You are on page 1of 13

Mr John Christopher Sunol

16 Queen Street
WARATAH WEST NSW 2298
6 November 2014

The President
Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales,
PO Box A2122
Sydney South,
NSW 1235
Attention:

Ms. McGuire

This is a response to complaints reference numbers C2014/0740


and C2014/0741.
These complaints are the 31st and 32nd complaints that Mr Burns
has lodged against me. The situation has now is unacceptable
and has become out of control. It indicates systemic failure.
I now appeal to the President to protect me from any further
vexatious complaints from this person.
It the President cannot protect me by declining these latest
frivolous complaints (that are just a rehash of earlier
complaints) then I will need to take it further to seek
protection from the Attorney General under the New South Wales
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.
I found the attached note (see Attachment 2) about vexatious
litigation laws in NSW on the internet and I am in total
support of these laws.
The note says, and I have experienced this,
There are those in the community who use the civil court
system to pursue petty issues and intimidate others, often out
of nothing more than vindictiveness, at great expense to
society and at little advantage to themselves beyond a feeling
of having got back at someone.
Such persons are known as vexatious litigants.
The fact that these latest complaints are number 31 and 32
against me from the same complainant shows that he falls under
this category. This is particularly true when one takes into
account the complainants own behaviour as per the attached
documentation (refer Attachment 1).

I will also be seeking legal advice to have the complainant


charged with contempt of court (resulting in a possible jail
sentence) for his refusal to pay costs awarded against him in
a vexatious attempt at having me set up with an false AVO
(case number 2011/97025, Magistrate R. Williams 265, 5
August 2011).
There is no point in me trying to defend myself against these
extra vilification complaints because they are based on
unreliable evidence and mere speculation. Also, I know I have
already been demonised by the complainant and his propaganda
has affected the minds of numerous of his followers.
Rather than that, I will provide a statement on why we cannot
come to agreement on issues relating to homosexual
vilification.
I believe this man is a serial vexatious litigant who spends
all of this time lodging complaints.
I outline my reasons for differences with Mr Burns.
I am the one who is in need of protection, not Mr Burns.
The reasons are clear and outlined in the attachment to this
letter.
This shows a persistent endeavour to stalk and harass me
because I am an easy target.
Yours sincerely,

John C Sunol

ATTACHMENT 1
COMPLAINT TO ANTI-DISCRIMINAITON BOARD OF NEW SOUTH WALES
AGAINST MR GARRY (A.K.A GARY) BURNS

FIG. 1
This is an example of the respondents language that he uses
in his daily activities, whilst he complains against myself
and others using the homosexual vilification laws.

FIG. 2
This is an example of how the respondent treats those who he
has put vilification complaints about to the AntiDiscrimination Board. It shows the respondents vexatiousness
willingness to attack people he does not know.

FIG. 3
The respondent has a hatred of anyone with a different
viewpoint of homosexuality or about feminist ideology.
groups below are a part of the same groups that the
complainant identifies with.

These

This is an example of how the respondent always accuses those


who are his perceived enemies as being paedophiles and then he
himself rejects paedophilia as being part of his own
community.

FIG. 4
The respondent has persuaded Ms Clover Moore to write to the
Minister of Transport saying I am not a fit and proper person
to drive a taxi or a bus on the grounds that he has been
successful against me with his vilification complaints because
I could not afford a lawyer.
In this original online news article by Newcastle Herald and
ABC News, they had a different photograph of myself in my taxi
uniform.
The respondent has got a hold of my old business
card, and replaced the original photo with a photo of my old
taxi showing the leased plates. These plates now belong to
another person, and the complainants use of the old photo,
obtained by fraud to damage me, is unethical and vexatious.

FIG. 5
This is the kind of language the respondent uses on his own
Facebook but he complains about me for using far less crude
and vilifying language.
I feel as though he is using me for a political toy, to push a
political agenda.

FIG. 6
This is a second example of the vilifying behaviour the
respondent uses to talk about groups he is opposed to.
This is another example of how the respondent attacks those
who are opposed to his agenda by name-calling and suggesting
they are paedophiles but he goes ballistic when anyone
associates paedophilia with homosexuality.

FIG 7
This is an example of how the respondent who is in reality
an unemployed serial vexatious litigant sees himself as a
great working hero for the homosexual rights lobby.
It also shows how his serial complaining is done as he is
seeking fulfilment of his own gratification.
In the complainants case, his gratification is increased
because I am an easy target with no money to defend myself. .
This also shows how the respondent has deliberately set up the
complainant for public ridicule and mockery.
The people who hate me as shown below dont even know me so I
am being set up by the respondent as a scapegoat for an outlet
for peoples hate. People who know me do not hate me.

