Sensitive: Legal

Aide Memoire
Transcript of Rumble video post titled “sunol4”, of user “gas4gaza”

00:00: As I said at the end of my last podcast, the current action against me in the Australian
Capital Territory jurisdiction follows the final defeat of LGBT activist Garry Richard Burns in
the New South Wales jurisdiction. This is a big story and it was mentioned by the Honourable
Mark Latham in the New South Wales Legislative Council on the 27th of February 2020.
Garry Richard Burns was the fall guy. He was the serial complainant whose spent his life
monitoring social media and discussion forums internet sites like Facebook, Twitter and
blogs. He would put dozens of serial complaints into the Anti-Discrimination Board of New
South Wales if he found anything in there, he thought was homophobic. The Anti-
Discrimination Board of New South Wales used him to justify their existence. They used him
as a serial complainant to deepen and strengthen homosexual vilification case law in the
State of New South Wales. His 77 vexatious and frivolous social media complaints against
me to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board have cost the taxpayer over three
million dollars. All this money has gone into the pockets of members of the New South Wales
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Equal Opportunity Division.

1:04: They seem to like LGBT activist, Garry Richard Burns, because he brought in a lot of
business for them. He gave them a lot of interesting cutting-edge decisions to write. These
decisions related to freedom of speech, which is a grey area of the law in Australia. Well, the
fall guy, Garry Richard Burns has now fallen. This is thanks to the work of the Honourable
Mark Latham, a member of Parliament in the New South Wales Legislative Council, and I am
still standing, very bruised and bankrupted, but unbeaten and still unbroken, although I have
come close. Thanks be to God, thanks be to the Holy Spirit that I feel is helping me. I will
refuse to recant my view that homosexual acts are a sin in accordance with my Bible-based
religious convictions. Because of this, I also believe that changes to the law made to allow
men to marry men and women to marry women are diametrically opposed to Christian
teachings for 2,000 years. I also believe this concept called same-sex marriage is against
natural law and against divine law.

2:01: That is my personal religious conviction and I have every right to express my religious
conviction on social media or elsewhere. That is why LGBT activist Mr Tim Kerslake and Mr
Rod Swift have conspired with Mr David Bottrill to take me to court again, but in a jurisdiction
other than New South Wales. Mr Bottrill is a leading member of the LGBT occult and satanic
cult called Ordo Templi Orientis, in Australia. But more about that later. These LGBT activists
are furious that I am still standing and that LGBT activist Garry Richard Burns has fallen with
his reputation and that of his associates at the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board in
tatters. This is after he has devoted a good part of his life trying to destroy me, something he
failed to do. And at the same time, he was able to provide a service to his friends on the staff
of the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales so that they could feel they are doing
something to crush homophobia by force and not persuasion. But any opposition to the
homosexual agenda is seen by LGBT activists as homophobia.

Sensitive: Legal
202302990 D2023/859396
 Sensitive: Legal
2

3:01: They do not seem to understand that for a heterosexual person the aversion to
homosexuality springs from human nature and conscience, in the same way we have an
aversion to unnatural sexual behaviour as incest and paedophilia. Garry Richard Burns never
got an apology from me and he never got any money from me, that is because I was forced
into bankruptcy because of the awards made to him by Magistrate Nancy Hennessy of the
New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal Equal Opportunity Division. But more
about that later. First some introductory comments. These are not based on theory, but on
my direct experience. My long experience over 15 years with the Equal Opportunity Division
at the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal and more recently the Australian
Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal indicates that these bodies are not
impartial when the complainant is a homosexual person or a member of a minority LGBT-
religion that mocks Christianity. That is because the role of these bodies it to serve the social
justice ideology and political interests of the referring authority.

4:00: And the referring authority is the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board of New
South Wales, or the Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights
Commission, respectively. Those political interests are to always to support and believe the
complainant on the grounds that he comes from an opposed minority for which the referring
authority is set up to protect. That’s how it goes. I am seen as a representative of the
oppressor class, and the oppressive Christian religion. That is, I am seen to be a member of
the Christian heterosexual patriarchy, and I am white, not black. That makes me worse and
guilty also of white privilege and unconscious bias. The group I am seen to be a member of
the Pentecostal Christian church is seen by social justice theory as the cause of all the
problems experienced by the marginalised homosexual minority, or the marginalised LGBT
so-called religion like Ordo Templi Orientis. When you are referred to the Tribunal by the
Anti-Discrimination Board or Human Rights Commission, for external judgment, then the
Tribunal automatically assumes you are guilty until proven innocent and you cannot prove
yourself innocent with social media comments because of the case law created by my cases,
namely, Collier v Sunol and Burns v Sunol.

5:07: You just have to Google those cases to see what I mean. This LGBT case law say that
your intention in making the social media comment is legally irrelevant. This LGBT case law
say that it is legally irrelevant that no person was offended by your social media comment.
This LGBT case law says that the factual truth or falsity of your social media comment is
legally irrelevant. This LGBT case law says that the only relevant factor is whether in the
subjective opinion of the Tribunal your social media words or utterance, taken on their own,
and out of context, have the capacity or the potential to incite contempt in the mind of an
ordinary reasonable internet user. That is, to incite contempt of persons on the grounds of
their homosexuality, or to incite contempt against a person on the grounds of his being a
member of an anti-Christian LGBT satanic cult like Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO incidentally.
It is no coincidence that Mr David Bottrill who is a leading member of the satanic LGBTQ cult
OTO in Australia

6:03: seems to be orchestrating my current case Kerslake v Sunol being played out now in
the Canberra ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Bottrill attended the public hearings for
this Kerslake v Sunol case on the 17th of March 2021 and the 11th of May 2021. He gave the

Sensitive: Legal
202302990 D2023/859396
 Sensitive: Legal
3

impression that he was Mr Tim Kerslake’s lawyer, sitting right next to him and taking notes.
He was not sitting in the gallery but sitting at the table like Kerslake’s representative or
lawyer. This case law referred above as in Collier v Sunol and Burns v Sunol is in fact
Stalinist. It is exactly the kind of law against thought crime that sent millions of innocent
Russian men to the gulag archipelago. It is a travesty of the implied right in the Australian
Constitution of freedom of political discourse. And it has come into existence by stealth, by
using me as the useful idiot, as the case law donkey. That explains why the Tribunal will
always find a way to substantiate an LGBT discrimination complaint about a social media
comment.

7:00: Even if it takes an 85-page published decision, costing hundreds of thousands of

dollars, to substantiate a complaint about a one-paragraph comment that stated grounds for
opposing the idea of same-sex marriage during the lead up to the November 2017 plebiscite
in Australia. That case law made in that decision means that in New South Wales it is lawful
to state publicly that you oppose the concept of same-sex marriage, but it is unlawful to state
your reasons. For your reference, the case that results in that conclusion is entitled Burns v
McKee, 2017, New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, number 66, decision date
was the 6th of March 2017. In my current case, Kerslake v Sunol case in Canberra there was
an interim decision published by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal on the 16th of May
2022. This ran to 92 pages. Kerslake had lodged 209 complaints to the Canberra Human
Rights Commission in January 2020. These were lodged in the form of URLs to my various
social media utterances, going way back five years. The complaint was 100% vexatious due
to the history of Kerslake abusing me going back twenty years.

8:06: That interim decision that was published on the 16th of May 2022 dismissed all but 23
of those 208 URL references. Now, as a result of all this case law, even if a person puts a
quote from the Bible on social media, that disapproves of homosexual acts, as was done by
the Rugby champion, Israel Folau, the Tribunal will say that’s incitement, and will order you
to pay money to the complainant for his hurt feelings. If you don’t believe me, you just have
to read the decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal published on
the 18th of November 2020. This was in relation to the complaint lodged with the New South
Wales Anti-Discrimination Board by the now-discredited LGBT activist, Garry Richard Burns.
His complaint was against the Wallabies Rugby Champion and Christian evangelist, Israel
Folau. This decision has the official title of Burns v Folau 2020, New South Wales Civil and
Administrative Tribunal, number 287, published on the 18th of November 2020.

9:01: You can look this case up for yourself on the Australasian Legal Information Institute’s
worksite. This is what presiding member, Anne Britton said about Israel Folau’s Instagram
Bible quote at paragraph 55 of that decision: “In my view, it is arguable that, objectively
assessed, Israel Folau’s comment had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious
contempt for homosexual people on the ground of their homosexuality. (For an explanation
of the elements necessary to establish a complaint of unlawful vilification under the Act, see
Sunol v Collier and another (No. 2), 2012, New South Wales Court of Appeal number 44, at
paragraph 79)”. That case law cited by the presiding member was fraudulent case law from
my Collier v Sunol cases. So there you have it, the legal fraud that was the case of Henry

Sensitive: Legal
202302990 D2023/859396
 Sensitive: Legal
4

Collier against me in 2005, that went all the way to the Supreme Court by 2012, has been
used to make it unlawful to quote from the Bible on social media.

9:56: That case, as described later, was a travesty of justice. It used two ZGeek trolls as
witnesses and with Mr Tim Kerslake and Mr Rod Swift as ZGeek members working behind
the scenes to set me up. This example of the Burns v Folau case proves beyond any shade
of doubt, that the Collier v Sunol case was used to set up the case law the Anti-
Discrimination Board of New South Wales needed to nail any person who dares to put a
comment on social media that is deemed to be homophobic. These LGBT Tribunal decisions
must be seen to be believed. They show that we have an LGBT anti-discrimination industry
in Australia that is out of control. It is just like a money-making machine for vested social
justice interests, brainwashed by queer theory. I am the victim in all this lawfare. The LGBT
activists working hand-in-hand with the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and the
Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commission are the stalkers, the cyberbullies,
fixated on what is said on social media in order to control the narrative. My problem is that I
cannot see that I have any handicap because I am able to acquire tertiary university degrees.

10:59: That is because my acquired brain injury was only to the frontal lobe of the brain and
my left and right hemispheres of the brain are undamaged. The frontal lobe injury caused by
near-fatal motor vehicle accident in 1978 has gradually healed over time. However, other
people all say they can tell I have some syndromic effect of the car accident just by talking to
me. This motor vehicle accident happened at 1 AM on the morning of the 7th of July 1978.
The car in which I was a front seat passenger slammed into a tree at 130km/h. Therefore, it
goes without saying, that the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board could see this
syndromic affectation in the way I talk. They knew I suffered from the remnants of an
acquired brain injury. Yet, they allowed me to attempt to defend myself against professional
LGBT activists in their tribunals, without any assistance whatsoever. I did not have a lawyer
and was hampered by memory lapses due to my injury. For this reason, it can be argued that
the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board and the Australian Capital Territory Human
Rights Commission are guilty of discrimination against me.

12:01: This discrimination is on the grounds of both my religious conviction and also on the
grounds of my known past disability. The Anti-Discrimination Board knew about that only too
well. They cannot now plead ignorance. For this reason, I believe all the case law made
against me will be invalidated, as a cynical travesty of justice, and when the truth comes out,
I will be entitled to a big compensation payment from the New South Wales Treasury for
serious judicial abuse of LGBT anti-discrimination law over a fifteen-year period. It can be
argued that they chose to overlook my rights to be free from this serial and targeted,
vexatious discrimination done by LGBT activists to make case law. In their minds, this
discrimination against me was more likely than not rationalised on the grounds that it was
done for the greater good, and in their minds the greater good is to deepen and strengthen
homosexual vilification and victimisation case law using me as a weak and easy target to
make the case law that will affect all Australians. In their minds I am seen as like low hanging
fruit.

Sensitive: Legal
1
202302990 D2023/859396
 Sensitive: Legal
5

12:58: What they have done is to weaponise section 49ZT of the New South Wales Anti-
Discrimination Act and section 67A of the Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act,
homosexual vilification for social media and discussion forum comments. Once the original
case law in Collier v Sunol was developed by fraud and deception, then it was used by the
LGBT activists to pick the higher hanging fruit. The aim of the LGBT activists is to eventually
pick off apples off the top of the tree. I predict that at the rate this social media homosexual
vilification case law is being made, the LGBT activists will soon be able to haul before a
Tribunal influential people like the CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby, for the crime of
quoting a passage from the Bible that says homosexual acts are sinful. I predict that Martyn
Iles, the CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby, will be the next respondent at the Australian
Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal if we lose this current religious freedom
case that is named Kerslake v Sunol. The Tribunal has put suppression orders on this case
to avoid public scrutiny.

13:59: That is because they and their partner, the Canberra Human Rights Commission,
hope that the case law can be made through stealth using me, an easy target. The
suppression order only applies to the release of court documents to the media and others.
Such a document would be my 300-page affidavit that outlines my defence case, that is
based on my right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of my religious belief and
conviction. I submit that they cynically used me as a useful idiot to make extremist internet
case law. This case law can then be used against more influential people, I am the opposite
of an influential person. This is due to my unemployed and personal status, yet, enormous
tax payer resources have been squandered on dragging me through tribunals for the past 15
years. They should not worry about what I say on the internet, because I have little influence,
that is why the hypothesis that I am being used to make case law stands up to scrutiny. My
original case, Collier v Sunol, was a travesty of justice, wherein I was deliberately set up by
the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board to establish the very first 49ZT, that is
homosexual vilification case law applied to social media comments.

15:03: The very first case conference I had in 2005 in the old Administrative Decisions
Tribunal was chaired by the Honourable Magistrate Nancy Hennessy, who is now the Deputy
President of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal Equal Opportunity
Division. It was discovered later that she was a self-declared judicial activist, working to
improve and expand anti-discrimination law. Listen to what she said in 2007: “Since 1977 the
Act has been amended at least 53 times. Grounds such as age discrimination and
transgender status have been added. The Act has been expanded to cover vilification and
harassment on some grounds. In 30 years the Act has been regularly improved and
expanded.” Note the expanded grounds for vilification to which she alluded with approval,
without naming them, were the grounds of homosexuality and HIV AIDs status. Magistrate
Nancy Hennessy said those words at the celebration of 30 years of the Anti-Discrimination
Act held at Parliament house on the 25th of October 2007.

16:03: That suggests to me now but I was not aware then, that Magistrate Hennessy was
using me as a useful idiot to deepen and strengthen homosexual vilification case law,
because of her judicial activism. I was being used, in effect to what is called a case law
donkey. She continued to substantiate all of Garry Richard Burns’ frivolous and vexatious

Sensitive: Legal
2
202302990 D2023/859396
 Sensitive: Legal
6

social media complaints. She ordered me to pay the LGBT activist lots of money, amounting
to $55,000. She was eventually proven in court to be biased. In 2015, in another case
involving the LGBT activist, she was disqualified from ever hearing another case brought on
by the Anti-Discrimination Board’s serial homosexual complainant, Garry Richard Burns. The
case that brought the Deputy President down for apprehended bias has the short title of
Burns v McKee, New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal number 158, decision
published the 25th of May 2015. I therefore believe, without self-pity, that I have been
subjected to systemic abuse by the Tribunals that are non-impartial.

17:02: That is because the Tribunal’s serve the interests of their referring authority. Namely,
the President of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board, or the leader of the
Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commission. And the people working for those
referring authorities are more likely than not ideologically possessed by social justice theory
that is highly prejudiced against me because I am perceived to be a member of the
oppressor class through their eyes. Also, those referring authorities don’t want any complaint
dismissed by the Tribunal, because that would expose them to public criticism that they were
wasting everybody’s time and money by referring trivial complaints. That is why I am so
grateful that, unlike at other times, I do not have to try to verbally defend myself in this latest
Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal case bought on by Mr Tim
Kerslake and Mr Rod Swift, aided and abetted by Mr David Bottrill, who is a member of an
LGBT occult religion called OTO, that stands for Ordo Templi Orientis. That’s Latin for the
Temple of the East. My lawyers in this current case, Kerslake v Sunol, stopped me being
manipulated in the hearing.

18:01: They stopped me incriminating myself, due to being intimidated by the power of the
Tribunal, combined with memory lapses and impulsivity, caused by acquired brain injury as
in the past. An example of this intimidation and manipulation was seen in 2018. It was in one
of the many cases of Burns v Sunol, that was in the New South Wales Civil and
Administrative Tribunal, I was referred to the New South Wales Supreme Court for contempt
of the Tribunal when this allegation by LGBT activist, Garry Richard Burns, the applicant was
provably false and objectively untrue. I put in strong evidence and irrefutable evidence that I
had nothing to do with the blog post that attacks Senior Member of that Tribunal for past
homosexual vilification decisions. On this evidence, the presiding member should have
dismissed the complaint by Burns as being deliberately misconceived. The presiding
member got around the forensic evidence by finding a way to ignore it. He told me that if I
made an apology this would purge the contempt and then he would not refer me to the
Supreme Court.

18:58: So, under great pressure in the Tribunal, and having been offered both a stick and a
carrot, I agreed to write an apology for material written and published by Luke McKee. The
crazy aspect of all of this was that I had not even had time to read or understand what Luke
McKee wrote and published in relation to an earlier decision of the Tribunal. The stick to
coerce me was the threat to send me to the Supreme Court if I did not write an apology. The
carrot was an action I could do, that the presiding member led me to believe would stop him
referring me to the Supreme Court for contempt of the Tribunal. The presiding member at the
Tribunal adjourned the hearing for two hours to force me to write the apology, there and then,

Sensitive: Legal
3
202302990 D2023/859396
 Sensitive: Legal
7

and not give me time to think about the legal ramifications and the consequences of a
decision made under duress, to write an apology. If I had a lawyer with me, then of course he
would call out, ‘objection, your Honour’, because the lawyer would explain that it was
unlawful for the presiding member to coerce me into writing a confession for something I did
not write or publish on the internet. After I wrote the apology, I discovered when the decision
came out, that presiding member still referred me to the Supreme Court on the strength of a
forced confession.

20:00: For your reference, that case was named Burns v Sunol, 2018, NSW Civil and
Administrative Tribunal, numbers 78 and 109, decision dates the 10th of April and the 25th of
May 2018. I was double crossed by the Tribunal, that is because, if a social media complaint
from a homosexual activist is sent to the Tribunal by the referring authority, then history
shows that it is a fait accompli that the Tribunal will find a way to substantiate the complaint. I
don’t think they even bothered to read the voluminous evidence that I submit to them.
Defence is really a waste of time in my experience. That is just how things go in Australia. I
know because I am Australia’s number one victim of complaints by homosexual activists for
random comments on discussion forums and social media. Note, this story about the travesty
of justice that saw me being referred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for contempt
of the Tribunal is documented in attachments to my letter to the New South Wales Crown
Solicitor, dated the 19th of August 2019. The decision to refer me to the Supreme Court for
contempt of the Tribunal came out on the 25th of May 2018.

21:02: Since then, four years have gone by and I have not been referred by the Crown
Solicitor, contrary to the recommendation of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative
Tribunal. This indicates to me that the Crown Solicitor recognises my referral to the Supreme
Court by the New South Wales Tribunal was problematic, to say the least. This ongoing story
is to be continued in my next podcast. Yours sincerely, John Christopher Sunol.

Sensitive: Legal
4
202302990 D2023/859396
5