHER then arranged an Adelaide address for receipt but the applications were rejected a fourth and fifth time. Applications were subsequently accepted with an untrue stamped paragraph stating the APPLICANT FATHER had demanded acceptance. Clearly this demonstrates that the paramount concern of the Family Court is not the infants and minors but their protocols and ‘industry’ attorneys who profit from the incompetence, negligence, bias and prejudices so amply demonstrated by the party Adey.
42) APPLICANT FATHER unable to access copies of any reports into Child Abuse by the South Australia Family Services under the Freedom of Information Act as this does not allow for transmittal of documents overseas and a two tier payment system exists that requires multiple foreign exchange fees. It would be better if only 1 fee was payable.
43) No Replies received from Application in respect of Child Abuse made to the Family Court after some 10 months.
44) Interim hearing held in October 2003. Registrar Kelly refuses to allow access by the APPLICANT FATHER to the children’s medical records for undisclosed reasons Registrar Kelly will not allow access by the APPLICANT FATHER to the enrollment /scholarly records of the previous school of the eldest child K. (Golden Grove) This is regrettably typical bias and prejudice of the Australian Family Court..
45) THE APPLICANT FATHER HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG.
46) The MOTHER & MALE OTHER has neglected the health needs (dental particularly but also GP Registration) of both girls. What is wrong with you people that you regard this evil and wickedness as acceptable?
47) The social interaction needs of the eldest child K are neglected by the MOTHER and MALE OTHER. This is believed to be a punishment for her making her complaints of CHILD ABUSE and which complaint of CHILD ABUSE has not been competently, professionally and transparently investigated by the Australian Authorities as of today some 18 months after the complaint was first made.
48) Copy of an Affidavit submitted to the Family Court of Australia and yet to be acted upon!!

49) FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
50) Form 16
51) Family Law Rules, Order 16, Rule1
52) AFFIDAVIT Number Jan 2 of 2

53) I, Kenneth Brian Jones (Brian Jones) of C/o P.O. Box 54491, TULSA 74155, Oklahoma, United States of America, whose occupation is Researcher, do make oath and affirm:
54) That the following is a list of known breaches of the law, procedures, and accepted behavioral standards known to the APPLICANT FATHER. Because of difficulties of communication, including difficulties imposed by the South Australia Government and/or its Agencies, the Adventist organization and the RESPONDENT OTHERS, it is believed that this is only a fraction of the incidents believed to have occurred and which have not been reported or recorded.