FIG. 8
This shows how the respondent sees the complainant as an easy
target. This is confirmed by Ms Oldfield who mocks the
complainant as a poor defenceless fuckwit. He is soliciting
others to put in more fabricated vilification complaints to
the Anti-Discrimination Board assures then that they will win.
This is because the complainant cannot defend himself due to
lack of money.
If the complainant was known to have obtained
a good-paying job or came in receipt of a large sum of money
this would encourage other people to carry on more
vilification complaints for monetary purposes.
This also shows how the respondent is inciting hatred and
severe contempt of the complainant.
Therefore the
complainant is victimised for being who he is. As an example,
a person by the name of Brenton Head said GO get him, Gary.
This is proof that the respondent is already inciting people
on this Facebook page.

FIG. 9
It has been noticed that the respondent uses different names
in different legal jurisdictions. The respondent, under the
jurisdiction of the Waverley Local Court, identified himself
as Gary Burns with one r. This is the same as on his
Facebook and his blog. Under the jurisdiction of the AntiDiscrimination Board and the NSW Civil and Administrative
Tribunal the respondent identifies himself as Garry Burns
with two rs. The complainant asks what is his correct name
and why does he use two different legal names? The
complainant suggests this is done to hide his real identity in
relation to vilification complaints.
The respondent has put on his blog the question Is Newcastle
taxi driver John Christopher Sunol really a covert
homosexual?. The complainant states that this is pure
stereotypical defamation and disinformation designed to incite
serious contempt of the complainants ideas.
This also illustrates that the respondent has caused others to
create a fake Facebook page in order to discredit the
complainant.

10

11

0ll^tl ^on{ }
VEXATIOUSLITIGATION
LAWS STRENGTHENED
A primaryconditionfor the existenceof a just societyis a robustand accessible
courtsystemthat enablesindividuals,groups,corporateentitiesand other
organisations
to seek rulingsthat will putwrongsto right.
democracies,
such rulingsare soughtand
ln Australiaand otherparliamentary
judges
dealingwith eveMhingfrom
through
the
civil
court
system,
with
obtained
nuisanceissues such as intrusivenoise to contractualdisputes,non-payment
and muchmore.
of debts.defamation
Whilethe civilcourtsystem,to ensurea just society,must be opento all, it is
unfortunately
also susceptibleto abuse.
Thereare thosein the communitywho use the civiicourtsysiemto pursuepetty
at
issuesand intimidateoihers,oftenout of nothingmorethan vindictiveness,
greatexpenseto societyand at littleadvantageto themselvesbeyonda feeling
of'havinggot back'at someone.
Suchpersonsare knownas vexatiouslitigants.
For sometime therehave beenlawsin placein NSWto minimisesuchlitigation
with casesthat haveIittle
and preventthe courtsystembecomingoverburdened
meritbeyonddeliveringthe liiiganta (perhapssomewhattwisted)senseof
personalsatisfaction.
However,with the increasingcomplexityof societyand the groMh in litigation
generally,the StateGovernmenthas seen fit to strengthentheselaws.
Act 2008has been
New leg:slationin the form ofthe VexatiousProceedings
passedby the NSWparliamentand took effecton December'1.
The Act is targetedat peoplewho habituallyuse the courtsystemto pursue
lawsuits,squanderingpublicresourcesfor the purposeof
unreasonable
parties.
or harassing
innocent
intimidating
sayssuch peopleare a drainon the
NSWAttorneyGeneralJohn Hatzistergos
is
aimed
at
weeding
them out.
courtsystemand the Act
SinceDecember1, anyonewho oftenand persistentlytakeslegalactionwithout
reasonablegrounds,or for improperpurposes,can be declareda vexatious
litigant.
The Act givesjudgesthe powerto banfrom theircourtroomsanyonedeclareda
vexatiouslitigant.

Suchdeclarationsalso have beenmadesimplerto obtain,with the applicant


needingonlyto provethat the respondentfrequentlyinstitutedor conducted
vexatiousproceedings.
Also,vexatiousproceedingsorderscan be madeagainstpersonsactingin
concertwith vexatiouslitigants.
Vexatiouslitigantrulings,formerlysolelythe prerogativeof the NSWSupreme
Court,can now also be madeby the Landand EnvironmentCourtand the
lndustrialRelationsCommission.
and
Courts'powersto dealwith vexatiouslitigantsalso have beenstrengthened
now includethe abilityto stay proceedingsand forbidthe institutionoffurther
proceeorngs.
Mr Hatzistergos
saysthe new lawshave beenintroducednotjust to free up the
justicesystem,but alsoto protectNSWcitizens.
Therehave beeninstancesin whichcourtsystemabusershavepursuedmore
millionsof dollarsin
than 100 caseseach,costingtheir unwittingrespondents,
legarexpenses.
We'reall in favourof givingpeopleaccessto the courts- it can be very important
sometimesto haveyour day in court- but we do haveto controlthosewho
abusethis righi at the expenseofwhoeveris unfortunateenoughto crosstheir
path.

You might also like