Who is Jonathon Harveson?
- Details
- Category: Uncategorised
- Created: Tuesday, 07 June 2011 17:30
- Written by Alecomm
Jonathon Harveson is the cruel conceited man who quite openly admited in Tribunal Hearings on 7 June 2011 (regarding soon to be 21, year old Prison of the State Emily Brown), that he has sighted Emilys writings on this site (alecomm) ... you know, the writings of Emilys that she wrote stating that :
Her carers (well thats their words, we have much more truthful words such as prison guards and pigs), Deb from Allevia (Bankstown Handicapped Childrens Centre), refuse to change Emily's food menu - because it is too much paperwork. --- yes, that's right people, the "carer's" WILL NOT, change Emily Browns crappy food menu because it involves them getting off their fat lazy arses and actually caring for the person they get remunerated quite substantially for and giving her some food she would actually like. Point 1, that Johathon Harveson from the Public Guardians Office - who is entirely in charge of Emily Browns life - refuses to help / change, and in fact, what he did do today was attack the mother and us for making public Emily Browns wishes - seen as how Jonathon Harveson himself wont get off his fat lazy arse either and give Emily Brown what she wants. And why the hell shouldnt he? He gets all her f**king money each week and so does Allevia, not too mention the government pays them all them substantially on top of keeping her money, and to add to that they make interest off her money and they charge her fees for keeping her money and not letting her have any of her money!!!
Jonathon Harveson must have also read Emily constantly writing "I WANT MY MUMMY" - "I WANT MY MUMMY" - "I WANT MY MUMMY", yet what did he request in the tribunal proceedings today? No contact for Emmy and her loving mummy, even though he admitted into evidence the very documentation he just had orders made in complete CONTRADICTION TO HIS VERY OWN CLIENTS WISHES?
Ten associates of Alecomm were fortunate enough to meet Emily Brown 12 months ago, just before her 20th birthday where we were hoping she would be freed. Emily begged us, not to let her be taken away by the police and returned to her prison Allevia. When we found Emily, she was in urine soaked clothes, her hair was matted and she was that drugged up she could barely walk. I did not recognise her myself., however the girl i seen was Emily Brown, and years of being kept inside and denied a normal life have curbed her normal development. Her shoes were rotted and paperwork shows Emily had asked almost 12 months ago for her carers to replace her shoes - yet even though Emily receives an allowance - apparently - she never received those shoes. We have the shoes Emily was found in, they are rotted, they too smell of urine. How filthy that anybody can be left in such a state and yet this man, Jonathon Harveson, fully aware of all this sees fit to call himself the guardian of this beautiful prisoner.
Jonathon Harveson also admits - by way of sighting documents on alecomm, that Emily Brown is not allowed a telephone to make calls or have contact with the outside world. This would automatically make Emily a prisoner, and prove she has no human rights. So for Jonathon Harveson it is okay for his clients not to have human rights is it? But it is okay to harass the parents of those without human rights? And to continue to deny them any sort of relationship with their child?
Comments
The protest for Emily's freedom campaign at the public guardians office is now being organised.
Emily's support group will be asking Andrew Constance and attorney general Greg Smith to comment on Emily's horrific case of the rerrible abuses both her and her mother have been put through by people in the system such as Jonathan Harveson Ben Anderson Heidi Mullinger Debbie Faith Sandra Wiseman and many many more government employess who have assisted in the conspiracy to lock Emily away for the rest of her life so as to gag her from speaking of her abuses in care of DOCS and the Public Guardian
Tune into this page later tonight.
Dear Mr Harveson
Tampering with the hormonal climate of menstruating teenage girls whose lives stretch ahead for decades, for the purpose of doing away with their periods is: in a word,reckless.
Manipulating hormonal chemistry for the purpose of menstrual suppression threatens to be the largest uncontrolled experiment in the history of medical science HANDS DOWN.
Do tell Mr Harveson
For what reason has Emily's hormonal chemistry been manipulated and who ordered her menstrual suppression and why?
a) Is it because there maybe a risk that she could be sexually abused in care again?
b) Is it because it makes life easier on the staff that drug her daily and are funded by the $15,000 per week + her disabled pension to keep her locked away from the world outside and the mother who loves her.
c)Is it because it is time saving and financially beneficial to the public institution in which Emily is confined to.
