Without Prejudice- The Court Of Public Opinion
To good people everywhere.
Yesterday Monday the 3rd of December I received a response to my Submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) asking that he not close my Private Prosecution down ( R v FACS Caseworker) without it even being heard let alone determined.
The response is below, and unfortunatley the DPP have asked Magistrate Price this Friday the 7th of December at Newcastle Local Court 9.30am, to close my Private Prosecution down without it even being heard in a court of law. To further throw “salt in the wound” they are even asking the Registrar to remove it from the listing, that is, to not even have it mentioned, lets just close it down, bypass the judicial system altogether and remove it from existence. If my understanding is correct this means that a public officer can commit an alleged criminal offence, and the DPP can and will protect them in their criminal activities and just close matters down to not be heard. As you can imagine I have had enough of what I believe is blatant corruption whereby this disgraceful government department called FACS can do what it wants and never ever be held fully culpable in any court of law, for its unlawful actions and/or appalling mistakes. How can the DPP just remove court matters without them even going before a Magistrate when they have and do exist in law and were originally approved by a Magistrate?
I have written to the Newcastle Registrar asking that Magistrate Price not close this matter down and at the very least allow us the right this Friday to let him know why we are so upset about this child’s forced removal and how the DPP can possibly argue that there was no force used or that they believe my Private Prosecution is for an improper ulterior motive, when all the elements are present and the event was witnessed live on social media by millions of people.
In my view this is the near complete end of any rule of law and I fail to comprehend how anyone could possibly ever get any justice in our legal system. If this matter is simply closed without even being heard in a court of law then what hope do any of us ever have.
My strategy henceforth is about to change significantly as I believe we are no longer even an implied democracy, if they can do this with my Private Prosecution then what of the other court matters where they have constructed and fabricated evidence against me, and charged me with offences where they know elements are completely missing and yet they still continue with charges they cannot legally sustain. There is most definitely, where my legal matters are concerned, effectively no rule of law and consequently I believe we must protect our children and grandchildren at all costs from this sick department that will steal children from anywhere for greed, self interest and other nefarious reasons. The judicial system fails children everywhere, barristers and solicitors fail families and profit from their suffering, the DPP are happy to protect them and the NSW State Government condone all of the above and yes Krishnamurti was and is correct. “To be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of health”
This Private Prosecution as of 12:20 pm today Tuesday is still listed online for 9.30am this Friday the 7th of December at Newcastle Court Room 2.1 before Magistrate Price, where the matter, if it is not just removed beforehand, will inevitably be closed down.
All You Need Is Love xxx Pastor Paul
3 December 2018 Mr Paul Burton HAMILTON NSW 2303
By post and by email:
Dear Mr Burton,
Re: Paul Robert Burton v Court No. 2018/00124077
Listed for mention on 7 December 2018
I refer to the above matter, which is currently listed for mention before Magistrate Price at the Newcastle Local Court on 7 December 2018. As previously advised, the defendant’s solicitor has made submissions to my Office seeking that I take over and discontinue these proceedings. I also note that, in your submissions, you have requested that I take over and continue the prosecution.
In respect of this matter, I have given careful consideration to the following:
• The submissions provided to my Office on behalf of the defendant dated 8 November 2018;
• The submissions, brief of evidence and other material provided by you on 26 November 2018; and
• The statements of Chief Inspector ###### and Mr ###### ##### , as well as the affidavit prepared by Mr Barry Futter, contained in the additional folder of material provided by you on 26 November 2018.
I have also considered the terms of the charge as particularised in the Court Attendance Notice, in which you allege that the defendant used force to prevent you from officiating at the Church of Ubuntu on 19 May 2017.
There is, in my view, no prima facie case in this matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence in the prosecution brief to prove beyond reasonable doubt that force was used by any person to prevent you from officiating at the Church of Ubuntu.
In that regard, I note the following in particular:
• In your affidavit dated 19 April 2018, you do not describe any actual force having been used against you or any other person at the Church of Ubuntu. The account given in your affidavit indicates that, although the situation was contentious, it was ultimately resolved by way of negotiation.
• In his statement dated 13 November 2018, Chief Inspector states that he did not witness any physical interaction between the defendant and any other party. Chief Inspector also states that, although he was prepared to use appropriate force if all other options were exhausted, the use of force was avoided.
• The two relevant files of video footage contained in the prosecution brief do not depict any force being used by any person at the Church of Ubuntu.
There is, accordingly, no reasonable prospect of a conviction in this matter.
Additionally, as was the case in your previous prosecution against Ms ###### ##### , I am of the view that this prosecution appears to have been brought for an inappropriate ulterior purpose. That is, to challenge the Department of Family and Community Services’ use of its powers under s 43 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to remove the child from the Church of Ubuntu on 19 May 2017. The dispute in respect of that child’s removal and ongoing care is, in my view, a conflict of a predominantly civil nature.
For these reasons, I now take over this matter and I decline to proceed further in the prosecution, pursuant to ss 9(1) and 9(4)(b) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and Guidelines 10(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the DPP Prosecution Guidelines.
I have contacted the Registrar of the Newcastle Local Court to request that Magistrate Price be informed of this decision as soon as possible, and that the matter be removed from the Court’s list on 7 December 2018.
Kara Shead SC
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions