Burton v The King

As you may be aware both mine and Dr Katelaris's Appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeal was dismissed and I must say it was really interesting to have the court completely ignore our argument, not provide any reasons in response to our argument and the important caselaw and authorities we referenced, and failed to even mention what was clearly established in the lower court, that the child in this case was removed on known false grounds.

From the Sentencing Judgment of Judge Harris:

“In fact, months later on 10 November 2017, FACS wrote to the child’s

mother advising that the reference to low potassium levels on the removal

order was “an error and should have been deleted”. A subsequent blood test of

17 May 2017, only two days before the removal of the child, reflected that the

child’s potassium levels had returned to normal.

The removal of the child from his family on 19 May 2017 was in circumstances

involving physical violence and high tension. Mr Burton was at the receiving end

of police deployed capsicum spray. He was also instrumental in organising an

ambulance so that the child could travel to hospital with his mother.”

So in response, for those who are interested in this now eight year saga, I have recently filed my fourth application to The High Court of Australia (attached below).

Even though it is called Burton v The King I doubt The King would even know, and in my view, if he is a good man, and he did know about this and some of the other cases I am assisting, he would be absolutely horrified at what is being done in his name.

Here's a link to three pages of my own caselaw with links to my many lawful attempts to get some semblance of justice for this child and the family over the last 8 years. https://www.pastorpaul.com.au/my-caselaw

Dee McLachlan from Gumshoe News just sent me this qoute which in my view sums up my lawful quest for justice perfectly.

"When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals."

~ Edward Snowden

Anyway, for completeness I have filed with the High Court of Australia raising the issue of the indictment against me being unknown to the law, the court of criminal appeal providing no reasons as to why my argument and referenced caselaw was not correct, my defences being removed by a Judge and being denied a fair jury trial, the child being unlawfully removed by the Department of FACS (the real elephant in the room), and being charged for an improper purpose.

The proposed orders are:

(1) The appeal is allowed and that this matter receives the important attention of the High Court of Australia.

(2) That the criminal convictions for each of the four offences be quashed.

(3) That the High Court of Australia consider granting leave to hear about the removal of this child directly from the parents.

(4) The First Respondent pays the costs of the Applicant.

(5) Any other reasonable orders the Court deems fit to make.

King Regards & God Bless

Pastor Paul

Become a Patron

Excerpt from the above High Court Application:

11. Brief Background

The Applicant witnessed the Department of Family and Community Services and

the NSW Police forcefully remove a four year old first nations child with

significant disabilities from the care of his loving parents. The Applicant was the

family’s Pastor and he was pepper sprayed battered and assaulted during the forced

removal. The Applicant prior to the removal made arrangements for an ambulance

and for the child to be taken to hospital through a verbal agreement with FACS and

the NSW Police to not separate the child from his parents. The mother and child

travelled together in an ambulance to the hospital but the child was eventually

forcibly and violently removed at the hospital in the emergency department with

the assistance of a total of around 32 armed police and two FACS representatives.

This happened despite the medical evidence provided by the doctors disproving the

allegations by FACS that the child was suffering from critically low levels of

potassium consistent with malnutrition and that the child was as a consequence not

at risk of significant harm. The information used on the original removal

paperwork was false, the child and family had attended the hospital only two days

prior to his removal and the child had been seen and checked by medical

professionals and FACS had been notified of this. After the forced removal the

Applicant, who was deeply concerned for the welfare of the child (noting again he

was the child’s Pastor and Advocate (see SECT 9 and 9A of the governing Act)),

made every attempt he could to try to locate the child but the child was hidden by

the Department in the hospital under a false identity and nobody would provide the

Applicant any information. It was found during the course of the trial that the

Applicant had even gone to the children’s court directly seeking information about

the child’s wellbeing but had been ordered to not enter the court. The Applicant as

a last resort responded to demands via email from FACS to remove a few posts on

Facebook that identified the child by inviting them to “charge him if they could

find something to charge him with” whilst at the same time removing the alleged

offending posts once he was able to identify them. He did this in a desperate

attempt to get before the courts (having no other option) with the belief that a

competent court of law, responding to the unlawful removal of a child, would

immediately restore the child to the family. At that time around July 2017 the

alleged offending four posts on Facebook were visible for only 3 to 10 days,

meanwhile thousands of other people were posting on social media and multi-

national media corporations including Channel 7 were all breaching section 105 in

exactly the same terms as needed to be proved against the Applicant by the Crown.

Channel 7 were even contacted and refused to comply with FACS and no action

was taken against them when after the beginning of children’s court proceedings

they released a national broadcast on television about the child.