55) PHYSICAL , PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE whilst in Adelaide Woman’s Shelter
56) PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE OF BOTH K & S, who, upon being left with a friend during an earlier visit of the RESPONDANT OTHERS to Whyalla from Adelaide to collect personal effects from the former marital home, were told that they were not permitted to use the telephone to speak with the APPLICANT FATHER. (Note this was the occasion when several police Officers accompanied the RESPONDANT MOTHER. The behaviors of the POLICE on this occasion towards the APPLICANT FATHER, led to a second complaint being upheld by the PCA
57) PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE OF K at house in Whyalla so severe that she ran away from the RESPONDENT MOTHER during her first weekend away, K subsequently hid in school restrooms on Friday afternoons to avoid going with the MOTHER on weekends.
58) REMOVAL OF BOTH YOUNGSTERS early from their classes by the mother (not then a sda member but with the assistance of the then Sda boyfriend Mr D Bienewitz.), without just cause or advising the APPLICANT FATHER. (Refer Affidavit #2 of 4 Page # 26 Para 6.1 ‘Note’)
59) PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE of both youngsters when having taken them to Port Lincoln, the RESPONDENT MOTHER did sleep with the youngsters until she thought they were asleep, whereupon she would then, according to my eldest daughters statement to me, relocate to the then lover, boyfriend Mr D Bienewitz.), the now MALE OTHER to commit adulterous acts.
60) Is this the Adventist way? Surely not!
61) ABDUCTION # 2 in contravention of Family Court Order in place at that time (December 1999)
62) Instruction to Golden Grove School TO DENY ENROLLMENT DETAILS to APPLICANT BIOLOGICAL FATHER (refer copy part only enrollment certificate attached 14)
63) FAILURE to respond to advice of Whyalla Children’s Orthodontist for about 2.5 years that K needed treatment.
64) The occasion when the APPLICANT FATHER saw the youngsters in the car park of the WHYALLA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER on Nicholson Avenue Whyalla, but could not visit with them because of the restraint order and they could not cross the highway because of the dangers from passing traffic. Can this Honorable Family Court really imagine the distress this caused? And for what purpose?.
65) FAILURE to register the children with Family Medical Practitioner (This may have occurred subsequent to the matter being highlighted by the APPLICANT BIOLOGICAL FATHER.
66) Continuous statements made over the past approximately 20 months (nb. hearsay but repeated to the APPLICANT BIOLOGICAL FATHER. by both girls and the MOTHERS BIOLOGICAL SON A also refer to copy email from K dated December 23 2003) that the RESPONDENT MOTHER would arrange the girls passports to facilitate a visit to the BIOLOGICAL FATHER in the USA but has failed to so do. The RESPONDENT MOTHER has now acknowledged before THIS HONORABLE FAMILY COURT (Ref hearing October 2003 that she has been telling untruths to the two youngsters about them journeying to and spending time with the APPLICANT BIOLOGICAL FATHER in the USA. THE RESPONDENT OTHERS have therefore, been lying to the children. The APPLICANT BIOLOGICAL FATHER submits this is not a good idea nor is it an example of good parenting. Clearly some parental training is urgently required.
67) CHILD ABUSE reported to the APPLICANT BIOLOGICAL FATHER by K about 16 months ago (August 2002) naming the (ADVENTIST) MALE OTHER but not yet competently and professionally investigated in a professional manner that would withstand robust scrutiny.
68) FEARS expressed by K to the APPLICANT FATHER should the (ADVENTIST) RESPONDENT MALE OTHER carry out his THREATS
69) K (now 17.0 years) has reported to the APPLICANT FATHER, the RESPONDENT OTHERS intention to take the CHILDREN on a visit to the PHILIPPINES The Mothers birth country) . Reference to the attached Warden Advice from the UNITED STATES Embassy in MANILA, the travel advice of the United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office and advice from the Australian Embassy in Manila, all confirm that this is most dangerous plan to contemplate and one that has aroused real fear in K. To expose the CHILDREN to the real risk of KIDNAPPING or ASSAULT or WORSE can only be described as RECKLESS AND IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR.

70) Given the difficulties both youngsters experience in initiating communications with the APPLICANT FATHER, denial of internet access at home, denial of internet access at school (all in contravention on the UN Convention on the Rights of the
71) Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.
72) A/44/49 (1989entered into force Sept.2 1990.
73) Article 9 states "3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is
74) contrary to the child's best interests."

75) Unless of course the subject children are in Australia and attend a SDA school.

76) Further, it is believed that many matters have gone unreported because of the endemic corruption that exists in Australia (see also ABC TV 4 Corners Report into corruption in the Australia Police broadcast in Australia about 26 and 27th July 2004). K relies upon the RESPONDENT OTHERS for transport to the local library once per week where she is able to send and receive emails from/to the APPLICANT FATHER. But in the meantime?
77) It is against this background the APPLICANT FATHER seeks ORDERS from this HONORABLE FAMILY COURT requiring both the MOTHER and MALE OTHER to attend PARENTING CLASSES. (Ref a 6.0 Page 5 blue). These were first applied for in February 2003 but no court date has been set yet.

78) Adventist Australia party’s Pastor Zederfeld, Kingsley Wood, Dr Simmons, Principal Neuhoff and his staff all ignore communications by email and letter. Party Neuhoff refused to answer questions by telephone “Why are you so hostile to me”. He then hung up a practice repeated by the Maryland USA Sda Hq Secretary of Education Director Dr. Garland Dulan some months ago and the Assistant to the President Orville Terchment about a month ago.

79) Is the Adventist behaviours this past 5 years pleasing to God? Do they love thy neighbour as thyself? Do they do unto others…?

80) No they do not! This is the evil that is the Sda and Australia
References
Registrar McMahon stating that denial is authorized under “….Rule 4A Order 12
This is non existent. See Family Law Act at Family Court of Australia website or at Austlii.
Your Adventist Neighbour
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/neighbor/index.html

Adventist Prescott College Adelaide Parental Involvement
http://www.prescottcollege.sa.edu.au/college/page.asp?parentid=8

Family Court of Australia
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/html/legislation.html

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 71

When will your daughters be old enough to be legally independent from their mother? Where's the SDA website that maligns you?

ukusaoz · is under review Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 5 Location: USA

Hello and Thank You again for taking the time to reply. It is appreciated.

