Submission to the DPP to request my Private Prosecution NOT be shutdown.
Mr Lloyd Babb SC Director
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
175 Liverpool Street Sydney NSW 2000 Introduction and Background
Dear Mr Babb
My name is Paul Robert Burton I am the prosecutor in this matter and I am a Minister of Religion a Social Worker and a Musician. My concerns are so serious in regards to this current matter now before you, that I have requested a meeting with you in person. Mr #### ###### has at this time declined that request but I will again further request that a meeting be arranged as a matter of both mutual respect, significant social importance and as a matter of urgency. I believe in regards to the poor handling of this matter, the administration of justice is fast falling into complete and utter disrepute and I have the gravest concerns about what I feel will be the social unrest and possible ramifications that I believe could inevitably follow. This entire affair unfolded some 18 months ago around the 19thof May 2017 when a beautiful highly compromised child and member of our spiritual community, was savagely and violently removed from his kind loving family, his community, his Church and all his cultural connections. We are not sure on this child’s exact indigenous history as these matters are difficult to trace, but it appears that it may be on both sides of the family. The grandmother we believe at this time is either from the Ngarkat or Ngarrindjeri mob in South Australia. Unfortunately FACS seriously compromised much of our holistic work with this family, after the child’s forced removal on the 19thMay 2017.
It is also important background to this matter and my comprehensive submission to you, to know that I am now personally involved in five significant court matters all relating to this same incident involving the forced removal of this child from a Church where I was at the time Ministering for the family. These matters must be viewed holistically to fully grasp both my position and the public’s perception of this entire affair.
One must also recognise that through recent advances in social media and Facebook Live broadcasting, that 500,000 people witnessed this event within minutes and over four million people globally within hours. Many people I might add, who had already developed a significant social interactive relationship with this child and family, a family that had come to a Church and a Wellness Clinic for holistic support, that is for needs embracing mind, body and spirit.
In regards to the practicalities of the content of this submission I have included two white folders that are a complete copy of my full Brief Of Evidence (BOE). The reason I have included a complete copy of my BOE is that I became aware with this private prosecution, and as a result the previous private prosecution, that the crown solicitor was editing that BOE before you received it. Albeit he may feel, as I am self represented, there is much that is not relevant to this matter in my brief, I however am of a different opinion. I have significant concerns with this editing and removal of key documents, as by removing them the crown effectively removes evidence in support of the claims in my submission and could then possibly present to you a biased appraisal of this private prosecution. This is neither just, nor fair, nor does it allow you the right to make choices independent of the crown solicitor, in the alternative it allows the crown the right to possibly mislead you or at the very least allows the opportunity for this to become a very real possibility.
I have also supplied a single white folder as my primary submission to you that is the main folder and the folder containing this opening letter. The other two folders are a complete BOE to which I will reference documents and videos in support of the private prosecution having all the elements required and deserved of the right to a hearing. This submission folder contains all the documents not previously included in the BOE but that are of significant importance in you making an objective decision to prosecute this matter to the full extent of the law. I will ask that you read all these documents and also check all the contents of my brief of evidence thoroughly before making your determination.
In regards to further background and the five court matters that exist before a variety of jurisdictions, here are those matters and my very brief summary of what they are each about. As a lawyer you would no doubt comprehend the workload for a self-represented individual like myself fighting so many cases without any representation nor the means to finance such representation. If you would also please forgive me for any apparent bias as the abuse I have suffered through this persecution and the further two defamation cases I have won against multi-national corporations independent of these court matters below, is a rather significant cross to bear, even for a Minister of Religion. Knowing all the facts it is near impossible for me to not include some content reflecting my view of a most substantive bias, a bias that will become quite clear to anyone who takes the time to read this submission.
- Supreme Court Of Equity, Suppression Charges Case No: 2017/214962 Secretary, FACS v Paul Robert Burton & Dr Andrew Katelaris.
This case involves 10 alleged criminal charges and relies on section 105 of the Child Protection Act and also on the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act to prevent me from using the name or image of the child in question now named “Christopher” in connection with the closed children’s court proceedings. The reason for this in my belief is not to protect the child as the child is already in alleged care, but to remove information already seen and shared by millions of people, from all social media, that is, to use the court of Equity to suppress the Truth of events witnessed by millions of people and further to this, to protect FACS caseworkers, not to protect the child. For if this matter was to protect the child, why would thousands of other people not be charged including multi-national media corporations with far more substantive reach than my personal Facebook timeline. This matter has currently been appealed by leave to have what I understand as the permanent temporary suppression orders lifted and is now listed for Wed 20thFebruary 2019. I am hopeful these interim final orders can be removed and that a judge or judges will allow me a defence and also to hopefully answer that defence. I am also hopeful the court will at some point address the evidence against me that I know has been fabricated by people of unsound mind working with members of FACS. Both the fabricating of evidence and the inclusion of information called evidence that has no connection with me whatsoever is a significant error of law and I pray fro righteous retribution and that some sense of the rule of law will remain, however that prayer for me is without doubt fast fading. Interestingly and ironically the very initiation of this charge in a court of equity based on divine laws of truth and conscience, was by way of the secretary requesting a prayer to the court, his prayer however is, I believe, very different to mine.
- Local Court Newcastle, Criminal Charges, Case No: 2017/00387583 R v Paul Robert Burton.
This case involves ten criminal charges laid by the child abuse and sex crimes department (however there is no child abuse and no sex crime) but actually initiated in your name, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the same identical 10 charges relating to four Facebook posts suppressed in the court of Equity. These Facebook posts include a poem published by an anonymous person about how a child would feel being removed from his loving family and a song published by an artist called Mr Lucky that I simply shared to my Facebook timeline along with thousands of other people. The other posts involve an interview with Dr Andrew Katelaris about the truth of this child’s health conditions known to myself and people everywhere long before his removal, and a short video documentary of this child’s removal and the truth of the activities of FACS in NSW. That is, how FACS use “immediate risk of harm” for just about any child removal they want and are ripping children without right or justification, without judicial oversight and often based on nothing more than hearsay. They rip children from good loving families everywhere destroying the very foundation of family units forever and they do this for greed and in some instances other nefarious reasons.
- Private Prosecution initiated by me Case No: 2018/00124077 R v ###### #####
This Private Prosecution filed effectively for the second time because when the child was forcibly removed, not one public officer identified themselves. So on the first occasion the only person with delegated authority ###### ##### (provided on a document that was not a warrant) was not present according to the DPP so a fundamental element of my private prosecution was missing. That is, the removal was unlawful, illegal and further to this FACS had full knowledge for many months that the premises was and is a Church, and that I was and am a Minister of Religion. This I can prove in any just court of law. FACS also I believe consciously and deliberately worked with Channel 7, the producer herself ###### ###### explained this to me. Channel 7 then engaged under instruction from FACS in a propaganda smear campaign through releasing a show called “Saving #####” designed to misrepresent The Church and target Dr Andrew Katelaris who was a Doctor treating the child with unlicensed medical cannabis as a matter of medical necessity.
- Civil Matter in the Newcastle District Court NSW – Trespass Battery Case No: 2018/234630 Paul Robert Burton v The State Of NSW
This is a civil claim filed by me for being brutally pepper sprayed and assaulted by the NSW Police after the child was ripped from his loving mothers arms for reasons known and declared by FACS themselves to be false, and witnessed live by thousands of people on social media.
- Civil Matter in the Newcastle District Court NSW – Collateral Abuse Case No: 2018/309486 Paul Robert Burton v The Office of The Director Of Public Prosecutions
This is another civil claim filed by me for being criminally charged for three of ten charges that I cannot possibly be guilty of, and for the use of the child abuse and sex crime department charging me when there is no child abuse or sex crime. This is a civil matter against the office of which you are the Director.
Arguments and Reasoning
In this matter before you Mr Babb, the crown solicitor has asked you the DPP to take over my private prosecution against their client ###### ##### and shut it down using your powers under the DPP Act.
There are a number of very important reasons you should not shut this matter down.
Namely that all the elements are present and can be proved and if you close this matter down by running the case in private, outside of court, and without either a hearing, or acknowledging all the evidence in this submission, the administration of justice will fall into disrepute and I believe anarchy may inevitably follow. I do not believe you can possibly find this submission in any way incomplete and that it will answer any questions you may have. I again ask for a meeting with you as I am completely dumbfounded as to my treatment over the last 18 months by the NSW state governments dept of FACS, and both the crown solicitor and representatives from your own department operating at the behest of this most disgraceful department.
In fact I agree with the crown solicitor that the DPP should take this matter over but I then believe you should prosecute it to the fullest extent of law.
The courts have continually spoken of the need to avoid the administration of justice being brought into disrepute, It is of the utmost importance that the people have faith in the system, the problem here is the people are fast losing faith in the system.
The people, and there are thousands and thousands of them, view the system as completely one sided whereby those in positions of authority get preferential treatment over the ordinary people.
No matter how much the crown solicitor Mr ####### states that everything is above board and there is no bias, that is certainly not what the people see nor what I believe is happening.
When I took my action (Notice of Motion) in the local court to have the crown solicitor ruled inadmissible to represent Ms #####, it was because to allow her to be the solicitor on record, brings the administration of Justice into disrepute.
The reasoning was that because they were so closely involved and because of all that had happened in my cases it had the appearance of bias, “mates scratching each other backs or mates helping mates” in the language of good people everywhere.
I was ruled against in that case without reasons ever being given.
I commenced an action in the supreme court naming the local court, the crown solicitor, and Ms ##### as defendants. However the crown solicitor in that matter, that is the same crown solicitor who also represented Ms #####, then represented the local court.
I then had my case thrown out by the supreme court using their inherent powers and my reasons were not even partially addressed. This was after the crown solicitor agreed that they would concede to the orders sought and pay costs. What does the DPP think the people make of this?
I also still have the right of appeal by leave in that matter for a period of three months beginning the 31stof Oct 2018. That is, the crown solicitor may not even have carriage of this matter.
In the view of the people, the local court, the crown solicitor and the supreme court all under the umbrella of justice NSW, heard and ruled upon a case and threw it out without proper reasons. The words some of those people have used are obviously much stronger than I would write to you here.
They saw this happen after the crown solicitor took an action against me in the supreme court of equity on behalf of FACS. They saw this happen after the crown solicitor made representations to the DPP to have me criminally charged on the same alleged circumstances as was being dealt with in the court of equity.
They saw this happen after those charges were laid by the DPP with some of the charges being laid in respect of a suppression order that did not meet statutory requirements and are consequently invalid and incapable of proving the charges.
The saw this happen after the crown solicitor approached the DPP and ask you shut down the first private prosecution.
They saw this happen after the DPP argued in the local court against throwing out these charges based on an invalid suppression order and saw it upheld by the court. At the same time they see that the DPP is a client of the crown solicitor and all the while Mr ####### reassures me that there is no reason to consider the administration of justice being brought into disrepute.
That is what the people see and this is what I see.
They also see the crown solicitor representing FACS with taxpayer’s money in children’s court matters when FACS is ripping the kids off the hapless parents.
I am not certain if you are watching the rallies and protests Mr Babb, if you were to just look at my Facebook personal timeline, my facebook page, or perhaps ask FACS and the crown as they are positively fixated with my Facebook profile, despite its relatively small audience compared to mainstream media. You may well take an interest and see that the people are not happy and they see no hope in relying on the system to treat them justly. The reason for this is there is no justice for them nor it seems for me Mr Babb, and this matter could well be the last nail in that coffin of injustice.
Now they see the crown solicitor once again going to the DPP and asking them to shut down this case.
They also see that even though the crown solicitor claims to be independent of the DPP and yet the DPP is clearly a client of the crown solicitor.
The event that led to these charges has now been seen by almost 5,000,000 people and much has been written about it in the last 18 months.
When the people called upon the secretary of FACS to prove that Ms ##### even had delegated authority to act that night this was ignored again and again.
When the people saw that the equity matter was commenced in the name of a title to an office they wondered how this was possible and waited to hear the question answered in equity but again no reasons were given.
So what the people see is quite different to how Mr ####### explains it.
It is clear that to a reasonable person properly informed the administration of justice is being brought into disrepute and no one in a position of power seems to mind one little bit. I refer to my letter to the deputy director on the 29thJanuary (BOE Tab 19).
The DPP now have an opportunity to restore faith in the system in the eyes of the people.
Mr ####### stated in his representation the previous time he approached the DPP to shut a matter down and repeats it in his current submission (submission Tab 5) that an element is missing.
I will refer to the elements later but for now it must be stated that when I was criminally charged at the behest of your department case no: 2017/00387583, an element was certainly missing. The court suppression order was invalid, It had both expired and it had no time duration. It was and is impossible for the DPP to prove I was in breach of that suppression order because the order does not say when it is valid to, Yet the DPP charged me anyway and argued in court not to drop those charges at one point indicating they would engage the crown solicitor to represent them in that matter as well. The people see this and wonder with amazement at your reasoning. You claim to be independent of each other and the courts, however the people and I see otherwise.
It is also important to mention that which Mr ####### has not mentioned, that in the previous court attendance notice against ###### ##### where the DPP found an element was missing, the missing element was the proof that ###### ##### was present.
In the current private prosecution against ###### ##### that element is present and able to be proved. Please refer to the videos provided in the comprehensive BOE Tab 13a and 14 two videos on the usb provided.
In the original private prosecution a magistrate approved the court attendance notice (BOE Tab 5). In other words the magistrate approved it because he found the elements needed to ground the charge, were all present.
If the DPP was to shut this down based on the previous private prosecution then it must be admitting that the magistrate was incompetent and didn’t know the law and if that happens the people will ask two questions. The first is, if the magistrate was incompetent then why is he on the bench? The second is, if he is not incompetent why is the DPP implying he is, by finding elements are missing when he found they are present?
It is also important to note that Mr ####### in his submission (submission Tab 5) states that there is no evidence of the Church being a Church and lists certain things that would prove this and he says there is no evidence in the brief.
This is incorrect, In fact the mission statement in the Church constitution that is in the brief (BOE Tab 26 1.3 Philosophy/vision statement), clearly shows that the Church is a Church including its belief in a Supreme Being. Also in the brief is an affidavit of ##### ####### (BOE Tab 6 point 8) who works for FACS which was tendered by them in the Supreme Court where FACS themselves concede that the Church is a Church and that I am a Pastor. That is FACS themselves knew the Church was a Church and that I was a Minister or perhaps in the alternative if that is not true then FACS then must lie to The Supreme Court? I would go so far as to suggest that FACS knew The Church was a Church and I was a Minister, you only have to see the correspondence also in the BOE (Tab 24 part 4) from many months before the child’s removal and I even arranged and had a meeting with child protection at browns plains around the 14thFebruary 2017 and later attended court with the family as an advocate, even writing to magistrate Pamela Douse (Tab 24 part 11). All this is in the brief of evidence that I have provided to your office in person and has been available even with the first private prosecution.
To further assist you with information which I might again add is actually a matter for the court, there is also my statement of OLOWOF Inc (BOE Tab 24 part 1) showing who and what some of my history is about and I have further attested a statement of ###### ##### from The Holy Ramakrishna Order (Submission Tab 11). Further to this I have also added the affidavit of BJ Futter the Church President (Submission Tab 10) deserved of your attention. If you conclude after all this that the elements of both the Church and my Ministry, are not present, then I can only conclude that no religious group in the state will ever be safe ever again no mater what denomination or legal status.
I hope you take these matters into account when coming to your decision Mr Babb, for your decision seals my future, for if this matter is closed down not only is there no justice in this court matter but consequently their could be no justice in any court matters I am currently engaged in and in my view and those of good people everywhere the rule of law is at a complete end, please see my recent blog post submission Tab 1.
I do not condone violence of any kind Mr Babb, I am a Minister of Religion, but I have grave concerns for good people everywhere as it appears NSW will soon be plunged into a new regime not even slightly reminiscent of an implied democracy, where people will have no choice but to protect their families and especially their children, and religious organisations everywhere will have to unite against their new government oppressors.
I am tired Mr Babb of Mr ######## insinuation if not outright statement that the Church is not a Church and I am not a Minister of Religion.
On the matter I would like to quote the Apostle Peter 2:9 who stated
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”
The Holy Bible says I am a Minister, I am also a long time member of the Holy Ramakrishna order and take this commitment very seriously, there are literally 1000’s of people that know of this commitment through my actions, I have no shortage of witnesses to prove these elements.
In regards to the element of force and Mr ###### ####### statement finally provided on the 13thof November 2018, I have much to share. Firstly I draw your attention to video item BOE Tab 13a on the usb at approx 2.53 seconds where Mr ###### responds to the mother saying “over my dead body” and he responds with “I don’t want to have to do that” whilst apparently according to the mother and others, putting his hand on his gun. I also note in his own affidavit at point 22 he declares he was prepared to use force. He also states that I did not identify myself as clergy yet he acknowledges that people were asking him to communicate with me to reconcile at his point 17. He also fails to mention that when I went downstairs to speak with him (his belief is incorrect at point 10) after he entered the Church and wellness clinic premises pushing himself past the Church President BJ Futter (submission Tab 10 point 7c). I came downstairs to ask him who he was and about his designation and paperwork (my BOE affidavit point 32) and he responded with “ I don’t have to tell you fuckin nothing” and he wonders why I did not later explain who I was? Further to this he claims that the first floor of the premises was residential but that is also incorrect. Level two was residential level one was the Church. Please see the affidavit of Barry Futter now also provided. Mr ###### also says he saw no signs of anything spiritual yet he didn’t enter the room where I am with the child in the video in the brief usb item number 14. And perhaps you should talk with the other police officers that were checking out all these items at the top of the stairs that Mr ###### missed while he was intimidating the family and attempting to remove their child without any right or justification. Again Mr Babb these are all matter under normal circumstances for a court, not for you to decide in private whilst the crown tells you to shut down the case because their client the Secretary of FACS wants to cover this most significant error up and hide it from the public, and it appears will stop at nothing to do so.
It must be also stated that Mr ####### for the crown solicitor has made much of the fact that the Church of Ubuntu is incorporated. In his correspondence regarding the initial private prosecution he certainly implies that because the Church and wellness clinic are incorporated they are not really Churches.
If that is the case then he much consider that Anglicare, Catholic Care etc are not really Church related either and because the Catholic Church and Anglican Church use trusts and run incorporated businesses they are also not really Churches. If that is what he claims, then I believe it would be important to write to the Arch Bishops to explain what the crown solicitor thinks of them as well. An even better point is the Mormons who run many businesses. They use incorporations, companies and trusts. Their religion is based upon a man who claims to have found unseeable golden tablets, he claims to have been visited by an Angel and wrote a new Bible. Using the criteria that Mr ####### uses they are not a Church and I will definitely be ringing and writing to them to explain that the crown solicitor doesn’t believe they are a real Church. I will of course raise these matters with The Holy Ramakrishna Order, Reverend ############ from the Catholic Church, Father #######, Sir #### ######### and many other Ministers whom I either know personally or whom I have already spoken with about this matter.
To state that what he says in this regard about the Church of Ubuntu is nonsense and not well thought out is an understatement and in fact is actually religious discrimination.
However the people understand that the system works against the oppressed and marginalised.
Mr ####### also disputes that the element of “preventing a Minister from officiating “is present. Ms ##### knew that the premises was a Church, she went there with force to wit, she engaged the NSW police force.
It is obvious from Inspector ####### statement that police were requested to go with the defendant, taking over a dozen police is an obvious sign of force, the defendant was clearly prepared to use force and engaged Mr ####### for that purpose, Mr ###### also states he was prepared to use force.
To state that they were allowed in is evidence no force was used is utter nonsense. The mere presence of the police is in itself force when they are in large numbers and obviously there to take a child, why else are they called a Police Force? I repeat again, Inspector ###### himself stated that he was prepared to use force.(check his statement). As well as this I again repeat that Inspector ###### used confrontational language. At one point he stated as seen on video by millions of people, when the mother stated they would take the child over her dead body, that he hoped it didn’t come to that, how can this not be force? Further to this If Inspector ###### also states that the door was opened to allow him inside, then he is not telling the truth.
Again in my affidavit I note:
32) I approached the Chief Officer ###### ###### and asked him to identify himself and what was his purpose in our shop, that is, may I see your paperwork. He replied with “I don’t have to tell you kin nothin” and I responded with the words “that’s different officer”. He then turned away and ignored me. I was able to find his correct name and title from photos and articles in newspapers and seeing him later at court.
33) There were three other police officers present that witnessed the above conversation one is named ##### ######. Barry John Futter and our Secretary Donna Snowdon also were present and heard the conversation.
When using the words in point 32 above Inspector ###### actually swore and I shortened it to KIN.
He was aggressive, he was with a large number of armed police and he was prepared to use force, and ###### ##### took him there.
The question of whether she used force is a matter for the court, however to state there is no evidence to show force was used is simply nonsense and wrong.
Inspector ###### states that they were simply let in, there was a large number of armed police. The people had no real choice in the matter, they were under duress, again this question is for a trial.
Evidence is given that I was officiating. If the defendant claims I wasn’t that is a matter for the trial, the element is present.
The charge of S56 is noted by Mr ####### and repeated below.
“56 Obstructing member of the clergy in discharge of his or her duties
Whosoever: by threats or force prevents, or endeavours to prevent, any member of the clergy, or other person duly authorised 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 burial-place, or”
The element of force is there as explained and is a matter for the trial.
The defendant met with police and went with them and therefore intended that force to be used.
The element of officiating in a divine place of worship is present.
This is a matter for the trial.
In my criminal matter there is no time duration in the interim order. Yet the DPP even though they can never prove it was in force and operative at the time I am alleged to have breached it, say I can use that as a defence and the charge should proceed.
Yet in the private prosecution the crown solicitor says the matters of force and worship and of being a Church are not provable and this shouldn’t be used as a basis of a defence. If you cannot see the hypocrisy it can only be because you are a part of that hypocrisy.
Inspector ###### also states in his statement that he was satisfied that the S43 order was valid. This is particularly concerning as it shows a total lack of respect for the law.
Mr ####### also states and the DPP stated last time I am challenging the dept and S43 through these charges. That is an unsupported opinion and should not form the basis of closing this matter. In fact S43 doesn’t have to be challenged, as I believe it is constitutionally invalid. The fact that it was enacted unlawfully is in effect an unfortunate byproduct of this charge is not my concern nor something I raised as elements in this private prosecution it is more in my opinion a matter of conscience for the defence.
Further the family law act states that parental responsibility cannot be taken away except by court order and yet S43 purports to do this without judicial oversight.
The Australian constitution states in S109 When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
This is of course just one more instance where the government proves it has no regards for the laws of the commonwealth that it expects the average citizen to obey.
The obvious choice if the DPP simply shuts this matter down is to vocally and often inform the people of the invalidity of S43 and of their common law right to defend with all reasonable force up to and including lethal force themselves and their family when government agents attempt to illegally and unconstitutionally destroy their family and seize their children. I already raised this most important matter in my correspondence to the deputy director also in the brief of evidence.
No doubt the citizens of NSW will, being fed up with oppression, tyranny, corruption and inaction by the government and their agents stand on their constitutional and common law rights when all hope of justice through the courts has evaporated.
The Director may well take this into account when deciding whether or not the private prosecution has an ulterior motive being to challenge this unconstitutional and invalid law.
Finally the DPP’s own guidelines state in Guideline 10 that the proceedings may be taken over if:
The public interest otherwise requires it, having regard (for example) to the gravity of the offence, its connection with another offence being prosecuted by the ODPP and all the surrounding circumstances;
Mr Babb I could very easily write another ten pages on this matter now before you, a matter I might again add, that has all the elements as His Honour Magistrate Stone correctly determined and should be heard in a court of law not determined by you in private chambers at the request of the crown.
I will conclude by clarifying that the intent of this submission is to make you completely aware of the possible ramifications if you still choose to simply close this matter down without a hearing. I am a Minister of Religion, I cannot and will not ever condone violence of any kind but nor am I responsible for the actions of people whom have no choice but to apply their common law rights to protect their young from this system in crisis. My sharing is and has never been a threat, it has been and still is a most significant warning. When people cannot get any semblance of Justice in a Justice System and they lose their children without any right or justification, without any judicial oversight and you further consider closing a Private Prosecution with all the elements to proceed to trial, what do you expect.
I have only ever requested my fundamental democratic right to have this Private Prosecution heard, not even determined. If I cannot achieve that what hope does anyone ever have?
In all the circumstances especially including the administration of Justice in the eyes of the people, the DPP should take this matter over and prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law.
Kindest regards and God Bless
Pastor 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