More Details About Dorothy Lee Barnett’s Character

The initial reports by the media is that Dorothy Lee Barnett / Alexandra Geldenhuy raised her daughter in a “normal” life South Africa, Dorothy Lee BarnettNew Zeland and on the Sunshine Coast in Australia. But there is new information that her marriage was not so normal. Below are some recent Anonymous Posts in the comments section of our website.

  • “Juan and Alex’s marriage wasn’t loving. we witnessed belittling of a loving man. She wore the pants and was fiercely protective of the children, yet very pushy and ambitious on their behalf (ambitious soccer mum type) Jaun was an keen runner and was very fit, story we heard was that was how they met in Cape Town through a running club. Sam always appeared older than her years.”
  • “This family lived in our community, we are astounded Juan left New Zealand ahead of the family with the intent to start his new job (as a brand manager/ sales rep) and buy a house for the family. Whilst the children finished school year. He had an affair with a estate agent during this process, the Alex/Dorothy found out when they arrived in Australia, made sure no one forgave him. He lived in a house he paid for and no one talked to him. He was another victim in this sick sorry mess!”

Dorothy Lee Barnett is due back in court on February 3, 2014 for her extradition hearing.

Advertisements

30 Responses to More Details About Dorothy Lee Barnett’s Character

  1. Minyama says:

    The story of Dorothy Lee Barnett (Alex Geldenhuys) is about to unfold. For 20 years only one side has been available, fed by lies, misinformation and prejudice.
    To those people who saw something amiss in the story and questioned why a mother would flee with her baby, your wait will be rewarded.
    Alex fled from the US because of intense physical and mental abuse and the corruption of a court that prevented her access to the legal system to appeal a confected result.
    The final straw was the damage to her child whilst in the custody of the father. Allegation? No:- fact backed up by witnesses and affidavits and photos.
    For 20 years, her friends in the US have stored in wardrobes, cupboards, basements and attics, the evidence, affidavits, and transcripts relating to the trial. These documents, all on the public record or (should be) held by the father’s attorneys have become available to Alex to finally set the record straight.
    For 20 years, Alex has been a refugee and exile from her home, family and friends to protect her child.
    In that time, she remarried and had a son.
    After an amazing journey, she came to the Sunshine Coast where the kids had a good life in safety and security until November 5th 2013, when she was arrested by the FBI and imprisoned in the Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre where she remains today.
    She wasn’t tracked down, she was betrayed by people she regarded as friends, who she had helped settle on the Coast, looked after their kids and she was sold for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.
    I think the most famous example of that conduct occurred about 2000 years ago. That bloke was as guilty as Alex.
    It appears these people are amongst the ignorant spreading more lies and misinformation about Barnett.
    There are those who think that the father has a right to his long lost daughter. I think that is a journey for him and he must prove himself worthy of her trust.
    In 1995, he gave an interview to GQ magazine where he was offered the opportunity by the author of the piece, to contact his daughter. He declined. What he did not tell the author was that Alex knew of his lies and mendacious behaviour and would not in a fit, expose her daughter to his contact.
    There is much more yet to be revealed in this saga as the documents reveal the sordid truth.
    I would suggest that the greatest calamity for the father is that Alex was caught. For now, over the next period as the story unfolds, the lies corruption and mendacity will be laid bare for all to see. Alex’s life over the past 20 years has been honest and true to her core beliefs. His has been built on lies and perhaps indicates his core beliefs.

    • Cliff Barnett says:

      I would also like to reply to the above people who lived in the community with Alex.. You say Alex wore the pants, was protective, and ambitious and you try to make the point that Sam’s life was not normal?? Last I checked 80% of the families have the moms wearing the pants and are protective and ambitious for their children whether their husbands know it or not.
      Also, what does the fact that Juan was fit and Samantha looking older than her years have to do with Alex being a poor mom? That is way out there.
      In addition, I am sure Juan was a nice man but if you think living in a house and being ignored after having an affair makes him a victim, I would love for you to come to the States and be the judge in my divorce if I were to get one.

      • Mary says:

        Cliff, I get it that you feel the need to charge on in as the white knight. Reality is your relative was not granted custody of her daughter. You, your relative or even your cousin’s, cousin’s, cousin’s cousin, did not have to like that decision. That said, your relative did need to respect that decision.

