complaint against vexatious litigant

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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


8/13

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.


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.


10/13

10


11/13

11


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.


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.

complaint against vexatious litigant

Documents