See below for Solicitor Robert Balzoa's statement he has not authorized the release of. But for the sake of political activism I said why the hell not. I don't talk to Balzoa I only talk to people he represents and he can't be liable for my actions.
Not only do I have all the boylover's private email correspondence with his lawyers after his Sri-lankan boyfriend rent-a-spouse betrayed him and forwarded me his mailbox twice using 3 different email accounts (gmail,hotmail,bigpond) but I also have all of ours obtained from Sunol's email.
This is the last thing I'll release from our camp for a long while - WITHOUT CONSENT OF ITS AUTHOR - for political action to shutdown the boylover's extortion front that is now helping Garry Burns get 50k awarded in the local court against John Sunol FOR ACTIONS THAT big time faggot journalist BEN SMEE CONFESSED TO DO ONLINE (on what he thought was a private forum, that had a google api key to copy it to cache) IMPERSONATING JOHN SUNOL.
The boylover spoke his lies and fabrications about the incident on the radio with a man who [/whose wife] publishes child porn [more like video content that meets the NSW Crimes Act definition of "child abuse material"] here:
See the woman who publishes videos of her little boys penises flopping around in the bathtub (I reported the video to youtube - and they agreed - it's child porn after saving a copy for evidence so I can't be sued for defamation) - a media representive calling "John Sunol" a "cunt". We have a right of a reply to this pedophile bitch working with the boylover do we not?
Here's my dad's coverage of it:
Wow the pedophile bitch is still on TV
If the NSW GLLO gay pedophile police knock on John Sunols door again and say you can't be against people sharing little boy flapping cock videos on the internet, we'll have to share some screenshots here of Garry Burns media contact's published child porn - of course with big black squares where the flapping little boy penises were. This is one of the only child porn that I've seen - and all cases of course I didn't go looking for it - I saw it researching Garry Burns. Then there is Jez Smith's (Garry Burns Webmaster) Thai teen rape video he uploaded to xtube dot com and the forensic data we have to prove he published it (i.e. we found his password). If you research Garry Richard Burns and his associates child porn can appear on your screen. I wonder why.
But my thirst for knowledge is increasing. I want more behind the scenes info and I know how to get it. Giggle Giggle Giggle.....
The evidence Garry Burns the ADB's patsie is a CRIMINAL WHO LIES UNDER OATH. THE BOYLOVER WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR PERJURY (AGAIN) after Balzoa is finished with his perjury charges is here. You can't refute it. The OTO Gay child rape cult also sued Hereward Fenton (TruthNews.com.au) a day after his name was mentioned in Court in front of Wakefield and Garry Burns boylovers showing let more links between Garry, the ADB and OTOAustralia.org.au
http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/radio/story/cultural_marxism_101 (2nd hour mp3 for Geoff talking about the boylover's vextatious lawsuits)
What the OTO Gay pedo cult sued Hereward Fenton of Truth News a day after Gay Judge Alexander [insert fake name he uses publically <John>] Wakefield said he could be culpable in my father's court case.
(read their "religious teaching" books about gay child rape and boy murder exposed in the video below - that people in NSW have been jailed for religious vilification over ("Legg Devine" in Austlii.edu.au case law).
But the ADB claims religious vilification doesn't exist in NSW. When Bernard Gaynor wins his case about jurisdiction of the ADB (and hence VCAT / Victorian Human Rights Commission) Vivienne Legg and Dyson Devine will be able to sue the states for millions for wrongful incarnation and being sent to jail without being present in the court room (abstentia) with an unlawful extradition for the crime of religiously vilifying a satanic cult that's highest certification is Master Of the Hermit Triad XI in gay anal sex black magic to open the gates of hell. As I said a future post will expose Gregory Tillet OTO king pin being involved in the founding of the ADB, and the NSW GLLO Gay Apartheid Segregated NAZI SS designed pink-triangle.org logo wearing NSW GLLO homocops. (Don't deny the nazi sledge - or you could be done for anti-emetic gay holocaust denial haha). That logo was designed by Nazis to designate homosexuals marked for death or castration or so the story goes. ACT UP in San Fran used it again to say we are gays and marked for death with AIDS. Now NSW Gay Police wear the logo that designates they are marked for death. All I can say is how appropriate. After my activism the taxpayer had to pay for a logo change to a circle instead of the Pink-Triangle.org
Where does the Gay Anal Sex Black Magick sledge to open the gays of hell come from? Channel 4 UK one of the most pro-gay leftist broadcasting out-fits in England that even ran Rainbow Anti-Sochi olympics gay ads. Watch this on the only religion you can be jailed in NSW for not respecting...
