The 11th Day of the 11th Month 2018
By email: ##############@cso.nsw.gov.au
And shared without prejudice to the court of public opinion with names respectfully redacted.
Dear Mr #######
Paul Burton v FACS Caseworker: Private Prosecution
Dear Mr #######
You stated in your first letter received on the 8th of November the following quote,
“As Kirby P (as he then was) said in Price v Ferris (1994) 34 NSWLR 704 at p 707, the object of having a Director of Public Prosecutions is:”to ensure a high degree of independence in the vital task of making prosecution decisions and exercising prosecution discretions.”
It ensures that there is:
“manifest independence in the conduct of the prosecution. It is to avoid the suspicion that important prosecutorial discretions will be exercised otherwise than on neutral grounds. It is to avoid the suspicion, and to answer the occasional allegation, that the prosecution may not be conducted with appropriate vigour.”
Do you suggest Mr ####### that when the director of public prosecutions (DPP) shut down the previous prosecution on the grounds that an element or elements were missing, and in the current case where you suggest a different element or elements are also missing, that they were exercised on neutral grounds?
If that is the case, can you please explain why they claim those elements were missing when it is arguable they are not? But in my criminal matter, where I have been charged by the DPP using the child abuse and sex crimes department (notwithstanding there is no child abuse or sex crime), and that the three charges relating to the interim order had expired, there was no time duration listed and therefore elements were most certainly missing, and yet the DPP have charged and pursued those charges with absolute vigor even contesting a notice of motion to have those three charges thrown out. That matter is of course now before the supreme court, however with all of my legal experiences in the last 18 months, it is of course of little wonder that I am fast coming to the conclusion that there may well be no rule of law.
In my case they had and could not have had reasonable and probable cause on those three charges relating to the expired suppression order, yet they charged and maintain those charges. Would you still like to argue that the DPP exercise their prosecutorial discretion neutrally?
Thousands of people have seen all of this and the event that created all of this, they appear reasonable people to me and these reasonable people like myself, believe this entire situation stinks! They believe that I was charged by the DPP because your office asked them to at the behest of The Secretary of FACS and you shut down my private prosecution because your office asked them to and there is no neutrality.
Not only that but when I seek legal redress for being charged with offences that cannot possibly succeed because of an absolute undeniable missing element, I am pursued on all counts.
If you believe that this does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute then I suggest you are closing your eyes to reality.
You further state,
“The Director’s functions are carried out independently of the courts. “Our courts do not purport to exercise control over the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings, save where it is necessary to do so to prevent an abuse of process or to ensure a fair trial.”
Again what the people see is that the Court did NOT act to prevent an abuse of process. In fact they accepted the submission of the DPP that the charges relating to an expired suppression order with no reasonable and probable cause and no chance of conviction, should remain on foot. In other words I must stand my trial on charges that cannot possibly succeed, that is, the three charges relating to the expired interim order. It appears the DPP doesn’t wish to admit that they were either vexatious or incompetent or both, and yet they would close a private prosecution at the behest of their “statutory mates” because they claim an element is missing when there is a very arguable proposition deserved of a hearing.
In fact in your second letter on the 8th of November you imply I am not really a Minister and the Church was not really a Church and these elements are possibly missing yet in the charges against me in the criminal matter the elements are absolutely missing, and yet you still vigorously pursue those charges.
I might also add that in your letter to Mr Babb in person requesting this matter be shutdown, you remove much significant key information from my brief of evidence (BOE) that you have decided and consider irrelevant. That is, much of the brief you have omitted so in my opinion Mr Babb could not possibly make a fair and just decision in this matter, you list 14 items but my brief has 23 items then item 24, a USB, has a further 13 items including videos, how much is missing Mr #######? And why do you not provide Mr Babb with the actual brief of evidence I provided? Perhaps it is your clients position that it is appropriate to significantly edit a prosecutions BOE, and that would at least explain why he determined there wasn’t enough information in my original BOE with the first private prosecution. Anyway, it certainly shows the lengths the crown at the behest of FACS will go to hide their disgraceful activities and their lies and deceit. Also considering this child was one of three children I know that were taken within a matter of weeks all of whom were forced onto an unlicensed medicinal cannabis program as a matter of absolute necessity. This program was known to the government and even assisted the government through the pelican study, many authorities knew and yet FACS still swept in and ripped those children from loving families and would rather have those children abused in care than own their own disgraceful actions.
And you then go on to imply that I am not a Minister of Religion well I will return by implying that you work for the devil himself. Lets spare a moments prayer for all the other children not on an unlicensed medicinal cannabis program that FACS steal for profit and possibly other nefarious reasons using section 43 of the Child Protection Act.
Both yourself and the DPP further state that my private prosecution is brought for an inappropriate purpose and that it is to challenge the use of section 43 by FACS and yet FACS do not follow any of their own guidelines for child removals using section 43. Then once in the closed children’s courts who would ever know as everything is then suppressed and silenced from the public, all of course in the interests of the poor abused children who rarely if ever end up in a better situation than before they were removed, most as we all know or many have experienced, end up in far worse situations. My Private Prosecution is most certainly not for an inappropriate purpose Mr ####### it simply, through an expression of the facts and Truth, as a natural byproduct, brings into the light how appalling and disgraceful your client FACS actually is with everything they do.
Interestingly you also quote the following in your letter to Mr Babb requesting this Private Prosecution be closed.
“The elements of the offence
56. obstructing member of the clergy in discharge of his or her duties whosoever:
By threat or force prevents, or endeavours to prevent, any member of the clergy, or other person duly authorized in that behalf, from officiating in a place of divine worship, or from the performance of his or her duty in the lawful burial of the dead in a burialplace, or
Strikes, or offers an violence to, any member of the clergy, or minister engaged in, or to the knowledge of the offender about to engage in, any of the duties aforesaid, or going to perform the same,
Shall be liable to imprisonment for two years.
The offence is listed in table 2 of schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure Act and therefore is to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecutor elects otherwise. The maximum penalty which can be imposed when dealt with summarily is two years or a fine of 50 penalty units or both; see s. 268 criminal procedure act.”
I note that in our discussion before his honour Judge Fagan in the supreme court (before he used his inherent powers to override a high court ruling) that I explained and you have agreed, I am the prosecutor in this matter and that as the prosecutor I have elected a jury as is my right, you both denied I had this right but I note again the legislation clearly states otherwise.
I haven’t even mentioned the simultaneous equity court matter now running for some 18 months for identical charges where I am silenced from speaking truth in the very court born from the chancery and based on divine laws of equality and conscience, you claim I am not a Minister and I claim you work for the devil and I further claim the courts appear to have forgotten their own foundation, The Holy Bible, the coat of arms behind each judge states “God is my right” and so I pray for you all as God is my right.
If you believe that all of this proves prosecutorial independence, neutrality and that it does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute then you have a very different view to the thousands of people if not millions that think otherwise.
On the contrary with all the circumstances taken into account it shows absolute bias and lack of neutrality.
My views are not that of one single person Mr ####### there were and are thousands of people that witnessed this event and they have all lost faith in the system, and it should be apparent to you as to exactly why.
I and the people believe I cannot win nor could I ever win, amidst this most one sided and weighted system, so I now take my matters to the court of public opinion so at the very least everyone will know exactly who and what you represent and the lengths to which you will go, to hide the Truth from the public.
I believe the state of NSW traffics children for greed and profit Mr ####### , thousands of them, and parents everywhere have no hope and the devil claims that I am not a man of God.
We will all pray for you and all those who condone these actions.
Kindest regards and God Bless,
Paul Robert Burton
“atmano mokshatham jagat hitaya cha”
For One’s own welfare and the welfare of all. – Swami Vivekananda
“Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and for the rights of all who are vulnerable.”- Prov 31:8
“Not by power nor by might, but by spirit sayeth The Lord” – Book of Zechariah 4:6
Aunty Mimmie (Elizabeth Humble) passed away on Sunday January 28th 2018, she started the Grandmothers against removals with Aunty Hazel and was never re-united with her children. I do as you ask Aunty for all the stolen children. At least you were able to share with His Honour Justice Robb in the Supreme Court before you returned to the Lord.