        Your relative could have moved forward by looking for legal ways to challenge that decision, as everybody else has to do. Instead, she chose an option that is considered a serious criminal offence in most countries around the globe. In doing so, I see your relative as a selfish mother who put her own selfish (or is it more appropriate to say vindictive/spiteful) interests above her daughter’s right to a relationship with her father and, not forgetting, your relative’s ex-husband’s legal right to custody of his daughter.

    • Mary says:

      Minyama on the Sunshine Coast, your friend has been check-mated. She kidnapped. She hid. She denied her daughter her right to a relationship with her father. She got caught. And, hopefully, she will be extradited, as she should be. Emotional clap-trap aside, this woman may not have liked the court outcome. However, instead of bolting, she should have looked for legal avenues to appeal the decision, as other people have to do.

      She is not before the Maroochydore Magistrates Court on 3 February for the court to deliberate on whether 20 years ago she was unfairly treated in the American court system or her ex-husband was really the axe-murder incognito but the courts didn’t get it. She has had the last 20 years to do that. And, she is not a refugee who has had to flee to Australian shores to protect her daughter. No-one falls for that nonsense anymore.

      Your mate was not granted custody of her daughter. Parental child abduction is a criminal offence in just about all countries across the globe. So is making a false statement on a passport application. As well, she would have made false statements and provided false information to gain a passport for the daughter that she kidnapped. America has asked for her extradition under the treaty signed by both countries. She is on remand at Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre as she was considered a flight risk. And, rightly so, as this woman has been very slippery in her deceit and illegal conduct.

      Shed all the crocodile tears and rant and rave as you will, this woman’s extradition has been requested. Your mate no longer calls the shots.

      • Cliff Barnett says:

        Please re- read my post. I did not say anything about a relative breaking the law or whether she made a good choice in what she did. I was merely making the point that the original post was useless as far as having any meaning to this story. As usual it was he says ,she says and did not enlighten anyone on the subject. You then take that and spew your agenda whatever it is driven by. Mary Mary quite contrary .

      • Minyama says:

        I posted below but forgot to respond to the above. Your comment that she was a flight risk is incorrect. The magistrate did not find so. There were also a number of persons attending court that indicated formally, an intention to post in the order of 150,000 bail if it was granted. No my fine friend, the Australian/US extradition process carries the presumption that bail will not be granted, even if the person is not a flight risk. (which the magistrate found she was not)
        I think you had better re-read the rules of chess Mary Mary, the game has a long way to go. The end is not as certain as you might think.

      • Mary says:

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-21/bail-refused-in-sunshine-coast-child-kidnap-case/5108752
        ABC News posted Thu 21 Nov 2013, 4.54 pm
        “A 53-year-old woman accused of kidnapping her infant daughter almost 20 years ago has been refused bail in a court on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast.
        Dorothy Lee Barnett was arrested at her Sunshine Coast home earlier this month and is facing extradition to the United States.
        Maroochydore Magistrates Court has heard she kidnapped her nine-month-old daughter from her former husband in South Carolina in 1994.
        Magistrate Annette Hennessy refused bail on the grounds Ms Barnett is a flight risk.
        She is due to appear in court next February for the extradition hearing.”

      • Minyama says:

        Mary, the ABC news is not known for its accuracy. Ask someone who was there. I didn’t see the ABC present. My comment stands.

      • Mary says:

        Bail hearing – 14 November 2013 Maroochydore Magistrates Court
        Extract from article in Sunshine Coast Daily 14/11/13:
        “… The anxious young woman relied on the support of a packed public gallery as her mother Dorothy Barnett faced a bail hearing in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court in relation to kidnapping her daughter in the US 20 years ago.
        Savanna’s brother Sean was among those watching proceedings. …
        Prosecutor Marc McKechnie, representing the Attorney-General and the US Government, suggested Ms Barnett was a flight risk and asked that bail be denied.
        Magistrate Annette Hennessy adjourned the bail hearing until next Thursday. …”
        Next bail hearing – 21/11/13 (see ABC news report above)

        Extract from fact sheet 2 – Overview of the Extradition Process – Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, page 4
        “Stage 2: The person is arrested and the magistrate remands the person in custody or grants bail
        If the Attorney-General or the Minister issues a notice formally accepting an extradition request, a magistrate must issue an extradition arrest warrant if the magistrate is satisfied that the person is an ‘extraditable person’ in relation to the ‘extradition country’.
        The extradition arrest warrant is executed by Australian police and once the person is arrested, the person must be remanded in custody by a magistrate unless there are ‘special circumstances’ that justify the grant of bail.”

      • Minyama says:

        There you go Mary, you finally stumbled on the issue why she never got bail – Special Circumstances – as defined by the courts were found not to be present and that was the reason she was denied bail. The flight risk was dispensed with by the magistrate earlier.
        The one thing that comes out of this is that Barnett is indeed fortunate to have been apprehended in Australia and is being tried under our legal system. It may not be perfect, but compared to what Barnett faced exactly 20 years ago today, mid trial, it is a paragon of justice. I am confident that whatever the outcome, there will be no favours to either side and the law will be applied properly.

    • forthelost says:

      It’s interesting that now everyone’s coming out of the woodwork to claim dad was abusive when even Faye Yager admitted he wasn’t.

      • Mary says:

        forthelost, I suspect the “abuse” angle is now being trotted out as a last hurrah to get the Australian people onside in the lead-up to next week’s extradition hearing. For your information, the Australian current affairs program “Today Tonight” will air a segment called “Savanna’s story” on Australian television some time this week. I suspect this is happening as another way of drawing attention to the reality of possible extradition but, more so, as a way of paying for mounting legal and other costs.

        For females, the mere mouthing of the word “abuse”, even if it is whispered from 100 paces, is pretty much a winning formula in Australian Family Court matters. It is very hard for a male to be granted custody of his child/children over the mother here in Australia. When it does happen, there are always the cries “the Judge was corrupt” “my ex-husband has lots of money and is well-connected” “my ex paid off the Judge” “he lied” “he is an abuser” “the true story was not told” “just wait until we show you the real evidence” “I wasn’t given a fair trial” “I automatically should have custody as the birth mother”, and so on. I suspect it works the same in America.

        Reality is America has requested this woman’s return on outstanding international parental kidnapping charges and for making a false statement on a passport application. Australia and America are extradition treaty partners. It would be inappropriate for Australia not to co-operate with an extradition treaty partner country. Also, Australia cannot be seen a safe haven for people wanted on serious criminal charges in another country.

        My understanding is that Dorothy/Alex is not even an Australian citizen, but was able to enter and live in Australia as a permanent resident through New Zealand citizenship acquired under a name that doesn’t trail back to her birth name. This woman has even changed the name and citizenship of her daughter. I am not aware that a mother can change her child’s name or citizenship without the father’s or the court’s permission. So, I hope this is also investigated.

        For your information, a sneak preview of the Today Tonight segment first trailered on our television screens here on 24/1/14, co-incidentally the same day as Minyama’s post.

    • underwatch says:

      To Bruce (Minyama),

      It sounds to me like you re-published something that Dorothy Lee Barnett wrote from her jail cell. For years, we have been reading these stories and it sure sounds like Dorothy not you.

      “The story of Dorothy Lee Barnett (Alex Geldenhuys) is about to unfold. For 20 years only one side has been available, fed by lies, misinformation and prejudice.”

      For 20 years of cruel lies, misinformation and prejudice were pathetically by the parental kidnapper Dorothy Lee Barnett.

      “To those people who saw something amiss in the story and questioned why a mother would flee with her baby, your wait will be rewarded.”

      WTF, who would say “rewarded”. Minyama (Bruce according to our source) anyone that would post those words might be considered an “extremist”. In fact, I would think Australian Law Enforcement should investigate anyone who would post such a comment. I really hope for the safety of all involved that you are not a danger to society.

      “Alex fled from the US because of intense physical and mental abuse and the corruption of a court that prevented her access to the legal system to appeal a confected result.
      The final straw was the damage to her child whilst in the custody of the father. Allegation? No:- fact backed up by witnesses and affidavits and photos.
      For 20 years, her friends in the US have stored in wardrobes, cupboards, basements and attics, the evidence, affidavits, and transcripts relating to the trial. These documents, all on the public record or (should be) held by the father’s attorneys have become available to Alex to finally set the record straight.”

      If Dorothy Lee Barnett had evidence, then why would she have committed multiple felonies. Most convicted felons would say that they are not guilty and wronged by the system. They would proclaim to have evidence or the smoking gun to exonerate them. Faye Yager and her Children of the Underground have used techniques to gather evidence such as false medical reports and domestic violence complaints, but even these don’t exist in this case. Furthermore, none of these are a “reasonable belief” that Dorothy Lee Barnett or her child’s life were in danger. If you even look at Dorothy’s second marriage, it sounds like she doesn’t take any responsibility for her own actions.

