The following letter is my response to “The Daily Mail” newspaper for their defamatory article about me last friday.
Interesting that when i am temporarily silenced from speaking truth and risk gaol for wearing a T-Shirt or having a bumper sticker of a child i love whom was abducted over 80 days ago. That newspapers everywhere can defame me and even use images of the child. Why am i in breach for speaking the truth to a few thousand people and why is it fine for a newspaper to spread such defamatory rubbish to 100’s of thousands.
No More Bullshit please you are testing my patience.
much respect xxx PRB
WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONCERNS NOTICE Defamation Act 2005 The Daily Mail Australia Att: Yale Brender Journalist RE: Story in The Daily Mail Australia on 10/08/17 “Mayor of Martin Place’ linked with anti-medicine cult” Dear Yale, On the 10/08/17 your paper “The Daily Mail Australia” ran an article that appeared online with the headline “Mayor of Martin Place’ linked with anti-medicine cult”. That article referred to me and made statements that I consider highly defamatory. In point form I refer to the statements made and the imputations they carry. 1) I am referred to as the “public face” of an “anti medicine CULT” The imputation is that I am a cult figure who is dangerous and who exercises control over people with no concern for their wellbeing. 2) Secondly, you mentioned Dr Andrew Katelaris as a “CULT” leader and chief medical advisor when he is nothing more than an external consultant for our humble wellness clinic. Further to this you included a story about Andrew involving the death of a woman that carries the imputation that I was somehow involved or connected with the death of that woman. 3) Thirdly, the mention of a child being removed from the Church by the Police and welfare officers (which incidentally is in violation of a supreme court non publication order). And by stating that the child is malnourished and neglected, the imputation is carried that I am somehow responsible for this child’s alleged malnourishment and neglect. 4) By referring to us as a health cult, and stating that we have been criticised by the media for endangering children, the imputation is that I am a danger to children. I find this particularly offensive for an individual whom has dedicated his life to helping children in need. 5) By stating that the parents were allowing a deregistered doctor to dose the child with cannabis, carries the imputation that the child was just simply being drugged and that I am a person that condones the drugging of children. 6) By placing the word “Church” in inverted commas it carries the imputation that we are not a real church and suggests that I am “some wacko” with no spiritual foundation or belief in a supreme being. I would also point out that in our constitution it clearly states “To expound and support the values and teachings of all the recognised faiths.” We help the homeless, we help the sick, we help the disabled, the meek and the humble. We support people in need everywhere we are able. Much of this work is done for free, that is for no pecuniary reward of any kind. We do not indoctrinate or coerce anyone, I personally do not receive any money for my work with the Church I am the secretary and public officer and a Minister, I exist on “dana”, donations gifted in kind for my selfless dedication to supporting people in need. We are not a “Cult” 7) You have used an image of a child in an online publication with over 830,000 followers, as mentioned above that child is protected by an Australian Supreme court protection order, I cannot currently use that child’s name nor even mention the child in public and yet you associate me with the child to 830,000 people. Although he is not named over 4 million people know who he is and will recognize his picture and hence associate him with me. I am very distressed at the story you ran about me directly and by mentioning my name and carrying my photo along with these imputations I believe both myself and “Ubuntu” have been severely and unfairly defamed. Therefore I invite your organisation to make an offer of amends. Without prejudicing future legal actions, I suggest that any offer of amends must include, A) A full retraction in the same size font and prominence as the original story. B) An apology. C) My reasonable out of pocket expenses in relation to this concerns notice and considering your offer of amends. D) Due diligence in contacting other outlets that have copied and ran this “story” and advising them of the truth and your making of amends. E) Fair, just and equitable financial compensation for damages. Or in lieu of all of the above, an unbiased series of articles over a period time based upon myself and our “Ubuntu” community. These articles will present our view and position in regards to all of the matters raised in your article including our experiences and understanding on the current status of the child protection industry in Australia. I note that as this information is now on the internet it will never be able to be removed and compounds the damage I have suffered as a result of this untrue, unfair and defamatory publication. I also note this false information has been republished on a number of Australian and overseas online publications and this even further compounds the damage I have suffered. If no adequate offer of amends or no offer of amends at all is made within the statutory period I will without further notification file and serve a Statement of Claim for damages for defamation. Paul Robert Burton.