Baphomet... a male with breasts and the medical snakes as a penis.. starting to make sense now....
It is interesting that you come up with this observation at this particular time.
In Australia, a satanic LGBT cult, founded in the early 20th century by Aleister Crowley, uses Baphomet as one of their idols.
The name of the cult is Ordo Templi Orientis. It is very active in Australia, judicially speaking. And it is a cult linked to Free Masonry.
One of the members of this transgressive and anti-Christian cult goes by the name of David Bottrill. He's apparently an official in the federal government's Immigration Department in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory,
You can google the following litigation that he's initiated. He does this to get money from anybody who criticises or spreads rumours about the satanic LGBT cult.
BOTTRILL v CRISTIAN & ANOR (Civil Dispute) [2016] ACAT 7 (10 February 2016)
BOTTRILL v SUNOL (Discrimination) [2018] ACAT 21 (13 March 2018)
BOTTRILL v VAN LIESHOUT & ORS (Civil Dispute) [2015] ACAT 26 (31 March 2015)
BOTTRILL v BAILEY (Civil Dispute) [2018] ACAT 45 (20 April 2018)
BOTTRILL v SUNOL & ANOR (Discrimination) [2017] ACAT 81 (9 October 2017)
BAILEY v BOTTRILL (Appeal) [2018] ACAT 120 (30 November 2018)
CRISTIAN v BOTTRILL [2016] ACTSC 315 (13 October 2016)
BAILEY v BOTTRILL (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 167 (27 June 2019)
BAILEY v BOTTRILL [2019] ACTSC 45 (28 February 2019)
CRISTIAN v BOTTRILL (Appeal) [2016] ACAT 104 (12 September 2016)
ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS v LEGG (Anti Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 1484 (27 July 2007)
BOTTRILL is fully backed up by the civil authorities in the Australian Capital Territory.
I heard recently that Bottrill sneaks into homosexual vilification cases that have been referred to the Australian Capital Territory Civil & Administrative Tribunal by the local Human Rights Commission. He sneaks in as what is called "amicus curiae". The presiding member knows who he is, but does not insist he provide his name for the records. This reeks of corruption.
These homosexual vilification trials are based on LGBT activists trawling the internet for homophobic comments on social media or discussion forums. Then, upon discovery of a suitable comment made by "an ignorant Christian bigot", they lodge a complaint under the state or territory anti discrimination laws, seeking damages for hurt feelings.
It is a very big racket because the business model of the QANGOs that handle these complaints is to maximise the numbers, in order to maximise their budgets. And the business model of the tribunals, to which the complaints are referred without proper investigation, is to maximise their taxpayer funded income by stringing out the trials into months or years, even for minor and trivial social media comments.
So a harmless homophobic social media comment could cost you $50,000 in legal fees in these Stalinist-type-tribunals, and the money going into the pockets of the tribunal members would be orders of magnitude higher than what it costs the hapless Christian or homophobic respondent.
On any measure of corruption, these trials, of the sort as listed above, are a win-win for the applicant and for the authorities. It is called "pork barrelling". And it is done for leftist political reasons, not for justified legal reasons. It is all a part of the "culture wars" going on in Australia between atheistic leftists and conservative Christians.
We know about this persistent litigant David Bottrill because a few years ago somebody put criticism and rumours about Ordo Templi Orientis on the Truth News website (truthnews dot com dot au). Bottrill somehow found out the address of the owner of the site, Hereward Fenton, and threatened to initiate litigation against him unless he took all the material down. So Hereward promptly took it down to avoid court action, much to the annoyance of the interviewee who peddled the rumours about "OTO". I believe this was a wise and pragmatic decision by Hereward, because nobody wins in Canberra against a Masonic-type satanic cult.
Ordo Templi Orientis has managed to become legally registered as a *religion* in Australia. Scientology also managed to get registered in a similar way, after a High Court case that disputed their credentials as a *religion*. That means Ordo Templi Orientis is protected by some anti discrimination jurisdictions in Australia.
