by Dee McLachlan (a supporter of justice and truth; a supporter of children being able to live free from abuse and encouraged to flourish in an environment of love and joy)
I was up at 4:00am yesterday to catch at flight to Brisbane to attend the last mention or hearing before the trial of THE KING v PATRICK FINBAR MCGARRY O’DEA, WILLIAM RUSSELL MASSINGHAM PRIDGEON, ANN KATHLEEN GREER AND ORS. I was not disappointed with the theatre.
We were in another courtroom this time, and I noticed the extra security — at least 5 — plus a solidly built man in a suit that monitored members of the gallery. The defendants were placed in the dock just in front of the gallery, and Pastor Burton, Patrick O’Dea’s supporter was no longer allowed contact with Patrick and had to sit in the gallery (both Russell Dr Pridgeon and Patrick O’Dea are self-represented).
As a note, I’m not sure how Patrick can ever get a fair trial — he’s basically nearly deaf (okay… hard of hearing). When he first addressed the court he said, “I apologize Your Honour, but I didn’t hear what was said (etc.).” Judge Clare then spoke back loudly into her mic, but after 30 seconds the decibel level had returned to normal and he spent much of the time with his hand cupped over his ear in a failed attempt to hear proceedings. The other two in the dock were grandmother Greer (who had custody of her grandson) and the mother who ran off with her kids for four years. It is this mother who Patrick and Russell assisted or supported.
The day started with “the book” and it was like throwing a hand grenade into a turkey coop.
Mr Dean, the prosecutor, pointed out that Dr Pridgeon’s book had been published a few days before and this jeopardized the process of the trial — so much of the morning was focused on this book (LINK HERE). The mother’s lawyers wanted a separate trial and went on about the mother being vulnerable to bullying and intimidation. Her lawyers were very unhappy with the book and were using this to get a separate trial.
Obviously, the book is a worry to the prosecution, and the debate about whether Russell had breached any bail conditions was brought up — though he did not publish it. The book describes how a doctor left Africa, went to New Zealand, and then landed in Australia. Appalled by what he had learned, he and Patrick started the Anti-pedophile party. And that’s where their lives took a dark turn — trying to assist children who said they had been abused.
I was fascinated also by how Mr Dean, and Judge Clare went on about the defendant’s supporters. An unruly conspiratorial lot they are! These supporters, they said, were, in essence, orchestrating disruption of the trail; the “supporters at large” and their “posts reveal intentions to disrupt the rule of law” and “influence the case”. Judge Clare said, “It would be foolish to think they can influence a judge”… (We all hope judges can’t be influenced).
There was a long discussion of security and possibly housing the gallery in another court. Mr Dean went on and on about the book saying that it went on with conspiracies about child abuse being ignored in this country and that the courts were corrupt (when dealing with child abuse). I can’t relay exactly what he said but he was talking about the book’s theories and the defendant’s supporters in a disparaging and almost mocking manner. Really, to think that child abuse is a problem and this court could be corrupt?
Mr Dean, maybe you need a little education, but I guess everyone in the know knows what’s going on. Yes, there is a conspiracy that child abuse is rampant in Australia, but it’s not a fallacy … because that is an already studied FACT.
I refer you, Mr Dean, to a well-researched paper, by Collin-Vézina, De La Sablonnière-Griffin, Palmer & Milne, 2015 p.123, initiated by the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) noting Australia, shockingly, as having the highest reported rate for child sexual abuse of girls internationally at 21.5% (Stoltengorgh, van Ijzendoorn, Euser, & Bakersman- Kranenburg, 2011).
I can also confirm, Mr Dean, that the police protocol is to conceal child abuse. This is evidenced in the Survey I conducted in 2018, and in the many court cases, documents, and case correspondence I have investigated. I would be happy to debate this with any police commissioner. The concealing of incest or familial child abuse IS suppressed unless it is impossible to do so. It is in the “too hard to handle” basket, and the outcome is that child victims are often removed from the protective parent/s. Mr Dean, and Judge Clare — this IS the norm. What you are doing in court is aligned with the present culture in Australia — so maybe you know no different.
