If you go to the child custody  trial transcript and review what Ms West said under oath on page 24 of that transcript (click this link and navigate to page 24) you will see that Ms West has, once again, committed perjury!

Check out her answer to the question, “Okay.  And you’ve exerted out one from Jamie, but there are lots of others on that website, aren’t there?”

Ms West’s answers, and I quote, “Yes, but they are all fabricated and most of them are fictitious individuals and you might also want to be aware that we have a suit filed against this individual presently.”

Of course filing a suit against me is different from serving a suit on me and neither of those acts has anything to do with telling the truth!  Ms West mentions the suit she has filed against me (but not served) like the mere mention of it turns her lie, under oath, into truth.  It does not!

Here are the names of the ‘fictitious’ people on my website that West say’s do not exist and whose statements are fabricated!

Anyone currently associated with Ms West or anyone who has been associted with Ms West will instantly recognize ALL THE ABOVE as ex employees and or students!  A fact that is easy for any individual, lawyer or judge to verify by examining Ms West's employment records or by looking at the local tax records or by interviewing individuals! 

Well individuals who are not working for Ms West who are free to tell the truth!

Additionally there will be a record of the police having to escort Kathleen Francisco (to ensure her safety) back to 'cult central' to return some of Ms West's belongings that Kathleen had hung on to pending payment of wages she was owed by Ms West!

Similarly there are numerous complaints lodged with the police at Lakeside.  Does Ms West imagine that all of these records will vanish before her next appearance in court?

Ms West is going to appear in court again sometime soon and when she does the perjury she has repeatedly committed under oath will become a big issue – for her! 

I respectfully suggest that the remaining employees, especially those with professional qualifications, look to the future and consider the impact on their careers of having Ms West and her very public demise on their resumes’? 

It is one thing to be associated with an alleged fraud but to be seen to align yourselves so aggressively and publicly in her defence could, by association, at best do untold harm to your career prospects or at worse involve you in any investigations that may ensue.

After all you have seen how, under oath, Ms West distances herself from our own creations and how she asserts that, "they did not do a good job!"

I am obtaining a copy of the trial transcript for Ms West's 2006 court appearance.  That transcript along with the statements she made to my lawyer in 2003 under oath should prove fertile ground for Ms West's 'economical' use of the truth!

Copyright 2007. John Watson. All rights reserved.