So if you make imputations on the internet, or cast aspersions against David Bottrill on the grounds that he is a member of a cult that engages in "sodomy sex magick" and promotes sexual perversion as an initiation ritual (according to Wikipedia) - then watch out. He will take you to court under anti discrimination law that includes "religious conviction" along with "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected attributes.
This is why the religious freedom bill currently being lobbied for by Christian groups in Australia is a trap.
It wont protect Christians (e.g., like Israel Folau - see story on this platform) from lawsuits and sacking for expressing their religious convictions that claim sodomy as a sin (together with fornication and adultery I might add!)
If you say on social media that sodomy is a sin, then you are saying that men who engage in this activity are sinners. That is unlawful in Australia under anti discrimination vilification laws, because it is deemed to vilify a person on the grounds of their homosexuality.
No, the new religious freedom laws (if they get implemented in the federal parliament) will be used to bash Christianity, and they will not allow Christians to express their beliefs in relation to LGBT, gender and family issues. The religious freedom law will be used to protect anti-Christian satanic LGBT cults like Ordo Templi Orientis.
That is because those who administer the anti discrimination law, sitting on Human Rights Commissions and Anti Discrimination Boards, are, generally speaking, atheistic progressive leftist / social justice warriors. Any Christian person who is complained about to these authorities, by members of the minority satanic religion or minority homosexual lobby group, will be sent to a civil tribunal for external judgement of the homosexual or religious vilification claim.
No matter how vexatious, trivial, misconceived, are these religious or homosexual vilification complaints about comments on social media, they will always be substantiated by the tribunal. That is because the referring authority wants the complaint substantiated. They want to create more and more onerous case-law to silence on the internet any opposition to their agenda.
In Canberra at the present time, the boss of the Attorney General is the Chief Minister. And this Attorney General is the boss of the Civil & Administrative Tribunal, where this homosexual vilification litigation is carried out. The Chief Minister is an out-and-proud, unashamed, public-tonge-kissing homosexual man. So, whether you like it or nor, that is real political homo-power exerted directly or indirectly over the tribunals to substantiate every social media homosexual vilification complaint.
That's a lot of info, thanks.
BOTTRILL v SUNOL (Discrimination) [2018] ACAT 21 (13 March 2018)
In relation to the above court case, the respondent Mr John Christopher Sunol contacted us yesterday at Fifth Estate Press.
He sent us a copy of his initial response to the Australian Capital Territory Civil & Administrative Tribunal when he was fighting the complaint against him by Me David Bottrill. He gave us permission to publish it here, which we do below.
He said that the case dragged on for a couple of years over 2017-2018 and the outcome was a travesty of justice, in that the Tribunal simply ignored his arguments because he could not afford a lawyer.
FOOTNOTE: Mr Sunol told us that, at the present time, he is dragged again from New South Wales to attend hearings at the Australian Capital Territory Civil & Administration Tribunal.
This time it was not a 'religious vilification' complaint, but it was a 'homosexual vilification' complaint. He said a couple of male LGBT activists - by the name of Tim Kerslake and Rod Swift - have bought the case against him. He said you can find some info if you google "Kerslake v Sunol" He said that Mr David Bottrill seemed to be orchestrating this case against him and that he (Bottrill) attended the public hearings on 17 March 2021 and 11 May 2021, as advisor and minder to the applicant Mr Tim Kerslake. Mr Sunol sent us a link to a YouTube on Kerslake v Sunol that we attach hereto.
================================================================
Gmail - My own personal documents to Mr David Bottril on OTO and religious vilification
1 message
John Christopher Sunol
Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:23 PM
The Registrar
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Canberra
20th June 2017
Reference No DT 4/2017
Dear Registrar,
I am sorry I did not have this in by June 12th, as I had things a little mixed up and I thought the due due date was June 26th, 2017.
This response to you will be sent today by email at first then I will post both the Tribunal's and David Bottril's printed copy of this via Express Post so you get it in next day delivery.
I wish to say that my reasons for not accepting the complaint of religious vilification comes under three (3) reasons which I will outline in this response as follows.
JURISDICTION.