This was one complaint which should not have even gotten off the ground. You acted promptly and with speed and efficiency. In my view, no reasonable person could have done more to prevent invoking the provisions of the Act. If this is how the Anti-Discrimination Act is to be administered, then no one can take any reasonable action to prevent running foul of a posting or link upon another’s website with devastating statutory consequences. If reason plays no part in this law, then the positive law does indeed not yield to justice and it becomes a ‘lawless law’ again citing Nuremburg. For this reason, I bring it to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Reverend Nile.
Mr Robert Balzola
Grad Cert Arts (Theol)
Grad Dip Leg Prac; Grad Dip Mil Law
B.Ec LLB LLM MA (Theol)
Suite 702 Level 7 143 York Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
77 143 726 943
MIA No.: 1423
PO Box Q1323
QVB NSW 1230
Tory McGuire – Conciliation Officer
PO Box A2122
SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
31 December 2014
Attention: Elizabeth Wiag
Garry Burns v John Christopher Sunol [C2014/0931] Complaint
We refer to your letter dated 23 December 2014. We are instructed to make the
following further replies to the exhaustive response dated 22 December 2014 but to
put this matter beyond doubt, make the following response:
SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE ON LETTER DATED
15 DECEMBER 2014
We are instructed Mr Sunol makes the following replies:
1. Victimisation: s.50 Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977
a. ss.49ZS & 49ZT specified seeking reply: Specifically, your letter
dated 15 December makes great play and express notification of
statutory provisions in respect of vilification per ss. 47ZS and ZT.
b. Purported investigation fails to consider s.50 criteria: There is
nothing in your letter that shows the President or the Board has
Mobile 0405 195 048
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
Sunol, J. C.
considered section 50 whatsoever. Your letter goes to further great
lengths to specify section 89B in your bid to demonstrate that in your
opinion, you have satisfied the statutory obligation in meeting the
criteria for accepting this 36th complaint (on advice) against our client.
However, the letter is silent on section 50 such that it is clear that the
author of this and other letters has failed to consider section 50 at all. It
is absurd that your letter would specify provisions of the Act including
section 49SZ, 49ZT and 89B but then be silent on section 50. A
reasonable reader would deduce that the author of this letter has simply
failed to consider section 50 whatsoever which is prima facie evidence
of manifest unreasonableness and defective administration of the Act
and their statutory duties and is dilatory of their duties and
c. NIL Reference to section 50 anywhere in ADB letter: Your letter
dated 15 December 2014 fails to make any reference to section 50 of
the Anti-Discrimination Act. It is patent that a “form letter” approach is
applied here as your letter bears striking resemblance to previous
d. Victimisation allegation neither pleaded nor investigated: Yet, your
letter is conspicuous by its express omission to specify the President or
the Board has considered let alone responded to the statutory criteria of
section 50 as to victimisation. As such, the inference is that the Board
and President has failed to consider section 50 at all in making its
decision to proceed with this complaint to call our client to respond,
yet demands reply to an allegation on victimisation which is not found
in the complaint letter dated 4 December 2014 and which is clearly not
considered on the face of your letter dated 15 December 2014. This
conduct is demonstrable of complacency and form pushing by the
Board in its desire to simply roll out complaints without conducting
any investigation on the material before it. It is clear that the Board and
President have failed to consider the fact that there is no victimisation
alleged and none considered in this complaint whatsoever.