Mr Harveson, who was the prescriber/auth oriser of Emily's birth control prescription to be taken everyday for the rest of her menstrual life in care of The Public Guardians Office. Who authorised Emily's menstrual manipulation and why?.
Mr Harveson you claimed at the tribunal hearing on Tuesday that Emily had been moved and was now living in a place where she was happy. Yet Emily in that very same tribunal hearing handed her legal supporter her written notes that read to the affect of how scared she was of an abusive co-inhabitant who verbally abuses her using foul language and also calls her foul names. Please explain Mr Harveson.
Dear Mr Harveson
1) Emily told many of the wittnesses how much she loved her mother Julie. Emily was calm, relaxed and very happy to be in her mothers company. She told of how she had longed for visits with her mother and especially on her birthday and she pleaded with the wittnesses not to take her back to the confinement unit with Debra Faith.
2) Emily also related to the wittnesses that her food at the confinement unit was the same everyday and many times she requested for her menu to be changed re: ONE SANDWICH for lunch etc etc .However Debra Faith continually told Emily it involved too much paperwork.
3) Emily also complained of the many prescribed drugs she was being administered and named all the drugs but one. The one drug she did not name was not privvy to her and she told of how her carers did not allow her to see or know of this particular drug, A drug that caused Emily to slide down onto a cold tiled floor where she would stay on that floor for hours upon hours, drugged and very cold.
4) Another thing that Emily was very upset by was the fact that she had NO freinds. And the only people she seen were her carers that were rostered on at the confinement unit, although she did tell the only time she did see other people was when she was taken to see doctors.
5) whilst with us on the 2nd of June 2010 Emily enjoyed a glass of juice a sandwich and a slice of cake. She drank and ate indepenendly and with very good table manners.
We as Emily's support group have obtained and sighted a paper/document that was presented at a tribunal hearing regarding Emily some two years prior to the 2nd of June 2011. This paper states that Emily cannot eat and drink indepenendently and shows a photo of Debra Faith assisting Emily to drink.
Yet ten wittnesses watched Emily eat and drink independently and lady like. We would like to know who set up that phony photo of Debra Faith assisting Emily to drink and then present it at a tribunal hearing re: Efficacy.
Mr Harveson please explain Sir
Part 3 to be continued
Dear Mr Jonathon Harverson
Re: The 2nd of June 2010 ... At a tribunal meeting today and in front of six people you accused Julie Brown of removing Emily from the confinement cell you then had her imprisoned in with Debra Faith as her carer. On the said day being the 2nd of June 2010 i myself along with ten other wittnesses watched Debra Faith take her keys and unlock the wire screen door that Emily freely walked out of after it had been unlocked by Debra Faith.
To be quite honest with you Sir, the 19 year old girl who walked out that door freely and indepenently, looked more like a very sick 30 year old woman and at first Julie did not recognise her nineteen year old daughter Emily. Julie was in shock and emotionally upset! at the sight of her daughters seriously concerning and alarming appearence.
The state Emily was in 2nd June 2011:
1) Emily's hair was matted and hanging in oil dreggs re: Filthy
2) Emily was wearing a pair of old pilled navy blue tracksuit pants that the elastic waist had worn so badly; that the pants were hanging off her. This pair of tracksuit pants had a dinstinctive reak of urine, in other words: Emily's tracksuit pants were putrid.
3) As if the tracksuit pants were not bad enough, there were Emily's shoes. These shoes were falling off her feet and had worn to their last and they also wreaked of rot. The shoes on Emily's feet were literally rotting away on her feet. Hence Emily told us she had been requesting new shoes from her pension that you control for almost a year = Request denied.
Emily was in an appalling state for a nineteen year old girl.
.................................
Eleven people wittnessed this Mr Harverson.
Part 2
Emily's mother did not coax or force Emily into any car. Emily got into the car and would not leave her mother. Eleven people wittnessed this Mr Harverson and so did Debra Faith.
Part 2 to be continued on Wednesday.....
Part 3 Thursday
Part 4 Friday
Part 5 Saturday