Mr Dean rattled on about the book and the doctor’s supporters being caught up in conspiracies and Qanon thinking. Very clever! No Mr Dean, it is clear YOU are part of a conspiracy — a conspiracy to divert justice from the truth — the truth that you know a police officer lied and concealed the sexual abuse of the grandmother’s son.
While he was going at the “supporters” Judge Clare mentioned Pastor Paul. Paul stood up in the gallery, and she instructed him to sit down. “Sorry Your Honour, I thought you were addressing me”. It was a little later when Mr Dean was speaking disparagingly about Pastor Paul, that Paul stood up in the gallery, “Objection… that is defamatory…” He was immediately shut down … and “Remove the long-haired man from the court.” Paul was ushered from the court and the building. He then did a ‘live’ 8-minute video outside (see below).
The day continued.
Using the publishing of the book, and because they want, I believe, to isolate the two elderly men defendants, Judge Clare agreed to a separate trial for Ann Greer and the mother. This means that the video of Ann Greer’s grandson disclosing abuse — the video that was concealed by the police — will not be shown to the jury of the two men.
Hard-of-hearing Patrick finally got to speak, “Your Honour, I’m sorry I have not been able to hear much of what has been said but I want the prosecution video of the boy to be brought before the jury…” (or words to that effect). He accused the prosecution of concealing exculpatory evidence and this got a very vocal “objection”. Patrick continued, “But this goes to the credibility of the officer”. Judge Clare replied, “This is not a trial of the police officer… you are the one on trial” (or wording close to that).
Is it not relevant that the jury hears the evidence that the police officer blatantly lied?
As I have written many times in some of the cases I have reported on: had the one police officer or public servant done their job none of this would be occurring. The conspiracy to defeat justice is sourced and initiated by the wrongful actions of the police officer.
When Russell questioned why Judge Clare had denied all his avenues of defence, she replied “you have to understand this is an adversarial system”… “You are allowed” or you have the defence “of what is in your head”. Russell is wanting the jury to see what he saw — the documents and reports from Professor Briggs etc., that informed him and others that the children were abused and needed protection.
We wait and see what the jury will be allowed to see.
But there are many unanswered questions for me. As I said in Part 2 … “You can smell the stench in Queensland from Victoria.” Everybody knows that child sexual abuse (the children’s voices) was unlawfully concealed and/or withheld from courts. So there is a consistent attempt to shut down anything disclosing child sexual abuse in this trial. But… it almost feels like a sting operation. Only the two men who founded the Anti-pedophile party have been targeted. Why were other persons that harboured and/or assisted the mother and her girls for years not prosecuted? Had someone from the Anti-pedophile party got elected into Canberra it would have ripped the ‘culture of child abuse’ open like a tin can …from the safety of the floor. Were these two men deliberately diverted?
There are so many other questions. It’s a dangerous game exposing child abuse in Australia.
But, to conclude: this is Pastor Pauls Robert Burton’s live to-camera.
Pastor Pauls Court Update R v Pridgeon, O’Dea, Greer and Doubleday from Paul Robert Burton on Vimeo.
Wow, lil ol Dee.
I know this seemed like an echo chamber, but seems a leaky one, a’ Judge Clare. Why not just display to court n public screen the Hansard as recorded, cheaper than those dancing interpreters
From experience I know that these men have been targeted viciously by all the departments that were put in place to protect children.
Instead of doing what they swore to do when taking office they hide behind their cloaks, badges and uniforms and they instigate and perpetrate crimes against children protecting the worst sort of criminals those who we call paedophiles…those who rape children. Reporting a paedophile is the most dangerous thing that you can do in Australia, it will bring attacks from all these departments and more The attackers having the protection from the highest offices in the country they hold no fear of ever being held accountable for their crimes or failures. They are the untouchables….
When the courts cannot be trusted… when the lawyers cannot be trusted…. when the police cannot be trusted… when the child safety cannot be trusted….when health departments cannot be trusted ….etc etc…. what hope does anyone have to fight the monsters when such a system is in place?
When it’s the monsters who get the protection???
We need a David and we need them now…we need the biggest of stones to shatter this filthy system.
Those who would stand against this evil are seriously outnumbered and need help now.