      “For 20 years, Alex has been a refugee and exile from her home, family and friends to protect her child.”

      A refugee in exile from the United States of America. I surely hope that Australians are not that naive.

      “In that time, she remarried and had a son.
      After an amazing journey, she came to the Sunshine Coast where the kids had a good life in safety and security until November 5th 2013, when she was arrested by the FBI and imprisoned in the Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre where she remains today.”

      An Amazing Journey, that sure doesn’t sound like someone that is in a jail cell. That also doesn’t not sound like a good mother.

      She wasn’t tracked down, she was betrayed by people she regarded as friends, who she had helped settle on the Coast, looked after their kids and she was sold for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver. I think the most famous example of that conduct occurred about 2000 years ago. That bloke was as guilty as Alex.
      It appears these people are amongst the ignorant spreading more lies and misinformation about Barnett.

      The friends that reported Dorothy did the morally right thing. Again, doesn’t Dorothy take responsibility for anything?

      “There are those who think that the father has a right to his long lost daughter. I think that is a journey for him and he must prove himself worthy of her trust. In 1995, he gave an interview to GQ magazine where he was offered the opportunity by the author of the piece, to contact his daughter. He declined. What he did not tell the author was that Alex knew of his lies and mendacious behaviour and would not in a fit, expose her daughter to his contact. There is much more yet to be revealed in this saga as the documents reveal the sordid truth. I would suggest that the greatest calamity for the father is that Alex was caught. For now, over the next period as the story unfolds, the lies corruption and mendacity will be laid bare for all to see. Alex’s life over the past 20 years has been honest and true to her core beliefs. His has been built on lies and perhaps indicates his core beliefs.”

      Bruce, I really hope you are not a current danger to society. If so, I would hope you get psychological counseling.

      Parental Kidnapping is a very serious crime and before Dorothy Lee Barnett committed this crime, she knew what the consequences would be to both herself and her child. It’s really so sad that she put her child in this position. If you’ve ever been before a judge before, they don’t like their court orders being violated. Our Global Family Law Custody Laws and the Public’s perception of the really horrible and heinous nature of parental kidnapping has made significant strides in the past thirty years. Dorothy Lee Barnett could certainly save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by taking responsibility for her actions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like she is headed down that path and if that is the case, then the best place for her is a jail or prison cell.

      The Editor

      • Minyama says:

        Editor, Maaate I thought you would never turn up. I’ve been waiting for your bilious attacks and feeling lost with the idiots appearing in your place. What a forum you have! On one side, the miserable vindictive bastards who support abusive parents, equally vindictive people who would rather see a family torn apart to ease the embarrassments of their own dysfunctional family members, the ignorant hysterical nuff – nuffs who are incapable of logical reasoning, lacking any of the milk of human kindness, all against a 50kg woman who fled an abuser to protect her child. It’s a no brainer – you lose!
        By the way, have a look at this. Book your time down to education:
        http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/21121486/world-exclusive-savanna/

        By the way, would you suggest Bjorksten for the psychological testing. I hear he is well recommended by the former husband and especially his lawyer. Perhaps some of your bloggers might enjoy his ministrations.
        BTW, your sources might be wrong. You should check your sources before quoting, lest you wind up with a writ up your arse.

      • underwatch says:

        Bruce,

        The real abuser in this parental kidnapping case is Dorothy Lee Barnett. Her proof is a photo of a child with a bloody nose. That’s not a “reasonable belief” and Dorothy didn’t “exhaust her legal remedies” before she fled. If your granddaughter were parentally kidnapped for 20 years and someone called him vindictive, how would you feel. Huh, if your granddaughter was kidnapped for 20 years and taken to the United States, maybe I would help raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the legal defense of your ex-daughter-in-law.

        Let’s hope your son or daughter never gets a divorce.

        That show was so one-sided that it sounds like the Barnett Team had editorial sign-off on the show. But then Dorothy Lee Barnett rightfully sits in prison. Parental Kidnapping and Passport Forgery are serious global crimes and one can’t take the law into their own hands and have anyone in the legal system take them seriously. Your college drop out friend Dorothy Lee Barnett had many other legal alternatives before committing this crime.

        Let’s hope that the Family Abduction Community in Australia doesn’t boycott your business for supporting this parental kidnapper.

        – The Editor

    • Mary says:

      Minyama, it is a US government-initiated extradition application hearing to face prosecution in the US that is occurring next week, not a retrial of a US-conducted custody hearing from 20 years back.

