Sorry to hear that things didn’t work out with you and Arthur. Long live Monterey and Delft.

Dunno if I can help you with your question specifically but email me at chrisvoffshore@yahoo.com

Best

C.

From a perspective of compassion & personal opinion my belief is that a child is off limits; period. I remember well the press trying to expand it’s examinations of Chelsea Clinton. “‘She was the First Daughter’ wasn’t she?”, they would say – she’s newsworthy!
But she was a human being & a child before any of that labeling & didn’t run for office….she’s just a kid first & foremost & we have a duty to treat kids like kids.

It’s common knowledge that in our society the demands to grow up fast are central to many very real problems that young people face now, that they ‘d not several generations ago.

Now the issue of Supreme Court Rulings regarding the invasion of privacy of children is something I suggest you research. The term “court rulings” & it’s reflections on the actions of the adult mother are something I cannot address as it’s too vague a statement. But nowhere have we [upheld] the breaking of the 4th Amendment to allow the disclosures of minors to be at the behest & whim of any news organization. However, that is not my point.

Human decency allows a child to not be a public figure so that they might learn about life without having to carry an adult burden. This is a standard in most everything short of vicious murder.
I’m also speaking to human decency, not some disgusting farce of a child actor & the results of that isolation from a chance to develop in a nurturing environment.

That kid didn’t ask for the parents he got.
He didn’t stand before his Creator & say ” Please send me a challenge I will have to endure that will eat at my very soul for the rest of my life!”
It’s the same damn thing as a child of a prostitute, etc. Put yourself in their position & have some empathy for what they will endure starting at an age when their peers are exploring a very different world; they have to see through to make their own way with little support.

What would the tenderness of a NAZI household be like? Could you even imagine?
It would be the setup for a JOKE were it not so DAMN SAD!

NO, the kids need to be OFF LIMITS. A judge’s ruling be damned. Let that judge put HIS child up to public scrutiny! Let all the REPORTERS have THEIR households be public entertainment….

Keep this in mind the next time you are about to repeat a rumour.

In ancient Greece (469 – 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom.

One day an acquaintance ran up to him excitedly and said, ‘Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?’

‘Wait a moment,’ Socrates replied. ‘Before you tell me I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Triple Filter Test.’

‘Triple filter?’ asked the acquaintance.

‘That’s right,’ Socrates continued. ‘Before you talk to me about my student let’s take a moment to filter what you’re going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?’

‘No,’ the man said, ‘actually I just heard about it.’

‘All right,’ said Socrates. ‘So you don’t really know if it’s true or not. Now let’s try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?’

‘No, on the contrary ….’.

‘So,’ Socrates continued, ‘you want to tell me something bad about him, even though you’re not certain it’s true?’.

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued..’ You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter – the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?’

‘No, not really…’

‘Well,’ concluded Socrates, ‘if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?’

Legally, Mr. Kemp is a public person who is active in politics and public policy advocacy. His political party seeks election in the UK and will be eligible for public funds if they manage to prevail. Kemp and his background are, therefore, open to media coverage, scrutiny and criticism.

If Kemp’s son and former wife wish to opine they have every right to speak publicly about his conduct and his character. And the press has every right, in fact an obligation, to quote them.

Consider Arthur Kemp’s public response to Karen’s criticism and the above claim of “going beyond the pale” rings hollow. The fact is, Kemp has cruelly attacked and defamed his former wife on his blog at http://www.arthurkemp.com claiming, among other things, that she is mentally unstable. Although his ex-wife is a private person, Arthur made libelous and defamatory statements against Karen, her father and his brother in his blog post and elsewhere.

By comparison, Arthur Kemp and his new wife, Jeannine, are public figures – open to public criticism and scrutiny. The courts have ruled, both in the US and the UK, the Kemp’s have little to no protection under the law once they put themselves out there in the public domain. This is particularly true since they are publicly advocating extreme political positions and trying to influence the electorate.

Jeannine Kemp created a Facebook and a Myspace page advocating for and supporting racist groups and leaders. She made more than 400 posts on the neo-Nazi forum, Stormfront, including putting up photos of herself and her children.

Legally, by her public advocacy and conduct, Jeannine Kemp has made herself a public person. Her actions put her in the public domain over and above the fact that she is now the wife of Arthur Kemp. And despite attempts to erase all records of her public neo-Nazi posting activity, most of which has been saved, Jeannine Kemp remains directly involved with the BNP, identifying herself as “editress” on the BNP Website.

The British and American public deserves to learn everything they can about this so-called neo-Nazi power couple. Hopefully, as you say, Mr. Berchenko, “reason, morality and logic” will prevail.

By allowing this kind of libel and family infighting a public forum, you might succeed in smearing Kemp and his ilk, but you don’t realise the flashover in how bad it makes you look. Shame on you for stooping so pitifully low.

Thanks

As to the disinheriting – what a joke! His father has nothing to give him anyway and pays for very little as it is. I am sure that Stephan would rather not inherit the rights to his father’s books, which is the sum total of his possessions. Understand the man was always a bit work shy and spent the majority of his time and effort on his book, not exactly a way to guarantee building a great financial base. The only thing his father contested in the divorce was the amount of maintenance, never once objected to the fact that I have sole custody and guardianship of the children which means he has no say whatsoever over the balance of their lives.