18th February 2005

I emailed Ros with this question:

What’s Daniel’s rejoinder to the judge’s assertion that he’d claimed to have written (3?) books but hadn’t – I’ve seen that accusation several times on line and in the media

Ros’s response:

Hi Rowland,

That was another of Judge Higgins’ extraordinary false claims! The judge said Daniel was unreliable (ie a liar) because he had claimed to have published three books, but when the judge investigated, he found the books were only “photocopies”.

I bought some of those books after one of Daniel’s mini-seminars held in April 2002. They were genuine books and they were photocopied, but the Oxford Dictionary says under “publish”: “to make copies available for sale to the public” – and that is exactly what Daniel did. Maybe the judge mislaid his dictionary when writing his judgement, because the word “publish” does not mean you have to use firms like Harper & Collins. Indeed the Act itself says that publishing includes putting things on the Internet.

Another reason the judge gave for saying Daniel was unreliable and not acting in good faith was that Daniel used the surname [omitted] (his father’s name and his name in Pakistan) on the books instead of Scot. But Scot is the name Daniel gave himself at university – “because Jesus Christ paid the price for my sins and I got off scot free!” – and he used his family name on the books, partly because as Daniel Scot he has received seven death threats from Muslims in Australia and he did not want to fan the flames.

Please pray for Daniel. He is a very mild-mannered, humble man and the stress of all this has meant he does not sleep very well.

God bless!

ROS

Shalom! Rowland Croucher