e. Failure to put to Respondent Right of Reply to s.50 Victimisation
allegation statutory criteria: The notification required by rules of
both procedural fairness and natural justice is not put at any time
Page 2 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
throughout the letter date that, in the opinion of the President, the
allegations in the body of the complaint dated 4 December 2014
reaches the statutory requirement of section 50 of the Act.
f. Victimisation embellishment: Therefore any embellishment to your
Point 2 on the second page that there is within the complaint
“allegations of victimisation” are struck out by operation of law for the
g. No allegation of victimisation by complainant: Specifically, there is
no evidence in the body of the letter dated 4 December 2014 that there
is any allegation of victimisation. Victimisation is not expressly or
impliedly mentioned once in the body of the complaint.
h. s.50 Statutory prima facie case not established in complaint:
i. The purported “person victimised” is not specified.
ii. The purported “discriminator” is not specified.
iii. The statutory test that the “(purported) discriminator knows that
the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or
suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do,
any of them”, is not specified, nor alleged, nor reaches the
prima facie threshold of this statutory provision.
iv. The allegation of victimisation is therefore aberrant. The
allegation is not made out.
i. s.50 Investigation not carried out at all:
i. Therefore the demand that the respondent must reply to an
allegation that is not put to him, not made out and not
investigated, is tantamount to malicious prosecution and abuse
of process and other torts.
2. Vilification: ss.49ZS & 49ZT:
consideration of the elements of those provisions: As noted above,
your letter makes great play and reference to these provisions in a clear
author’s rhetorical intent to demonstrate that the decision maker has
considered those provisions.
b. Juxtaposition of silence / omission of section 50: This conduct
contradicts the obvious failure to make similar reference to section 50
as noted above.
Page 3 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
c. s.49ZS(a) – No act present: Failure to fulfil statutory definition of
‘Act’ – Entry by another is not an ‘Act’: The statutory declaration
provided shows that the purportedly offensive material is not authored
by him, nor placed on his blog website by him. Hence it is not an ‘Act’
within the meaning of the Oxford Dictionary means “To take action,
or do something” [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/act] Mr
Sunol did not do anything to put this link up. The publication of a link
the basis of the purported complaint was not posted by him.
d. s.49ZS(a): Action to remove: Evidence is before you that he acted to
remove the material within four days of discovering its existence and
nine days before you took action against him and after the link was
e. s.49ZS(b) No Action to display: Again, Mr Sunol is not responsible
for any “Action” that has resulted in the placement of this link on his
website. It is in evidence that Mr Sunol has no control to prevent
persons putting material onto his blog. Further, evidence is before you
that Mr Sunol only has power to take material off his website, which
evidence is before you that he has done within six (6) days of the
discovery of the link.
f. s.49ZS(c) Actual knowledge of hatred etc. required: Mr Sunol did
not “distribute” or “disseminate” “any matter to the public with
knowledge that the matter promotes or expresses hatred towards,
serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of
persons on the grounds of homosexuality”. This is so because he was
not even aware of the link until 6 December 2014, whereupon he
removed that link from his website. Actual knowledge is required for a
person to knowingly distribute or disseminate material. The Board and
President demonstrates and imputes a strict liability and even absolute
liability standard against this statutory provision which is simply not
the compliance standard expressed in the body of the statute.
g. Cumulative requirement of s49ZS(a), (b) & (c) – Provisions to be
read together conjunctively – One fails all fails test: The statutory
element in s.49ZS(c) is read cumulatively with (a) and (b) notably the
words “and” in both clauses. It is sufficient for just one of the
subsections to fail in order to dismiss the complaint. In this instance,
Page 4 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
the complaint fails on all three statutory elements as prescribed in the
subsections. If any one element fails, the whole test fails. In this
instance, because the evidence fails on all three elements being (a), (b)
and (c), jointly and severally, the statutory requirement fails and the
complaint must be dismissed.
h. s.49ZT Statutory elements not satisfied:
i. Public act: For reasons contained in paragraphs 2(c) to (g)
inclusive above, there is no public act committed by Mr Sunol
that meets the statutory definitions of s.49ZT.
ii. Diligence: Indeed, the only public act Mr Sunol has performed
is the prompt withdrawal of the said materials within six (6)
days of its discovery thus demonstrating he has done
everything within his power with speed and efficiency in doing
exactly the opposite of what is being alleged i.e. to disseminate
etc. materials. For this reason, the fact that the Board and
President have persisted with this complaint against the facts is
a grave concern to the author as to the conduct of the Board and
President in making this decision to proceed against the facts.
iii. Incitement: The conduct of Mr Sunol is not incitement. We
rely on the ratio in Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v
Islamic Council of Victoria Inc  VSCA 284 (14
iv. Reasonable Reader Test: Incitement (to hatred or other
relevant emotion) is held per Nettle JA to be ‘the standard of an
ordinary reasonable reader’ .
v. Natural meaning of ‘incitement’: His Honour notes
incitement should demonstrate the capacity to ‘urge, spur on,
stir up, animate, stimulate or do something’ . Incitement
does not occur within the mind of one prone to ‘perverse’,
‘morbid’, ‘suspicious’ or ‘scandalous’ mindset .
vi. Scandalous, perverse, morbid and suspicious application of
a discrimination power: In this case, the same complainant
Garry Burns has persistently sought after, and complained to
outrageous proportions with some 36 complaints lodged against
the same person. It is a live issue how the Board has
Page 5 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
continuously given credence to the sheer volume of complaints
let alone continue to forward them on for full legal explanation
to the Tribunal on each occasion.
vii. Abuse of process and volume abuse: This is itself a matter of
the gravest concern and warranting inquiry against the Board
and President’s persistent conduct. In particular, one can see
that his lightning efficiency in raising this complaint within two
days of date of purported publication i.e. from 2 to 4 December
2014, is consistent with a personality that can only be described
in every sense as ‘morbid’, ‘perverse’, ‘suspicious’ and
‘scandalous’. Burns has systematically and deliberately singled
out Sunol for persistent, long term attack. Burns has
obsessively persisted with this attack and the Board has allowed
these flood of complaints to go unheeded except insofar as it
has allowed what can only be described as an monstrous abuse
of process to this day. That the material complained of has
reached no reaction of any identifiable kind against the broader
community and coupled with the shortness of time the link
existed on Mr Sunol’s site, to say nothing again of the fact that
this link is not even the authorship of Mr Sunol, is simply
breathtaking that Mr Sunol must expend yet more time and
money responding to your egregious demands for reply by 15
January 2015. It is a punitive and outrageous maladministration
of your statutory powers to do so. We say there is no incitement
in this link. There is certainly no intention to incite in the mind
of Mr Sunol who in fact did everything he could to not allow
the link to remain linked to his blog site. All this is apparently
ignored in the Board and President’s deliberations in their
finding that Sumol’s conduct constitutes incitement because he
innocently has a link placed in his blog site. This is an
appalling abuse of power in the hands of the Board and
viii. Degree of reasonableness: No attempt has been made by the
President to weigh the degree of reasonableness to be applied in
the conduct of the respondent to yet another attempt to ruin Mr
Page 6 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
Sunol. We are so distressed by your lack of perspicacity in
dealing with the degree of reasonableness and the lengths Mr
Sunol has gone to comply with the Act, that we notify you that
this matter must now be escalated to the Attorney-General.
ix. Instantaneous Absolute Liability Standard: The standard is
not whether, as you assert, that on 2 December 2014 there was
a moment where there was a link and thus a breach occurred.
The standard of incitement is a standard of reasonableness. Mr
Sunol acted with speed and efficiency in removing the link. By
the time your Board eventually got around to issuing the notice
on 15 December 2014, the link had been gone for 9 days since
6 December 2014, it is an aberrant defence to argue that, as at 2
December 2014, Mr Sunol breached the Act. Such an approach
simply proves the punitive, aggressive nature of the manner in
which the Board and President is mal-administering this
legislation and why this example, coupled with prior evidence
and the maladministration overall over the dozens of prior
complaints, is ripe territory for public examination and address
to the Attorney General and public scrutiny which it must. Mr
Sunol and all the people of New South Wales deserve much
better than this imperious misapplication of statutory laws.
x. s93C Mediation / Conciliation: This matter, like every other
matter before you in the Sunol group of complaints, can be
resolved by mediation. Your Board and President’s persistent
mantra that this matter cannot be resolved by mediation simply
because Burns does not want it, is an appalling misapplication
of the said statutory power. You may compel mediation and
conciliation. You may seek redress. There is no justice in
perpetually subjecting one man to an array of complaints. This
is simply extra judicial punishment. This litany of complaints
by the same complainant against the same respondent is a
textbook and classical example where conciliation must be
implemented. The sheer Board initiated waste, abuse of public
monies, the time, the expense to say nothing of the costs
against our client which we do notify will be the subject of civil
Page 7 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
proceedings initiated against the Tribunal in due course, is all
evidence that this set of facts is the clearest example where any
coram of law would agree that this environment is one crying
for conciliation and resolution. At its highest, if this litany of
complaints is valid (which we absolutely deny), then the Board
and President long ago ought to have had the legal and statutory
wisdom to notice the sheer weight of complaints, the
periodicity of those complaints, the systematic similarity and
composition and most of all the fact that these complaints are
coming from the same person. This is not a case where there is
a wide sweep of society complaining in common chorus against
Mr Sunol. This is a clear example of one complainant
obsessively complaining over and over and over against one
respondent. Any reasonable administrator would have, long
ago, taken firm and decisive action to prevent this monstrous
public abused of process and, again at its highest, sought
conciliation to ensure that Mr Sunol’s conduct would be
adjusted whilst not crushing his civil rights. What the Board
and President have done is turn this entire process into a
punitive, self-serving treadmill of complaints that fill the books
of complaints, where closer examination shows that the entire
apparatus is geared to satisfy the inclinations of one
complainant with a particular and demonstrated obsession
against one respondent. And that, the Board and President not
only have done absolutely nothing about, but have encouraged
such waste at every opportunity. This is the last complaint of its
kind between these two persons and we do give notice that if
the Board and President do not ameliorate this wanton
recklessness, then we notify you that we shall take whatever
administrative, legal and political steps are necessary to arrest
this abuse of process clearly emanating from your Office.
xi. Profiteering: Routine demands for “settlement” – Male
Fides: the complainant is in the routine habit of treating your
statutory power as a privitive claim for money and seeking to
entreaty “settlements” with his victims against whom he
Page 8 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
complains. We notify you that your failure to recognise this
profiteering is a further matter of grave concern. If your Board
denies knowledge of this fact then we notify you that there are
any number of examples we may bring that show that Burns
seeks to obtain financial gain from his complaints. He on
occasions seeks to mask that by making some token
philanthropic gesture by nominating on occasion a third party
beneficiary such as a charity. But these are smoke screens to
deny the fact that he seeks and expects financial damages and
further falls into the mistaken belief that this process is akin to
a civil personal damages claim as one suing another, which this
process is certainly not. You are called upon to warn and notify
the complainant that such conduct is reprehensible and will be
dealt with accordingly without further notice to you or the
xii. Scandal – Male Fides: For the record, know that the
complainant has routinely scandalised our client to a wide array
of third parties. We notify the Board that this intent belies the
true nature of these “complaints”, not by one seeking to ensure
the statutory policy of the Act to deter acts of discrimination
and victimisation, but one seeking to punish and humiliate with
a malicious intent for the purpose of personal profit including
financial, personal notoriety and self-aggrandisement. This
history is one of a sequence of conducts that show one prone to
a pathological hatred towards his subjects with no regard for
the law, for civil authority or other lawful process typified by
hysterical public broadcasts by profuse letter writing and
Internet publishing. The complainant’s conduct within the
Tribunal is especially appalling. A wide array of documentation
in our possession shows the complainant to be bombastic,
arrogant, patronising, to the point of defamatory, inciteful,
contemptuous of any authority other than his own. Indeed
defamation proceedings have already commenced against the
complainant in the District Court of New South Wales. The
Page 9 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
only law the complainant knows is his own inflated and
hysterical sense of self importance.
xiii. No complaint against ultimate author: In all this, the
complaints your Board has routinely referred to the Tribunal for
investigation concerns overwhelmingly the material of a Luke
McKee, a person known to not live in the Australian diplomatic
zone. No complaint or attempt at disciplinary processes has
been made against the ultimate author in this and other cases.
Rather, the complainant seeks to systematically complain
remorselessly against one person Mr Sunol who has little
control in blocking nefarious materials being posted on his site.
The conduct of the complainant is tantamount to male fides at
the highest level and the persistent “rubber stamping” of these
complaints without any attempt at ultimate resolution of this
endless flood of complaints is further tantamount to profound
maladministration. The entire flow of complaints smacks of
opportunistic victimisation against a person who is singled out
on convenience as one whom the complainant attacker seeks to
make repeated mileage and has reduced to an ‘at home’ state in
the recreational administrative bashing of one hooked on
complaining and furthermore seeking to profit from such
activity in both notoriety terms by widely broadcasting his
successes whilst failing to acknowledge his past legal and
personal failings throughout his self-styled pogrom against Mr
Be advised that in this instance and future complaints, if the Board does not take
action to arrest and deal with this continuous flood of complaints, we are instructed to
initiate action of our own to ensure that this seemingly endless string of manic
conduct will be brought to an administratively responsible end. We will expect the
full cooperation of the Board in meeting this end to prevent yet more flood of
complaints of the kind one man has had to suffer and notwithstanding what efforts he
has made to prevent invoking your routine referral to the Tribunal for investigations
where those investigations are not warranted.
Page 10 of 11
Sunol, J. C.
Be advised that Garry Burns has committed an act of Bankruptcy in 2014. Also know
that there are a string of unpaid statutory debts that Burns has failed to pay. We
further notify the Board that there are legal implications flowing from the newfound
status of Burns and we will notify the Board of these developments in due course.
The complaint fails at every level as indicated above, in statutory, legal and moral
terms. It must be dismissed.
Be advised that the conduct of the Board and President in the fullness of history in
this matter will not record one of vigilant enforcement of policy in the defence against
discriminatory or vilifying conduct. Rather, history will record that the ADB will go
down in notoriety as one of gross maladministration and systematic victimisation
against less than a handful of convenient victims the subject of complaint, who
dominate the complaint list in your Board. Ultimately, such maladministration is selfdestructive and ultimately defeats the policy intent of the New South Wales antidiscrimination legislation by undermining its credibility and legitimacy. That point
has already been reached where the Board and President have brought the antidiscrimination laws into disrepute by its own conduct.
We reserve the right to notify you of further escalation of the matter, the amount of
distress your continued rubber stamping of this aggregated conduct by the same
complainant is having on our client’s life and health and what steps we are initiating
to ensure that your Board never again mal-administers this process in the way it is
being applied here. The volume and type of complaints by a single complainant
presents a composite of facts that your Board and President has actual knowledge of.
The conduct stands out strikingly as a relationship of facts that any reasonable
administrator would have addressed and acted upon long ago. Your failure to address
the accumulation of these facts is tantamount to maladministration in its own right and
we now will deal with this matter decisively for the sake of our client and the New
South Wales taxpayers who are funding this rumination.
The complaint must be dismissed. We await your reply.
Page 11 of 11