What’s in a name and why the avatar?
Updated: Sep 5, 2019
The first amendment of the US constitution provides:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Australia however, has no such protection (although some claim it is implied) and section 121 of the Family Law Act forbids the publication of documents naming individuals and places that would identify the participants in a case and even by their court appointed pseudonym. While decisions are published and discussed in law review journals, they are done so under a court designated pseudonym however my direct experience showed that these discussions are often extremely lacking in understanding and reasons. My case was discussed in one legal publication, however:
never covered the fact that the Netherlands courts had ruled it had no jurisdiction and therefore the gaping hole in the access to justice which Australia filled.
the death threat in the foyer and highly mitigating circumstances which led to the judicial decision.
In short, the legal training got it wrong and did not inform the lawyers that subscribed to their service with the correct facts.
Due to these reasons:
My identity is now Trevor Cooper, a pseudonym, as my life story cannot be told and my face cannot be identified and hence the avatar or caricature.
The various towns and cities within the Europe and Australia may have been changed to comply with the law.
Many of the court decisions have been paraphrased so as to not clearly identify me if someone looks them up with a legal search.
Several events were not covered in this book as they would clearly identify me and I have to apologise as these events would make the account within this book, even more emotional and intense.
Otherwise I may be prosecuted and become a criminal, simply for telling my story. Someone that has done nothing wrong that tells the truth can easily be made a criminal in Australia and this needs to change.
The only benefits with the pseudonym and why I am not overly concerned about slander is:
Who would want to prove they were the ones doing the things as outlined in the book as may then be subject to prosecution by law enforcement agencies.
It they were silly enough to prove they did the things outlined in the book to identify themselves, then the proof they put forward is the ultimate defence against the allegations of slander and would be self-defeating.
Proving what they did would be counterproductive to the persona that the wish to maintain in society.
It is extremely disappointing for me that I am not legally allowed to tell the story of my life in public and to state the name of the organisation that saves so many lives each year as promoting the organisation may increase the number of lives saved into the future.
The section of the family law act was probably drafted for good reasons but now days is simply a method of suppression of political views. It is now used as a tool for de-platforming. “De-platforming is, quite literally, denying someone a platform from which to express their views” and when we consider this is related to providing guidance to governments on how the law should work it may be considered as undemocratic.
I can only pray that readers understand that behind the avatar is a real person, struggling with the horror inflicted on his daughter through parental alienation. A real person that has been subjected to highly questionable tactics, harassed and terrorised by highly questionable people that were recruited by his former spouse and there is no protection offered by the government agencies as outlined in the book. Unlike a murderer, rapist or paedophile, I have nothing to be ashamed of, yet forced to conceal who I am which assists the government in sweeping the events like these under the carpet.
It is time for change!