I had included the URLs on my previous reply, but here they are again. I know there is morew because dishonesty and obstructing my contact with my daughters and vice versa, cannot be in accordance with His Word.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/neighbor/index.html

Adventist Prescott College Adelaide Parental Involvement
http://www.prescottcollege.sa.edu.au/college/page.asp?parentid=8

Family Court of Australia
http://www.familycourt.gov.au/html/legislation.html

My eldest is 17 and the youngest is 12 next month. This means that next year the eldest can travel where she chooses. That will be almost six years since the second abduction.

God Bless

Brian

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 71

Perhaps you will be polite enough to quote a paragraph from each link that mentions you specifically.

ukusaoz · is under review Joined: 02 Aug 2004 Posts: 5 Location: USA

Thank you again for taking a few moments to reply. I apologize if you are offended by this but I am upset by the selfishness of the Sda. I know, for example that if I telephone the Sda school on my birthday, they will not let me speak to my children because the Male Other Sda member objects. How cruel can you get?

The easiest way for me to reply is to post the letter I sent the party Terchment who is Assistant to the Worldwide Sda President. As he has neither acknowledged receipt nor raised any objections in response to my invitation to confirm the documents integrity, I assume he agrees indeed that this document is truthful, correct and accurate.
Here it is including the paras you requested!

God Bless You

Brian

FTAO: Mr Orville Terchment
Assistant to the President
The Seventh Day Adventist Organization
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring , MD 20904
USA

Phone: 301-680-6000
Fax: 301-680-6090

Dear Sir,

Reference KC J and S M J (kidnapped, abducted and abused daughters of the complainant)

I refer to your recent telephone call in response to several previous calls made by myself highlighting the unchristian behaviours and poor ethical standards of several of your staff, both at your facility and in Australia where my kidnapped, abducted and abused daughters reside and where they attend a school operated by your organization.

My complaints arise from the failure of your organization to respect my role as father of my two kidnapped, abducted and abused daughters, which unlawful act your organization continues to profit from. The question of ‘whether your behaviours are pleasing to God’ remains unanswered by your organization.

I noted with interest several claims on your website, which are frivolous at best, dishonest at worst. These include:
1)“They will be genuinely concerned about the needs of others and interested in bettering your community.”

This is not demonstrated by the SDA. What has been demonstrated is dishonesty, conceit and an unhelpful approach that includes a refusal to accept responsibility for children in the care of your organization.
Whether you recognizer it or not, you are responsible and your attempts to evade accountability, as you did when alerted to my daughters complaints of child abuse by the Adventist Male Other is disgraceful and invalidates your claim as above. Could bias and prejudices be creeping in to your value systems such that objective determinations are not possible? It appears so.

This, then negates your published claim of being “genuinely concerned about the needs of others and interested in bettering your community.” Which is demonstrated to be subjective, elective nonsense without worth or merit. This claim by your organization, could be construed as being untruthful and dishonest therefore, particularly as you have chosen to disregard my complaints.

2)“They want to hear what makes you and your family happy.”
Bunkum!! One way to hear what makes my family happy is to listen to our complaints and then investigate, validate and correct the deficiencies, instead of which your staff hang up the telephone, refuse to listen or just decline to act as you yourself did this past week. By default this means you condone dishonest actions, the obstruction of parental contact by myself as biological father and approve of discriminatory and biased and prejudiced behaviours. There is something fundamentally evil about these behaviours I feel. They do not demonstrate God’s love of fellow man.

Clearly then your claim to “want to hear what makes you and your family happy”, is more subjective, elective nonsense without worth or merit and this is regretted. This claim by your organization, could be construed as being untruthful and dishonest therefore, particularly as you have chosen to disregard my complaints.

3)“Your Adventist neighbors are just like you.”
Baldersdash!! No you are not! You need to read your Bible, Sir, and remember as you do, that breaking one commandment is breaking them all. I pride myself of my devotion to the word of God, but try as I might I know I know I am a sinner and that my best efforts fall short of what I should achieve.

However, I do not subscribe to your poor ethical and moral standards as demonstrated on so very many occasions, I not hang up on people nor would I ignore any complaints, but I don’t get any so my ethical, moral and spiritual standards must be far superior to those of your organization. I do find your behaviours reprehensible, offensive and regrettable. My experiences of Adventists is that they hang up (Senior Counsel, Secretary of Dr Dulan, Principal Neihoff and others have previously done, and as you Mr Orville Terchment, Assistant to the President of the Adventist organization also did last week).

