Prosecuting the Squeaky Wheel

by Dee McLachlan

You know the saying, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” — an idiom meaning the most vocal of problems are the ones addressed. But when it comes to speaking out for children, the authorities will do anything to SILENCE those that speak out — i.e., “The squeaky wheel must be silenced.”

It feels like the law does not apply when it comes to children and it has become more and more clear to me that the judiciary have a distorted insight into the well-being of children — despite the law requiring ‘best interests’ as being paramount. I question whether a child can EVER get justice through the courts?

Pastor Paul Robert Burton and Dr Andrew Katelaris

I have been following the case against child protectors Pastor Paul and Dr Katelaris for several years. They tried their best to expose the unwarranted (and unlawful) removal of a compromised child from loving parents when the child had been violently and forcibly removed from very loving and competent parents on known FALSE grounds, without the person (that had the delegated authority) being present and without one member of FACS or the Police identifying themselves. These two men, along with tens of thousands, published accounts of the incident, but only these two were charged. It took two years in the courts to rectify the matter and have the child returned to the parents. However, as is always the case with these kind of removals without any judicial oversight, the child (and all those involved) seldom if ever recover from the immense trauma of these kinds of highly distressing parental alienations.

These two were charged and after almost 8  years going through the courts, they were eventual tried before a jury and convicted and Pastor Paul was fined $1000 and Dr Andrew $500. So they eventually received two fines (nothing else) for what would have cost you the Australian Tax payer literally millions of dollars, and for doing what exactly? They were trying to protect a child from significant risk of harm — the very thing identified in Statute Law as a founding principle of the Children And Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 NSW.

They appealed, but their arguments and challenge was dismissed and as we have seen over the last 8 years, the proverbial elephant in the room was not even mentioned, that the child was NOT at significant risk of harm through malnutrition. This was an outright LIE.

Sally Crosswell reported on the matter in Proctor:

“Two church-goers who made Facebook posts which named a child who was subject to a Children’s Court proceeding, have lost an appeal against their convictions… [they] breached Section 105(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) with their 2017 posts…

“Four-year-old “CWS” was at the centre in May 2017 when he was removed from his parents by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) on the ground he was at immediate risk of harm through malnutrition… the appeals court described how Mr Burton had been at the centre when the youngster, who lives with severe epilepsy and cerebral palsy, was removed… Mr Burton made four posts and Mr Katelaris one, which referred to CWS by name and criticised FACS, in the months after the removal.”

Crosswell continues:

“[Justices Adamson, Dhanji and Weinstein] …found there was no proper evidentiary basis on which to leave the defences of self defence, necessity, or honest and reasonable mistake of fact, to the jury… Also, it is not an element of an offence under s 105(2) of the Act that the Crown prove harm to the child concerned or that the child’s privacy was affected, they stated.

“Burton said he was “trying to get the attention of the courts”, and Mr Katelaris said “I was aware of the law, and I was aware that it had been used for an improper purpose to cover up the crimes of the department, rather than protect the privacy of the children”.

I have made two long comments on the Proctor post, but they have not been published. In my first comment, I wrote (in part):

“What this matter is REALLY all about is hiding government criminality. …The child was removed on known FALSE GROUNDS, i.e abducted by the State and the Courts condone the state government’s trafficking of children. …the child privacy laws are supposedly to PROTECT THE CHILD. But it does the exact opposite.”

Both the appellants, the general public and FACS (the child department) were well aware at the time that the highly compromised indigenous child was removed on known false grounds — hence why such an enormous public outcry at the forced and violent removal. Everyone knows that letters to ministers and pleadings to the department lead nowhere.

Even the presiding Judge in the Burton Katelaris trial in her sentencing remarks last November stated clearly that the child was removed on known false grounds but it appears that if the government abducts and/or kidnaps a child there is absolutely no lawful judicial remedy.  (Let that sink in. If a child is unlawfully separated from a parent, there is absolutely no lawful judicial remedy.)

Sadly, it seems that the judicial system is nothing more than the judicial arm of the government — a system that condones the unlawful removal of children. It appears that they intend to silence (and prosecute) any squeaky wheel to protect the government and hide truth. In the Burton Katelaris case the judge removed all their defences for the jury, so the judge became the sole arbiter of fact. This makes a mockery of a “jury trial”.

The objective: silence any dissent when it comes to the business of child removal/trafficking and placement/custody business — all in the name of privacy for the child.

But it’s not only happening in Australia, it’s a problem in all Western nations.

Irish Mum Jailed in England

Here’s yet another example of the judicial punisher (reported in The Womens Coalition & News) entitled “Irish Mother Jailed in England: Collusion between Countries & Systems”

“An Irish mother, who was arrested while on a supervised visit with her son in England two months ago, was denied bail on Monday for a second time. A Manchester criminal court judge ordered that N—- remain imprisoned until her trial on October 27th. Reason given? Because N—- might continue to speak out about her Custody Crisis case, and the judge said that would be harassment of the father. But keeping her incarcerated is really just part of the overall campaign to silence her about the injustices wrought upon her by a senior Family Court judge in Ireland and her minions.”

“So there are two countries and three systems colluding in this case: Irish Family Court, UK law enforcement, and UK criminal court system…The power elite conspires to silence and disempower women who have the temerity to speak out and challenge their agenda… She had been indicted and jailed for harassing the father by—wait for it—sending her son a Valentines Day card!

“This denial of bail, despite the fact N—- is not a danger to society or a flight risk, is simply to put the screws to her—to shut her up for good. But, fortunately, it seems to be backfiring on them. Her case is already public so it does not matter if she speaks out—everyone else is! It is getting lots of attention internationally.”

The Set-up and Switch

I’ve seen this many times. The court facilitates a custody switch against the evidence.

“Judge Sinéad Ní Chulachain proceeded to follow the Custody Crisis pattern. She appointed two minions to aid and abet her in the great custody switch” appointing an evaluator that does the bidding of the court, writing a pernicious biased report giving the judge the “justification she wanted for switching custody. All the evidence that incontrovertibly proved it was in Harry’s best interest to stay living with his mother was ignored.”

 

What happened, as it so often does, the court acts in the worst interests of the child separating the child from loving and secure bonds. “This increases the trauma… and facilitates trauma bonding.” And “N— was not given any warning that Harry was going to be taken from her and given to his father that day. It was a well-planned sabotage…” This is just court business as usual. It happens in courtrooms every day across western countries.

It’s when N— began the #bringharryhome campaign exposing the Family Court injustice, naming the judge, the children’s attorney, and evaluator that the needed to silence the squeaky wheel.

The system will make sure to silence and dis-empower protective parents …and their SUPPORTERS.

Read the full article HERE.