      My understanding from my readings is that the FBI put out a warrant for your friend’s arrest back in 1994. I note that the case was aired on an Unsolved Mysteries program in late 1995.

      Again, my understanding is that your friend was living under aliases in South Africa and New Zealand. As well, so was Mr Todd’s daughter. ???How is it possible for Mr Todd’s ex-wife, the non-custodial parent, to organise for his daughter’s name and citizenship to be legally changed and without his consent???

      I have fingers and toes crossed that the magistrate determines that this woman is eligible for surrender. And, yes, I have read the extradition treaty which states that an extradition “may be” able to be appealed as far as the High Court. Is your friend an Australian citizen or a New Zealand citizen with permanent Australian residency because of her New Zealand citizenship?

      At the end of the day, regardless of whatever interim delaying tactics are employed, my money is on this woman being extradited back to the US from either Australia or New Zealand. The US has partner extradition treaties with both countries. It would be inappropriate for Australia not to be seen as co-operating with a partner extradition treaty country or being seen as being a safe haven to hide out for persons accused of a serious or serious crimes in another country. I imagine it is the same for New Zealand.

  2. Minyama says:

    In response to Mary and Forthelost: Unfortunately you have only rhetoric, ideology and ignorance to fuel your rants. There are people out there who are poorly served by the legal system when the aggressor is well funded, well connected and able to manipulate the evidence that goes into the trial. If you look at the State Integrity Investigation site, you will see that in a scale of 1-50 (1 being least corrupt) SC is rated 45/50. Barnett’s trial was in SC. Draw your own conclusions. You do not claim to have any evidence in that trial so you are incapable of making an informed comment, even on this site.
    From the posts on this site, it is apparent that not only women have problems with judicial decisions. You would provide a far greater benefit to everyone to spend your time in making sure that family courts were more balanced and fair to both men and women, rather than the strident view you take against someone like Barnett, when you have not the slightest idea of the history or facts.
    Of course, I allow for the fact that you are batting for the father in this case, so your comments whilst still clothed in ignorance, are now shaped by concealed bias.
    In your response to Cliff above, you stated that ; “…your relative could have moved forward by looking for legal ways to challenge that decision…’
    What you fail to understand and the point of this reply, is that the court system at that time was manipulated to deny Barnett that right which all democracies hold dear. She was locked out of the legal system.
    You are correct in your apparent criticism of my post that it coincided with the TT preview. That program will air (in Aus) at 6.30pm on 28th (tomorrow) That program is based on factual records and real live people who can relate their stories first hand. They are the people who are at the cutting edge of the downside of our imperfect systems. Watch it and learn something and make your life a positive contribution rather than a spiteful rant against good women who simply act to protect their children. That is the fundamental law of humanity. If your correct identity is female as you imply, you should know. If you are not, then you are simply an imposter.

    • Mary says:

      Minyama, your posts tell me that you are still in a denial/anger stage, and I can understand that as this lady is your friend. People, in time, do move into an acceptance stage.

      Minyama, I have just had a peeksie, and be assured I am woman and, if I may be so bold as to say, still scrubbing up quite well. However, being female does not automatically equate to that I take on-board as gospel everything that another female assumes, presumes, utters, writes or is convinced is reality.

      You say, “… the court system at that time was manipulated …”. I say, courts deliberate on facts and evidence not on emotion and hearsay. There is much material out there on the public information highway in this matter.

      One article from “The Post and Courier” dated 24/11/13 says there was a 13-day divorce trial in this matter. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20131124/PC16/131129754
      In this article the father’s solicitor is quoted as saying “the judge’s decision hinged on which parent could provide the best life for Savanna and which parent would welcome the girl’s connection with the one who didn’t have full custody.” Now whether you or I believe, do not believe or should believe anything, everything or even a portion of what is quoted in any newspaper, what a judge also gives weight to, especially in bitter and protracted custody battles, is exactly what the father’s solicitor was quoted as saying.

      I do recall reading somewhere that the trial judge was a known pro-mother supporter in his judgements. If this woman only got visitation rights after a long and drawn-out 13-day trial, I think it is fair to say that your friend gave the judge good reason to believe this was the best outcome in the matter he was presiding over. This article and other bits and pieces I have read in this matter say that this woman disappeared with her daughter after her second visitation with her daughter, as well as there being emergency contempt of court proceedings after the first visitation. To me, that indicates that this woman had no intention of ever wanting the child from the marriage to have any sort of connection with her father.

