Friday, 9 December 2016

Answer of my Points of Claim to the Garry who has put another complaint against me.

I am going to put this into Ncat as a points of summary for the coming up hearings on 
Burns vs Sunol on February 20 2017


John Christopher Sunol
16 Queen Street
Waratah West 
NSW 2298
Telephone 0468 309 091
December 9, 2016

The Registrar
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal 
Administrator for Equal Opportunity Division
Level 10, John Maddison Tower
86-90 Goulburn St 
Sydney 2000
File number 1610644
Gary (a.k.a. Garry) Burns –  Applicant (Unemployed Serial Litigant) 
John Christopher Sunol    -   Respondent (Unemployed / Unrepresented)
My points of claim were communicated to the NCAT member Ms Scahill at the 30 November 2016 Case Conference.
 We will endeavour to submit transcripts of this 30 November 2016 case conference for the benefit of NCAT members who will sit in judgement on February 20, 2017.

The Applicant did not attend this 30 November Case Conference as he was in the Supreme Court of New South Wales at an important class action against him and in which the powers of NCAT to act as a court were in dispute by the Commonwealth of Australia.

 Our points of claim are as follows

This complaint is a continuation of the previous 69 complaints against my blog that any ordinary reasonable person can see are vexatious and ideologically-driven.  Refer Attachment 1 for details of the complaints the Applicant has lodged against my blog.   Without exception, his complaints are always referred to NCAT, for no useful purpose other than to manufacture case-law, using the Respondent as a "useful idiot"

 In any case, there are no grounds for this complaint to be substantiated as either "homosexual vilification" or "homosexual victimisation".  The Applicant's problem appears to be defamation, not vilification.  Therefore the Applicant should legally redress his problem by having Luke McKee charged with criminal defamation in the appropriate court of law. 

NCAT is not a court of law and has no power to judge on matters of defamation.  This conclusion is based on recent developments in the Supreme Court of New South Wales as alluded to in item 3 above. 

We now allege that the Applicant is not a "homosexual" and therefore he has no standing under the Act to lodge "homosexual vilification" complaints.   The evidence can be submitted on 20 February to substantiate this information if necessary. 

I, the Respondent, did NOT publish the statements that are the substance of this misconceived complaint. The statements were published directly by Luke McKee who takes full responsibility for the statements.  It was Luke McKee's public act.  It was not a public act done by me as Luke can publish directly on my blog without me having any idea what he says.  Our agreement is that Luke takes full responsibility for what he says.  Luke  McKee has contacted the Anti-Discrimination Board and asked that this complaint be re-directed against himself, but the Board has refused to talk to him.
It is nonsense that Luke McKee "incited hatred"  or "serious contempt" towards the Applicant "on the ground of homosexuality".   The Applicant claims this is true, without evidence.  As alleged in (d) above, our opinion is that the Applicant is not "homosexual".   Luke McKee was first stalked by the Applicant on September 26, 2009 by the Applicant sending him an unsolicited threatening Facebook message.  A "cyber war" has taken place between the them since, each making threats to the other.  They are both equally obsessed with their political crusade, but on opposite sides of the ideological divide.    

The Applicant has been told by NCAT in the past not to read my blog if it offends him.  Yet he stalks the blog on a daily basis.  That explains the 71 complaints to date.   NCAT can look forward to another complaint that is currently in the pipeline. 

There is no evidence that the Applicant is "shocked, humiliated and angry etc" upon reading the truth.    If anything, his emotions would be those of pleasure that he has found another excuse to put a complaint into the Anti Discrimination Board.   The Applicant is NOT a victim in these proceedings.  The Respondent is the victim.  The Applicant, together with his associates within the Anti Discrimination Board, is the Perpetrator, defying Natural Justice, for  the purpose of exploiting the "homosexual vilification" law to produce complaints on an industrial scale, for ideologically-driven purposes, namely to create onerous case-law.  

In the case of the Applicant personally, though the Board is driven by ideology, he is driven by mercenary purposes (refer Attachment 2 in relation to his attempts to extort $55,000 from me to be paid directly into his bank account). 

The Applicant's standard practise is to put homosexual vilification complaints to the Board for selected targets he finds on the internet, then he offers to withdraw the complaint if the target pays $10,000 into his personal bank account.   Evidence of this practice has already been submitted to NCAT in other proceedings.

The panel will note that the Applicant wants to be awarded more money paid by myself into his back account a result of NCAT "substantiating" this complaint (C2016/0478).  This is evidence of his continuing mercenary motivation.  There is nothing in "the public interest" in what he does.  This litany of complaints is in fact the opposite of the public interest. It is a waste of taxpayers money, that achieves little, apart from creating case-law.    My blog is going stronger than ever, and I have every right to speak on political matters of Public Interest.      

There is much evidence of the Applicant's behaviour in the 500 emails sent to Luke McKee's inbox from the Applicant's inbox on April 26, 2016.  How or why this was done remains a mystery.  The Applicant should initiate a police investigation into this occurrence if he has nothing to hide. 

As stated to Ms Scahill in the 30 November at the Case Conference, this complaint follows the normal pattern of ideologically-driven politics.  NCAT interpret every complaint referred to them by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board  as a message from the President that he wants the complaint substantiated.   The President would not refer any complaint that his staff want dismissed by NCAT.   The Board are quite capable of dismissing a complaint themselves.   NCAT, by their track record, will automatically substantiate any complaint referred to them by the President, for political reasons. 

In summary, my points of claim revolve around four primary factors that have a bearing on this matter:

Misconceived litigation
Vexatious litigation
Mercenary motivation of the Applicant
Political litigation

We shall be calling three (3) witnesses to substantiate the four factors claimed above. 

Misconceived litigation.

Luke McKee the author of the writing about which the Applicant complains to the Board, shall be called as a witness.  Attached please find an Application for Audio-Visual Link.    

Vexatious litigation and mercenary motivation. 

Gary (a.k.a. Garry) Burns, the Applicant.  Attached please find Application for Summons to be issued, and Summons. 

 Political litigation. 

David Shoebridge, member of the New South Wales Legislative Council and member of The Greens political party.   Mr Shoebridge is working to legislatively deepen and strengthen homosexual vilification law.   Mr Shoebridge it is alleged works with the Applicant and he accompanied the Applicant to the Burns v Sunol public hearing that took place on November 12, 2015.

The Respondent seeks the following Orders:
That this complaint be dismissed
That the Anti Discrimination Board pay the Respondent damages by way of compensation for vexatious and ideologically-driven complaints since the beginning of 2011  
That the Applicant from this time forth be disqualified for lodging any further complaints 
Such further Order or Orders as the Tribunal may determine. 



This is my points of claim for the coming up hearings on February 20/2017 

Post a Comment