Your organization has also chosen to ignore correspondence and alerts and generally behave in a cruel, unsympathetic manner more reminiscent of the Dictators in Third World countries than a so-called Christian grouping. You must try harder, MrT erchment. You must do much better.

4)“We also hope that you will see in us the power, purpose, and peace that God offers to each human being. Even more, we hope you will find these to be so attractive that you will choose to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Won't you join us in this lifetime adventure called Christianity?”
No Sir, I cannot say that at any time during the past few years I have seen anything of objective, substantive merit that would persuade me to forsake my Christian beliefs and want to become formally associated with your organization whom I regard as selfish, greedy, inconsiderate, cruel and evil. The attributes I have had demonstrated to me, include;
1) an unwillingness to help children in your care, (remember the best parent is both parents!),
2) abysmal ethical standards,
3) dishonesty, an ongoing refusal to respect orders of the Family Court of Australia,
4) greed,
5) selfishness,
6) evilness and;
7) an absence of love for fellow man.

You and your organization should be working hard to impress me, but you do not. Sir, you have much to learn. I suggest you start with the New Testaments.

Other somewhat mischievous or frivolous claims your organization makes include:

“Christian Education and the Church School

Philosophy The church operates a school system to ensure that its youth may receive a balanced physical, mental, spiritual, social, and vocational education in harmony with denominational standards and ideals, with God as the source of all moral value and truth…...”

This claim cannot be substantiated as the party Neihoff continues to ignore the Orders of the Family Court and now with your knowledge and blessings. I have done nothing wrong Sir, yet am subjected to the evil and wicked behaviours of this party, Kingsley Wood, the party Simmons and Zederfeld and others within your organization. These cannot be truthfully stated to reflect “a balanced physical, mental, spiritual, social, and vocational education in harmony with denominational standards and ideals, with God as the source of all moral value and truth…...”. I suggest they reflect the opposite; the work of the Devil.

“We recognize those agencies that lift up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for evangelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ.”

“When interdivision work brings us in contact with other Christian societies and religious bodies, the spirit of Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness shall prevail at all times.”
“We recognize that true religion is based on conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be our constant purpose that no selfish interest or temporal advantage shall draw any person to our communion ….”

You omit to clarify that behaviours best described as greedy and selfish, will be tolerated and by default, encouraged and rewarded by your organization. This is regretted. Again these are mischievous and/or frivolous claims incapable of withstanding robust independent scrutiny.
.
I am actively “engaged in winning souls to Christ.” I do not see this further claim of yours being either demonstrated or capable of substantiation, as clearly your behaviors in hanging up and refusing to deal with the many complaints cannot be described as a demonstration of how your organization “hold in high esteem Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ". If igboring legitimate complaints and demonstrating the low ethical standards that prevail within the Sda, is indeed how you interpret “hold (ing) in high esteem”, then what can be the Adventist organization’s holding in low esteem?

Your claim is frivolous and will not withstand robust scrutiny

As I will be publishing my experiences, I take this opportunity to invite you to confirm the integrity of what is included herein.

I trust that my sad experiences with your organization will encourage you to move closer to the Word of God and live a life that reflects His teachings and inspire others in your organization to refrain from behaviours that are un-Christian and not pleasing to God, but instead demonstrate in a tangible way God’s love of fellow man.

Please note that this document will likely be referenced in legal proceedings.

God Bless You

I wish you well.

Brian Jones

cc. The Editor Times

ell · is under review Joined: 04 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

dear brian, we are a people with a good message. we are humans.
we, as a whole fail. all of humanity does. i write because, i have worn shoes very much like yours. mine are in greater danger than yours. but, ONLY the danger of the flesh! joseph was 3 years in prison, without the light of day. God had a plan. my heart breaks for you & yours. God will not forget the children of his care. before mine were conceived, i gave them to Him. we [you & i ] must hold to the promise. 'i have begun a good work in you......' He will finish it. i am praying for you, may your heart be softened. just as the gov of usa, is at war. i am of the usa & i am a pacivist. seeeeee. i am sda. & our comferences are made of good & bad humans.
in the love of Christ, your sister in Him

God bless & keep looking up! Laughing

He has a plan

please pray for me & mine