ACT is not NSW and (on advice) the ACT Human Rights Commission has committed an unlawful act by referring this complaint against a resident of New South Wales to the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal for external judgement.
I wish to state that David Bottril can not have this go ahead. This jurisdictional issue was put to the New Sourh Wales Court of Appeal and the Court decided on the 3rd of December 2017 that Australian tribunals do not have the power to hear cases against Australians who reside in other states where they are subjected to different laws than those that apply to the ACT.
For example in New South Wales we do not have religious vilification provisions in our anti discrimination law.
In order for me to go to the expense of travelling down to Canberra on Thursday 27th of July to stand trial in your court for something I did not do, I must know for sure whether or not I am participating in an unlawful activity as determined by the Australian Constitution.
Here is the Court of Appeal ruling on this Constitutional issue: Burns v Corbett; Gaynor v Burns [2017] NSWCA.
Since I have been advised that what you are doing is unlawful based on the law as it stands today, I request that you consult your lawyers and send me a letter by registered mail on ACAT letter head, providing me with assurance that I will not be wasting my time participating in unlawful activity by travelling down to a court hearing on the 27th of July.
The letter will acknowledge that ACAT will be liable for a damages claim if I do attend the court and my advice that this is unlawful under the Australian Constiturion proves to be correct.
Bear in mind that I an indigent, bankrupt and unemployed and I have no money to spend on travelling all the way to Canberra. Who is going to pay my costs?
RESPONSIBILITY.
I did not write this material complained about so David Bottril is complaining about the wrong man.
[name redacted] (or Hojuruku as it spells out on the post) is the author of the deemed offensive material and he published the content directly onto the blogspot of which he is co author.
The argument that I, John Christopher Sunol, published the content complained about will not stand up to technical scrutiny. This can be understood only if you understand technical aspects of how the Google blogger works. I am not legally nor morally responsible for what the co author [name redacted] publishes directly on to the blog server in the United States of America.
Mr Bottril has put in a misconceived complaint and as a result he is wasting my and the tribunal's time as it has no prospect of success for these technical reasons.
Futher the author of the content ([name redacted]) that is complained about has written to you and requested that the complaint be made against himself and he takes full responsibility for the content deemed to viify the cult named Ordo Templi Orientis OTO.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN APOLOGY.
The demand that I apologise to Mr Bottril and/or the OTO cult cannot be met by myself without violating my religious convictions. However it is absurd that I should apologise for something I did not do. That aside, even if I wrote or published the material (which I did not) I can not and will not apologise to Mr Bottrill nor accept OTO as a religion.
I have strong religious convictions in the Christian Pentecostal Evangelical faith, and I can not and will not accept OTO as a religion.
Based on published material, the OTO is a mockery of true religion, and is in fact against all the world's great religions. It is to me the antithesis of what I believe based on religious conviction. It is of a Satanic Devilish cult that works in areas of the spirit to which we are both diametrically
opposed.
I can not and will not apologise or submit to what you and David Bottril want me to do based on laws that do not apply to New South Wales. We have freedom of religion in Australia and freedom of speech and it just can not happen that two diametrically opposed groups can see light to agree over fundamental principles of our beliefs.
I just can not and will not go down this path to violate my religious beliefs to accept and submit to OTO as a religion. I see it as a very evil group based on my religious convictions. I can say that Mr Bottril can believe what he so desires but I have by the same token the same rights and when I read on what OTO really is (Gnostic Catholic Church) I just can not and will not accept this as anything but a Satanic Cult first formed in 1894 by a Theodore Ruess who came out of 32-33 level Masonry and taken over and run by Alister Crawley after 1911-1913 who was a psychopath into Satanism and perverted Sex Magick, worshipping Bathomet or the Devil. For these reasons I can not and will not accept this group and ask for you to dismiss this complaint based on these 3 reasons.
I will print a copy of and post it to ACAT and also David Bottril and this can be my statements forwarded to the hearing on July 27th in Canberra
Yours sincerly
John Christopher Sunol
Re: KERSLAKE v SUNOL
2019-2022 legal battle going on now in the Australian Capital Territory Civil & Administrative Tribunal and presided over by His Honour Mr Robert Orr QC.
Here's the link to the YouTube given to us by Mr Sunol:-
Here's the screed describing the YouTube:-
"My name is John Christopher Sunol.
I talk about the 17 years of continuous vexatious litigation to which I have been subjected by LGBT political activists, in Australia.
Based on my experience, the Anti Discrimination Board of New South Wales, and the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commission are corrupt organisations when it comes to handling trivial and vexatious homosexual vilification social media complaints from radical LGBT social justice warriors.
They refuse to do their job and investigate, they refuse to conciliate. All they do is refer the trivial complaints to the civil law Tribunal, for very time consuming and costly lawfare. This is done to make "case law" to use against others.
The current case is happening right now (2022), in Australia’s capital, the city of Canberra. It is about a conflict between religious freedom, that is, freedom of conscience & freedom of religious expression, on the one hand, and LGBT activism, on the other. It is being fought out, in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. My fight against this latest aggressive & vexatious legal action has been going for over a year. It shows no sign of ever being resolved. I predict it will end up as an appeal to the Supreme Court in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia, in the future.
I am currently being sued by the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commission. An aspiring local LGBT activist, by the name of Mr. Tim Kerslake, trawled my Twitter account, and then complained to the Canberra Human Rights Commission that I was inciting hatred and contempt against homosexual persons or groups. He was joined by Mr. Rod Swift, an LGBT social justice warrior from Queer Greens Victoria, Melbourne.
The alleged "incitement" of my tweets is nonsense. In reality, I was expressing my religious convictions on social media. My religious convictions about homosexuality and the homosexual agenda are similar to those of Saint Paul of the New Testament, as he preached in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
I was baptised a Catholic, and agree with their doctrine on homosexuality. I studied at a Newcastle Bible College, 1984-9. Now member of an Evangelical Pentecostal church. I know the Old Testament. But it is the New Testament I believe & try to follow. True, I did once refer to Leviticus 20:13 on the internet, to illustrate a point, not to endorse it.
Liviticus 20:13 says “If a man lieth with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” That is Old Testament, the Old Jewish Law, before the birth of Jesus: before Christianity.
The New Testament changed our way of thinking. Old Testament fear & retribution was replaced with faith, hope, love & forgiveness. As in Matthew 5:17, Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”
The New Testament treats homosexual acts not as a capital offence as in the Old Jewish Law, but as sin. Homosexual acts are seen to be in the same category of sin as normal immorality or bad behaviour (such as fornication, adultery, idolatry, drunkenness and so on) as identified in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Identity politics pushed by academic LGBT activists and social justice warriors, to destroy heteronormativity, is the opposite of New Testament thinking. They say “I am a homosexual man, that is my identity; I must not be made to feel ashamed of who I am”. That logic easily falsified.
“I am a homophobic man, that is my identity; I must not be made to feel ashamed of who I am”.
Identity politics defines humans as members of a group (e.g., homosexual) rather than as individuals, each individual being child of God, so to speak. Homosexual vilification law has been found to be unworkable in the age of internet social media.
In New South Wales, there is an anti-discrimination law against “homosexual vilification” where “homosexual” is not legally defined. To prove the unworkability of this law based on identity, just google ‘Burns v Sunol’ and you get about 150,000 references. This case law says that homosexuality and paedophilia are mutually exclusive attributes.
BREAKING NEWS: Mr David Bottrill, was acting as advisor to Mr Tim Kerslake. He attended the Canberra public hearings in the 'Kerslake v Sunol' matter on March 17 and May 11, 2021, in that capacity. He was sitting right next to Mr Kerslake at the table & wearing a suit like a lawyer. He was not sitting in the public gallery. He (Bottrill) has gone and put a complaint against me under his own name, to the Canberra Human Rights Commission. What corruption! Google 'Bottrill v Sunol'. I think Mr Bottrill - a member of a satanic LGBT religion called Ordo Templi Orientis - is claiming that he was "victimised" by me, because I had a hyperlink on my Facebook page that he did not like."