8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
1/13
1
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 C2014/0740and 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 outof 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 complainant’s own behaviour as per the attached
documentation (refer Attachment 1).
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
2/13
2
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
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
3/13
3
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 respondent’s 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 Anti-
Discrimination Board. It shows the respondent’s vexatiousness
willingness to attack people he does not know.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
4/13
4
FIG. 3
The respondent has a hatred of anyone with a differentviewpoint of homosexuality or about feminist ideology. These
groups below are a part of the same groups that the
complainant identifies with.
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.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
5/13
5
FIG. 4
The respondent has persuaded Ms Clover Moore to write to theMinister 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 complainant’s use of the old photo,
obtained by fraud to damage me, is unethical and vexatious.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
6/13
6
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.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
7/13
7
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 complainant’s 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 don’t even know me so I
am being set up by the respondent as a scapegoat for an outlet
for people’s hate. People who know me do not hate me.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
8/13
8
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 tothe 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.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
9/13
9
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 hisFacebook and his blog. Under the jurisdiction of the Anti-
Discrimination Board and the NSW Civil and Administrative
Tribunal the respondent identifies himself as “Garry Burns”
with two “r”’s. 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 complainant’s ideas.
This also illustrates that the respondent has caused others to
create a fake Facebook page in order to discredit the
complainant.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
10/13
10
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
11/13
11
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
12/13
0ll^t l
^on{
}
VEXATIOUS ITIGATION
LAWS STRENGTHENED
A
primary
onditionor the existence
f
a
just
society s a robustand accessible
court
system hat enables ndividuals,
roups,
orporate ntitiesand other
organisationso seek rulings hat
will
putwrongs
o right.
ln Australia nd other
parliamentary
emocracies,uch rulings re sought
and
obtained
hrough he civilcourtsystem,with
udges
dealingwith eveMhing rom
nuisance
ssues such as ntrusive oise to contractual
isputes, on-payment
of debts. efamation
ndmuchmore.
While he civilcourtsystem,
o ensurea
just
society,mustbe open o all,
t is
unfortunatelylso susceptible
o abuse.
Thereare those n the community
ho use he civiicourtsysiem o
pursuepetty
issues
and ntimidate ihers,often
out
of nothing
more han vindictiveness,t
greatexpense o societyand at littleadvantageo themselves eyonda feeling
of having
ot
back t someone.
Such
persons
re knownas vexatious
itigants.
For some ime here
havebeen aws n
place
n NSW o minimise
uch itigation
and
prevent
he courtsystembecoming verburdened
ith cases hat have it tle
meritbeyonddelivering
he liiiganta
(perhaps
omewhatwisted) ense
of
personal
atisfaction.
However,with he increasing omplexity f
societyand he
groMh
n litigation
generally,he StateGovernment as seen it to strengthenhese aws.
New
eg:slationn the orm ofthe Vexatious
Proceedings ct 2008has been
passed
by the NSW
parliament
nd ookeffect
on December
1.
The Act
is targeted t
people
who habitually se he
courtsystem o
pursue
unreasonable
awsuits, quandering
ublic
esourcesor
the
purpose
of
intimidating
r harassingnnocent
arties.
NSWAttorneyGeneral ohn
Hatzistergosayssuch
people
are a drainon the
courtsystemand he Act
s aimedat weeding hem out.
SinceDecember , anyonewho oftenandpersistentlyakes egalactionwithout
reasonable
rounds,
r for improper
urposes,
an be declared vexatious
litigant.
The
Act
gives
udges
he
power
o ban rom heir
courtrooms nyonedeclared
vexatiousitigant.
8/9/2019 complaint against vexatious litigant
13/13
Such
declarations lsohavebeenmadesimpler
o obtain,with he applicant
needing nly o
prove
hat he respondentrequentlynstituted
r conducted
vexatious
roceedings.
Also,
vexatious
roceedings
rderscan be made
against
persons
cting n
concert
with vexatiousitigants.
Vexatiousitigant ulings, ormerly
olely he
prerogative
f the NSWSupreme
Court,
can now also be madeby
the Landand Environment ourtand he
lndustrialRelationsCommission.
Courts powerso dealwith
vexatiousitigants lso have
beenstrengthened nd
now nclude he ability
o stay
proceedings
nd orbid he
institution ffurther
proceeorngs.
Mr Hatzistergosays he new aws
havebeen ntroduced otjust o free
up the
justicesystem,but also o protectNSWcitizens.
Therehavebeen nstances
n whichcourtsystemabusershave
pursued
more
than 100 caseseach,costing
heir unwitting espondents, illions
f dollars n
legarexpenses.
We re
all n favourof
givingpeople
access o the
courts it can be very mportant
sometimeso have
your
day
n court but we do have o control
hosewho
abuse his righiat the
expenseofwhoever s unfortunate
nough o cross heir
path.