Christina… you wrote “Reporting a paedophile is the most dangerous thing that you can do in Australia,”
I agree. For a parent to disclose abuse… you will most likely lose everything dear in your life… YOUR CHILDREN, and most likely any house, job, and money. Possibly one’s life.
That is why not a single leader has the courage to stand up.
That hardly anyone in media will report these cases. (easy to report department negligence and mistakes)
Correct about no system/dept can be trusted… SADLY
It is one chief fat cat, unseen with 30 inner circle, who calls the shots, makes the final decision here in Oz. Everything theatre like abc, no fair play just fare pay.
Even if they win speaking truth, will still end up paying legal costs. System beyond broken over thirty years ago. May be still some hope in US, in Oz forget it.
Thanks Ant56
Good Terry-retired-barrister-now-self-grower would agree
I had a nightmare two weeks ago. I was back at the Bar dealing with all the lying POS. When I woke up in bed, it was a RELIEF! – I would have preferred to have some huge monster chasing me.
If the police officer withheld child abuse — and if he or she LIED about it…
WHY IS THE POLICE OFFICER NOT ON TRIAL please explain
Dear Sarah J, I can expline. The police officer is not on trial because the police officer is not on trial.
And his lies will not get revealed at Russell’s “trial” because now the court, on behalf of the pedo club, has split the case in two. The little boy’s complaints will appear in the trial of Grandma Ann Greer but not in the separate trial of Russell and Patrick.
See? There is logic and there is logic.
What would Aristotle say?
M.M
But the ‘would be’ prisoners have a Ace.
At a FULL hearing on sentencing, the motives for their actions should be taken into account in determining a appropriate sentence. That evidence on beliefs, motives and material in support would be relevant for determining a just sentence.
Think ahead ….. wonder if the prosecution can master chess? Their KING may be at risk🧏🏽♀️
Then there is a Court of Appeal.
The large lady must abide her entrance.
Now why would a moderator be interesting in moderation.
Screen shot necessary
” like throwing a hand grenade into a turkey coop”
I can just imagine.
This person says ‘booo’ to a gaggle of turkeys and they go crazy
Or does this person say “book”
Wow, the comment I posted here just disappeared.
Wow this is a BIG case.
Please watch the video, it is a scream.
book! book! book! bwuk, bwuk, bwuk. Thanks Jim 1972.
Maybe this “discussion” is just a procedure in arriving at a democratic notion of good and true derived from a dialectic that assumes that everything is “becoming” by competition between the old and a self-producing new, Darwin/Dawkins/Yowie style. Of course, all that is predicated on the Hegelian demand that Reality is entirely a construct of individual and communal perception… not a transcendent objective that metaphysical faculties like intellect and will should seek to conform to.
There’s no shortage these days of all sorts of moral and intellectual perverts selling themselves as “angels of light” and “tolerance” by surreptitiously pushing a “conservative” version of the dialectic just as there are “angels of enlightenment” pushing a new vision of Creation that only takes on a purpose if it is subjected to the ambitions of a few who want to usurp the whole show. Who could argue with them if we assume that Everything is “becoming” out of a Nothing with no Cause or Purpose? Blardy near 100 years ago Julian Huxley said that “it’s time for the product of Evolution to take over the process of Evolution”.
Anyhow, here’s a more particular look at what might be expected from the “tolerants”:
https://akacatholic.com/consensual-sex-with-minors/
Worth a read of that whole article. Here is a quote:
“In 2018, the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists … convened an expert meeting to discuss the role of jurists in addressing the harmful human rights impact of criminal laws proscribing sexual and reproductive health and rights, consensual sexual activity …”
I repeat: harmful human rights impact of criminal laws….
Kinda showcases what a slippery slope the entire “rights” ethos actually is.
As I’ve already mentioned untold times, the respective mindset is the antithesis of the biblical blueprint for the care and protection of dependents: we’re simply commanded to do/not-do unto others
There are no “rights” that are not correspondent with “duties” according to a transcendent nature and purpose.
No nature and/or purpose then “rights” are nothing but demands for liberty to “justify” solipsistic wants and whims.
From the website humanrights.gov.au, an organiztion of which Rosalind Croucher is the president, comes this memorable 2019 quote:
“In her introduction, Australian Human Rights Commission President Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AO described their work [McLellan’s RC] on behalf of [child sexual abuse] survivors as ‘the pinnacle of Human Rights achievement in Australia.’
I guess this means that Russell Pridgeon’s case is the pinnacle of the pinnacle. Great!
The website also said, referring to the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.
“Professor Croucher said the declaration was ‘a great reckoning of nations’ just as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was ‘a great reckoning of this nation’.”
Thanks for the coverage and thank God for the internet.
From what I’ve seen self-represented defendants are routinely hit by such bizarre rituals. The more publicity the issue gets the better
Mary – a couple of links re
Royal Commissions and Committees. The British Empire Colonial Rule -who appoints our Governor Generals–Attorney Generals–Judges-Police Commissioners–our “Controllers”—-
“Professor Croucher said the declaration was ‘a great reckoning of nations’ just as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was ‘a great reckoning of this nation’.”
https://www.clearias.com/important-commissions-and-committees-during-british/
“Important Famine commissions and committees during British rule in India
British interests in India during the British Raj were not just restricted to trade and financial gain; they also took a deep interest in social issues, but with caution and disregard. This is the only justification for their criticism of Indian cults, practices, and traditions, as well as the inadequate famine measurements that led to a series of artificial famines in India.”
MMM -Education is the Key to power The Lord Macaulay Education Policy of 1835
“The Princely States created the Indian Public School Education in 1822 to manage India’s education, which had been dominated by Orientalists who supported Oriental study over Anglicans. To advance Western education, they put a lot of pressure on the British India Company.
The Lord Macaulay Education Policy of 1835 aimed to create a university committee that would only teach the upper class in English. Before the entrance of the British, Hindus and Muslims received their education at Pathsala and Madrassa, but the Missionaries emerged as a new educational institution as a result of the British.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire
https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-monarchy-has-benefited-from-colonialism-and-slavery-179911
Not forgetting our Lords and Ladies-Rule Britannia
for Dee-THE KING v PATRICK FINBAR MCGARRY O’DEA, WILLIAM RUSSELL MASSINGHAM PRIDGEON, ANN KATHLEEN GREER AND ORS
and Pastor Paul’s update- BRAVO
embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=16439052
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2021/November/Judicial_Appointments
Judicial Appointments
Valery Evlakhov
Posted 10/11/2021 by Cassie Davis
“As part of its Review of Judicial Impartiality the Australian Law Reform Commission is currently considering whether the process of appointing federal judges should be made more transparent. With the latest round of judicial appointments recently made by the Attorney-General to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, it is timely to consider how judges are appointed and what issues have been raised with the process.
The current processes for the appointment of judges in Australia
Section 72 of the Australian Constitution provides that the Governor-General in Council must appoint the judges of federal courts, the appointee being younger than 70 years of age. In practice this is done on the advice of the federal Cabinet. The relevant legislation adds that an appointee must have been a legal practitioner in Australia for not less than five years (see High Court of Australia Act 1979 (the HC Act) section 7; Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 subsection 6(2); and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 subsections 11(2) and 111(2)).
As noted by Justice Kiefel and Professor Saunders:
In practice the Commonwealth Attorney-General considers who might be a suitable appointment. The Attorney-General then writes to the Prime Minister (usually after asking the person whether he or she would accept appointment), seeking the approval of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. If approved, the Attorney-General makes a recommendation to the Governor-General who considers the appointment through the Federal Executive Council process. (p. 6).
For appointments to the High Court, under section 6 of the HC Act, the Commonwealth Attorney-General is also required to consult with the Attorneys-General of the States.
As noted by the Australian Judicial Officers Association, the judicial appointments process in the states and territories involves judges being appointed by the Governor, having been selected by Cabinet on the advice of the Attorney-General. For example, in Queensland the Attorney-General makes a recommendation for the appointment of a judge or magistrate to the Cabinet and the Governor in Council, who by commission, may appoint a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court of at least five years standing as a judge (Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 59).
Issues with current processes
The recent appointment of Justice Jacqueline Gleeson to the High Court, only the sixth woman to be appointed to the Court’s bench, was said to be ‘an excellent choice’, however, some ‘question[ed] whether those choosing our top judges should look further afield’ at academics and politicians with appropriate skills.