      Bitter custody battles can leave people very embittered and aggrieved. That said, courts, judges, evidence, professional opinions, judgements, newspaper reports, etc often are painted as being untruthful, biased or corrupt when an outcome isn’t the hoped-for outcome. People need to learn that just because a father is awarded custody, it is not acceptable for a mother to kidnap the child of the marriage to prevent the father from having a meaningful and loving relationship with his child.

      You say, “…the Australian/US extradition process carries the presumption that bail will not be granted …” That didn’t stop your friend from putting in a bail application. Why didn’t your friend look for other avenues to challenge the court decision instead of the path she chose?

      • Minyama says:

        Hi Mary, google “corruption in Charleston” and you will see the Post and Courier figures prominently as an organisation that is acting corruptly to protect a 13m benefit. I also heard today that the good ole boys club in Charleston is alive and well, as it was 20 years ago. The conclusion is that anything written by the P&C involving a ‘good ole boy, is most likely corrupted reporting.
        I’ll give you a lesson in integrity:
        It takes a lifetime to build a reputation for integrity but only a single act to destroy that work of a lifetime. I suspect you have never turned your mind to that proposition. P&C are realising that now. You should chat with them.

      • Mary says:

        Minyama, white knight charging in to rescue the reputation and honour of the apparently not-so-innocent Dorothy, I neither hang off your opinions nor your hearsay. So-called “boys”, and “girls” clubs too, exist in all countries and within most communities. I bet you are even connected to one, Minyama.

        Save your integrity lesson for your missus. I have no need to hang off your spoken or written word.

        You have become way too emotionally involved to be able to grasp fact or counsel wisely.

    • forthelost says:

      Here is the story that has Faye Yager saying Mr. Todd wasn’t abusive: http://dartcenter.org/content/children-underground-7

      Interesting that you never corrected her on that.

      Oh, and I don’t think women are a hive mind and I’m allowed to disagree with as many as I want.

  3. Anon please says:

    Minyama ,how long have you actually known the person that you are defending?

    Once again you tend to say or write something and then think it is true – 30 pieces of silver paid to the people who reported a criminal – are you sure about that ? Can you prove that – absolutely not as you just made it up !
    When you make completely untrue statements like that then people would have to ask what else is incorrect in your statements.

    There are indeed many more facts to this case however you are mistaken in your assumption that they support Lee.

  4. Anon please says:

    Bruce ,how long have you known her?
    Please provide proof of the money paid as you have publicly stated!
    I have no interest in trading “facts” with you when things you write are incorrect .

    • Minyama says:

      You must know anon that the circle is closing and you will have to answer to a far larger audience than the bunch of troglodytes on this site. Keep your hair brushed.

  5. Anon please says:

    Bruce you neither intimidate or scare me with your ranting sand threats except for the fact that you guide these people through the most difficult time of their lives with lies.
    How long have you known her to be such an expert and can you please provide proof of the money that changed hands as you have publicly stated.

    • underwatch says:

      Bruce you neither intimidate or scare me with your ranting sand threats except for the fact that you guide these people through the most difficult time of their lives with lies.
      How long have you known her to be such an expert and can you please provide proof of the money that changed hands as you have publicly stated.

      A comment on some of Bruce Michell’s postings.

      The advice Bruce is giving this family is horrible. During the 14-Day Family Law Trial, the South Carolina Family Court got it right. The parent, “Dorothy Lee Barnett” would not be a good custodial parent because it was clearly evident to the judge that she would not share custody. And the judge was 100 percent right, she did not. The father lost 20 years of a relationship with his daughter because of the really horrible nature of those that commit this particular crime. Back then if the father even got the court to order “supervised visitation” which appears that Dorothy Barnett still doesn’t accept in her interview. Bruce’s ranting are almost as if he is part of group or cult or is a protester of some type against a court system or government. He’s a sort of extremist that does not have the ability to acknowledge and accept how Dorothy Lee Barnett never really played by the rules of the Family Law Court. We’re certain her Australian Friends know that this is part of her moral character, possibly the one that led her divorce from Juan Geldenhuys too. We’re certain that Samantha knows this too. We really hope that Bruce will encourage Samantha to get counseling so she can stop this cycle of deviant behavior now.

      The Editor

  6. forthelost says:

    Minyama – Faye Yager claimed to be involved in the case and talked to the media about it for years. Why should I think she wasn’t involved?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: