Sunday, 22 January 2017

Summary of vexatious and frivolous complaints against this blog

For those of my followers around the world who are interested in how the Anti Discrimination Board in New South Wales, Australia, is obsessed with this harmless blog, read on!  

These notes were prepared for yet another Public Hearing at the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to be held on 20 February, 2017. 

The notes should be self-explanatory for observers who know my story. 


Public Hearing 20 February 2017

Gary (a.k.a. Garry) Burns –  Serial Complainant   (Applicant) 

John Christopher Sunol    -   Victim  (Respondent) 

The Attachments to this document were mentioned in our Points of Claim dated  9 December 2017, but not submitted at the time.   This document is to submit the relevant attachments and to add information about the historical context of this partcular complaint, which is the 69th complaint against my political blog that has been lodged by the serial complainant.
1. Attachment 1. Relevant background information.  Please assist the selected panel by ensuring they be fully briefed about this background data presented here in spreadsheet form. This factual information shows the unprecedented number of complaints drummed up against a single disadvantaged, vulnerable and mostly unrepresented respondent who is seen by the Anti-Discrimination Board as an "easy target" used for the purpose of creating case-law.

The Anti Discrimation Board and NCAT are engaged in politics, not law.    
This strategy represented by (Burns vs Sunol) " 7 onwards in this Link" cases is a cynical means employed by the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales, using the Applicant to evade responsibility, for the purpose of creating onerous homosexual case law. Selected NCAT panels turn a blind eye to the relationship between the Applicant and the Anti-Discrimination Board, and ignore the fact that he spends his life fabricating complaints for the purpose of political activism.  The presiding member of panels involved with Burns v Sunol cases have often cited the mantra "to be fair to Mr Burns", but never expressed that sentiment in favour of the resondent.  These are the signals that result in apprehended bias.      Since the political strategy is now recognised and verified by the information in the spreadsheet, it should be stopped by the President of NCAT, in the interests of natural justice and in compliance with NCAT written guidelines that call for efficient and fair settlement of disputes.    

The Applicant is encouraged by the Anti Discrimination Board to monitor the internet to produce these repetitive complaints ad nauseam.  The Anti Discrimination Board's policy is to always refer the Applicant's stream of complaints to NCAT without any attempt at conciliation or proper investigation.  This strategy goes against the object of the Act and is at odds with the Board's statuory obligations to conciliate and to educate.    The panel needs to be aware of this background so that they understand that they are a part of a political process.      This process is orchestrated by political staff within the Anti Discrimination Board in order to deepen and strengthen homosexual vilification case-law in cooperation with NCAT.   It is not possible for any objectivity to be excercised in the administration of homosexual vilification law, because one's perspective is determined by one's political views and/or one's sexual orientation.   

Apprehended bias.
It is submitted that the panel on 20 February should not be bound by previous Collier v Sunol and Burns v Sunol homosexual vilification case law.    All that case law is tainted by proven apprehended bias shown by the Deputy President and Division Head for the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (ref . Burns v McKee [2015] NSWCATAD 158).   

The decisions that are therefore a result of proven apprehended bias are 

All other decisions that cite the above cases are also considered unreliable under the circumstances.

It is therefore suggested that, to avoid apprehended bias, the panel implemented on 20 February 2017 should not include any members who have a conflict of interest on account of their involvement with prior Burns v Sunol public hearings.  The panel members should be selected to represent the ordinary reasonalbe person in Australian society and not represent homosexual political and judicial activism. 

Absurd implications of some Burns v Sunol decisions. 
Some of the Burns v Sunol decisions lead to a situation of absurdity, wherein a blogger residing in New South Wales who puts a hyperlink (inoffensive of itself) to an article elsewhere on the internet is held liable for some deemed offensive heterosexual wisecrack put in the "comments" section under the article associated with the hyperlink. Yet I am called to account for that distant comment about which I have no knowledge and over which I have no control.   

NCAT panels have agreed with the Applicant that I am responsible for these remote one-liners or short comments that I had nothing to do with.   Clearly, it is impossible for any blogger such as myself to know the full content of any hyperlink I put on my blog.  This absurdity is apparent in the decision published in Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 74.   It arises from the fact that NCAT must find creative ways to substantiate every single complaint from the Applicant because this is what the President of the Anti Discrimination Board has, in effect, asked them to do.  Very long, complex and costly dissertations are prepared by selected presiding members to creatively substantiate all of the Applicant's complaints when common sense tells the ordinary reasonable person that they are all a storm in a teacup.    

Defamatory aspects of decisions by NCAT
Some published Burns v Sunol decisions appear designed to be deliberately defamatory, attributing to me distasteful comments I never made.   The decision published by NCAT becomes a public act that incites contempt for myself by mis-representing the facts to the reader of the decision.  This decision is then picked up by a newspaper reporter in my home town (contacted by the Applicant) and published in the newspaper in the defamatory way the presiding member intended it to be interpreted.  This is particularly true for Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 131.  

Attachment 2. The Applicant's mercenary motivation.   This attachment substantiates the Applicant's personal exertion aimed at extorting  $55,000 from myself, the Respondent, to be paid directly into his bank account.   It is a public scandal that a so-called full-time and unemployed "homosexual activist" is remunerated by NCAT for making serial vexatious and frivolous complaints to the Anti Discrimination Board to satisfy their institutional, political, ideological and budgetary objectives.  

Attachment 2 illustrates the mafia-like methodology of the Applicant to extort money from his targets. This consists in trying to instill fear of dire legal and financial consequences into the target, then offering to "settle" for a smaller amount in exchange for dropping all "charges".   In this case he has waited for 4 years, based on his prior knowledge that my bankruptcy would expire in December 2016.  Then he has gone to a local court to get a judgement debt abainst me, for accumulated NCAT fines based on previous biased Burns v Sunol NCAT decisions.      

The panel should note that it appears to have no power to enforce its fines against a bankrupt person like myself.   The Australian Financial Security Authority has advised me by letter dated 7 January 2017 that it has extended my bankrupcy status (Bankrupcy number NSW 5010/16/2) for another 3 years, specifically naming "Garry Richard Burns" as creditor. What this means is that the lawyers at the bankruptcy authority do not recognize NCAT as a criminal court.  They do not see the $55,000 amount that the Applicant demands, as a court imposed fine.   Rather, they see it as a debt to a private person, arising from proceedings in a civil dispute-resolution tribunal.     This corroborates the possible upcoming decision on the legal status of NCAT arising from the 30 November 2016 hearing in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, this being a class action against the Applicant and the Anti Discrimination Board, instigated by victims of the Applicant's vexatious complaints who reside outside the jurisdiction of New South Wales.       

The Applicant repeatedly tries to extort money using this methodology from other targeted individuals (McKee, Gaynor, Sindt, and Corbett).   The New South Wales and Victorian Police are aware of this attempted criminal racket on the part of the Applicant.  
3. Application for Audio-Visual Link.  The person who carried out the act of putting comments on my blog, Mr Luke McKee, needs to be called as Witness to answer questions so that his answers can be heard by the panel.  He was the author of the comments for which the Applicant is trying to make me responsible, when I did not carry our any public act in relation to the comments.   It was an act done by Luke McKee.  With the true author of the comments put on my blog called as Witness, the panel will be in a better position to decide for themselves whether or not the comments are made in the public interest for the purpose of political discourse on same-sex marriage and related issues, or whether they incited hatred against some minority group involved with this debate.   

It is my submission that the comments were put on my blog by Luke McKee not to incite hatred but to incite knowledge.  Luke McKee has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.   This often results in a strong fixated interest in a single issue, governed by a strong associative memory.   The fixated interested can be trigerred by a traumatic event.  In the case of Luke McKee it was his malicious arrest with fabricated evidence by an young armed female Gay & Lesbian Liaison Officer in 2007.    This fixated single interest results in more knowledge about the particular issue than possessed by the ordinary person.  With this increased knowledge comes increased anger.   For this reason, Luke McKee's deep specific knowledge based on years of research  into the legal and political history of the Sydney homosexual movement, including the formation of Gay & Lesbian Liaison Officers within the New South Wales Police Force,  might educate the public and therefore he should be allowed to express his views.   Of interest is his findings of the movement's links to O.T.O. quasi-satanic cult ("Ordo Templi Orientis") that is deemed to be a bona fide religion by NCAT's Victorian counterpart VCAT.  The problem with Luke McKee's writing is it tends to be defamatory and contains crude language.  This is a result of his lack of social skills caused by his Asperger's Syndrome. He therefore needs an editor to review his expressions before they are published.   The irony of the situation is that Luke McKee has a disability and therefore we must not incite contempt or hatred against him for being who he is, but try to be more tolerant, more inclusive, and to accept diversity.    

4. Application for summons to be issued (1 of 2).  In order to substantiate the points of claim that this complaint (number 69) is misconceived, frivolous and vexatious, the Applicant needs to answer several questions under oath and address his answers to the panel so that the panel can decide for themselves.  The Applicant's public acts of inciting hatred and contempt for my former pro bono lawyer (Mr. Balzola) has interfered with my ability to defend myself in front of an NCAT panel (refer recent Burns v Sunol NCAT contempt proceedings).  I cannot represent myself in front of an NCAT panel because I have been demonized by the Applicant for the past 5 years and this has caused biased perceptions within NCAT based on my personal characteristics and attributes. However I can ask questions and the Applicant's answers may defend me in front of a fresh panel with an open mind.      

5. Application for summons to be issued (2 of 2). In order to substantiate my Points of Claim in relation to the political campaign evidenced by these proceedings,  it is necessary for Mr David Shoebridge MLC to answer several questions under oath and address his answers to the panel, so that the panel can decide for themselves. Mr Shoebridge found the time to accompany the Applicant to the Burns v Sunol public hearing on November 12, 2015.  Therefore Mr Shoebridge should be obliged to find the time to attend again on February 20, 2017 to assist the panel come to a decision on this matter.

To understand what is going on here, the panel should note from Attachment 1 spreadsheet, that on three occasions the Applicant has lodged complaints under the category of "serious homosexual vilification" against my amateur blog. These complaints were lodged on March 8, 2011, on May 24, 2013 and March 7, 2014.  These complaints were duly accepted by the Anti Discrimination Board, as they have a pattern of accepting all the hundreds of complaints from this political activist and lone serial complainant in New South Wales.    These three complaints  were not referred to NCAT, but referred to the Attorney General, in the hope that the first criminal prosecution for homosexual vilification in New South Wales would be achieved.   These complaints were all rejected by the Attorney General on the grounds that they were not serious.  This has frustrated the Anti Discrimination Board and the Applicant.  The political solution to this problem for the Anti Discrimination Board, using Mr Shoebridge, is to simply by-pass the Attorney General, and give increased power to the President of the Anti Discrimination Board to refer complaints directly to the Police Prosecutor.  This would result in a criminal charge against me, and a costly trial in a real court of law where I cannot defend myself against police prosecutors who could in reality be Gay & Lesbian Liason Officers, and therefore biased due to their sexual orientation. 

Mr Shoebridge is a leading political figure in New South Wales representing the Greens Party. He is a legislator who was pushing this move to bypass the Attorney General as gate keeper for vilification complaints.    The particular bill put up to change the law was the  Crimes and Anti-Discrimination Legislation Amendment (Vilification) Bill 2016.  Fortunately the bill lapsed on September 24, 2016.  

The purpose of having Mr Shoebridge as a witness is to substantiate, in front of the panel, my hypothesis that he is colluding with the Applicant and vice versa.   I am therefore being used and abused, as a result of my superficial personal characteristics resulting from acquired brain damage, as a tool to achieve certain political and legislative goals of the Sydney homosexual rights movement.  This victimisation is contrary to values that Anti Discrimination law is intended to promote. 



Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
Complaints from Gary (a.k.a. Garry) Burns against John Christopher Sunol
All complaints referred to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)

No. Date lodged         File stamp Complaint no.    Alleged type
1 9 November 2010 D/10/42979 C2010/0844 Vilification
2 13 January 2011 D/11/43667 C2011/0025 Vilification
6 8 March 2011         D/11/44291 C2011/0223 SERIOUS Villification
3 9 February 2011 No information C2011/0127 Vilification
4 9 February 2011 No information C2011/0128 Victimization
5 17 February 2011        No information C2011/0151 Victimization
7 8 June 2011        No information C2011/0533 Vilification
8 25 July 2011        D/11/46155 C2011/0684 Vilification
9 8 August 2011         D/11/46333 C2011/0723 Victimization
10 10 August 2011 D/11/46397 C2011/0733 Victimization
11 12 December 2011         No information C2011/1145 Villification
12 12 December 2011         D/11/48418 C2011/1147 Vilification
13 9 January 1900 D/11/48406 C2011/1146 Vilification
14 7 January 2012 D/12/48723 C2012/0061 Victimization
15 9 January 2012 D/12/48737 C2012/0062 Victimization
16 11 January 2012 D/12/48794 C2012/0063 Victimization
19 27 January 2012 No information C2012/0064 Victimization
20 30 January 2012 D/12/48974 C2012/0065 Vilification
21 31 January 2012 D/12/49002 C2012/0066 Victimization
17 23 January 2012 No information C2012/0046 Victimization
18 23 January 2012 No information C2012/0045 Vilification
21A 8 February 2012 D/12/49114 C2012/0092 Victimization
22 13 February 2012         D/12/49183 C2012/0103 Victimization
23 16 February 2012         D/12/49237 C2012/0116 Victimization
24 17 February 2012        D12/49251 C2012/0117 Vilification
25 5 March 2012        D/12/49448 C2012/0166 Vilification
26 5 March 2012        D/12/49447 C2012/0165 Vilification
27 5 March 2012        D/12/49453 C2012/0164 Vilification
28 12 March 2012 D12/49547 C2012/0194 Vilification
29 16 April 2012       No information C2012/0284 Vilification
30 16 April 2012       D/12/49952 C2012/0324 Victimization
31 1 May 2012       D/12/50145 C2012/0312 Victimization
32 23 August 2012       No information C2012/0618 Vilification
33 12 November 2012         D/12/52524 C2012/0900 Vilification
34 6 December 2012 D/12/42817 C2012/0901 Vilification
35 6 December 2012 No information C2012/0904 Victimization
36 10 December 2012        No information C2012/0902 Villification
37 10 December 2012          D/12/52838 C2012/0905 Victimization
38 2 January 2013 D/12/53034 C2012/0062 Vilification
39 3 January 2013 D/13/53047 C2012/0063 Vilification
40 4 January 2013 D/13/53055 C2013/0064 Vilification
41 16 January 2013 D/13/53131 C2013/0065 Vilification
44 15 April 2013        D13/55769+ C2013/0247 Victimization
42 11 April 2013        D/13/54653 C2013/0253 Victimization
43 11 April 2013        D/13/54174 C2013/0252 Vilification
45 16 April 2013        D/13/54225 C2013/0254 Victimization
46 16 April 2013        D/13/54226 C2013/0255 Victimization
47 17 April 2013        D/13/51226 C2013/0266 Victimization
48 17 April 2013        D/13/54246 C2013/0265 Victimization
49 13 May 2013       D/13/54565 C2013/0334 Vilification
49A 17 May 2013      No information C2013/0388 No information
50 20 May 2013       D/13/54654 C2013/0386 Victimization
51 24 May 2013       D/1356090 C2013/0392 SERIOUS Villification
52 19 June 2013       D/13/54869 C2013/0459 Vilification
53 12 August 2013 D13/55769 C2013/0604 Vilification
54 20 August 2013 D/13/154654 C2013/0627 Victimization
55 7 March 2014         D/14/58583 C2014/0181 SERIOUS Villification
56 17 March 2014 No information C2014/0223 Vilification
57 17 March 2014 D/14/58741 C2014/0224 Vilification
58 24 March 2014 D/14/58888 C2014/0371 Vilification
59 24 March 2014 D/14/58888 C2014/0372 Vilification
60 24 March 2014 D/14/58858 C2014/0238 Vilification
61 8 September 2014        No information C2014/0741 Victimization
62 8 September 2014         D/14/61242 C2014/0740 Vilification
63 5 December 2014 D/14/62408 C2014/0931 Vilification
64 9 March 2015         D/15/63403 C2015/0158 Vilification
65                         C2015/0157 Victimization
66 25 March 2015 D/15/63845 C2015/0204 Vilification
67 21 May 2015         D/15/64816 C2015/0318 Vilification
68 9 July 2015         D/15/64898 C2015/0435 Vilification
69 12 August 2016 D/16/69049 C2016/0478 Vilification
70 15 September 2016         D/16/69082 C2016/0535 Vilification
71 16 September 2016         D/16/69092 C2016/0542 Vilification
72 26 September 2016         D/16/69202 C2016/0580 Victimization



Post a Comment