At the 2006 Australian Bar Association Judicial Appointments Forum, Justice Ronald Sackville stated:
Under a system of unfettered executive decision-making, attention is necessarily focussed on those whose abilities can readily be observed by, or whose credentials, real or apparent, come to the attention of the Attorney-General or his or her colleagues or close political advisers. There is little incentive to encourage interest from those whose background is perhaps less orthodox or whose availability is not widely known, but who nonetheless may have much to contribute as judges or magistrates.
A recent research paper employing data on all High Court of Australia cases decided over the period 1995 to 2019 reportedly found evidence of a ’loyalty effect’, whereby Justices found in favour of the federal government more frequently when the Prime Minister who appointed them was in office.
Other criticisms have been made about ‘the lack of transparency in the appointments process, about patronage and political appointments, and regarding the limited gender and cultural diversity on the bench.’ (p. 1).
In its 2018 Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, the Australian Law Reform Commission found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are much more likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment than non-Indigenous Australians. The ALRC stated in its recent background paper Judicial impartiality: cognitive and social biases in judicial-decision making that ‘these findings suggest that bias within the justice system has a role to play’ (p. 6–13).”
I felt compelled to listen to the ‘Pastor’s’ video summary again.
Best I not comment on my thoughts…. I have not read the brief and not been there.
That in itself indicates something such as; these gentlemen deserve and must have competent legal advice and representation.
In ‘my days’ the legal profession was and is honourable and applied the ‘cab rank rule’.
It provided that even Adolf Hitler or the most miserable, cruel and poorest human being in our our society would be provided with counsel, competent in a relevant jurisdiction and counsel would as a professional duty, be required to fearlessly represent a accused person, be it with the most horrific criminal charges laid and even be it, subject to public msm judgemental ‘shock joke’ inferred vilification or inferred criticism (that I have noted) for carrying out a professional duty.
The medical profession is subject to a similar professional duty to treat and save the life of a alleged serial mass killer.
I appeared in one case where the accused was charged with a horrific kidnapping and pack rape. He developed hepatitis during the criminal trial, was hospitalised and notwithstanding the court wanted him present to continue the trial. His medical team said ‘no way’ could he appear. The trial was aborted. The doctors carried out their duty. He recovered, a new trial finalised and he was found guilty… I think he ended up with17 years… another counsel appeared in the second trial.
I ‘think’ the legal philosophy was based on an ethical theory ⚖️💁🏼 that every person must have a ‘fair go’ according to law when criminal allegations by authority are challenged and put to proof.
The obvious purpose of the rule is to maintain public confidence in the administration and implementation of justice, deserving of all.
Otherwise ….. ?
I cannot comment on the case itself; As much as i’d like (oxymoron) to give my 2 bobs worth about this “judge” and her fellow BAR associate from the DPP, i will not jeopardise the case by highlighting the ineffectual and Unlawful nature of these individuals;
What is apparent without delving into this case specifically, is the FACT that the “courts” are no longer Courts; Moreover, they are private “hearings” conducted by a Corporate Entity who has no more Authority to Rule on anything than Ronald McDonald does;
The BAR is a Private Association; Members swear an Oath to the association, NOT The Crown;
The Court is a Foreign Registered Corporation; The Police are Foreign Registered Corporations; GovCo of ALL flavours are Foreign Registered Corporations and on it goes;
Would it not be prudent to dismiss this presumed Authority as the Private Foreign Entity it is and DEMAND a return to Common Law as prescribed in The Constitution Of The Commonwealth Of Australia 1900UK and Chapter12 thereof?; Rhetorical question really;
28 “high profile” known and named by police Peadophiles are protected in AusGovCo Parliament in a sealed for 75 years document; Those contained within this suppressed document of National Shame NEEDED to be taken from public scrutinty as “the Public would lose faith in the Judiciary, The Police and indeed the Parliaments of Australia, your honour”;
One morally decent, Courageous, God fearing, Common-Law abiding Judge and a Lawful Court of 12 Jurors is All We The People NEED to bring down the Pedos protection racket that is being run by politics, courts and police all over this once proud nation;
It’s past time to end the rot.