BOTTRILL v SUNOL (Discrimination) [2018] ACAT 21 (13 March 2018)

Mr John Christopher Sunol contacted us yesterday at Fifth Estate Press.

He sent us a copy of his 2017 initial response to the Australian Capital Territory Civil & Administrative Tribunal when he was fighting the complaint against him by Mr David Bottrill.

He gave us permission to publish it here, which we do below.

Mr Bottrill is a senior official of the Australian government department of immigration who resides in Canberra. He is some sort of leader or agent of the Australian chapter of a satanic LGBT anti-Christian sex-cult called Ordo Templi Orientis.

There are rumours that Bottrill is an ASIO agent but we have not seen any hard evidence of this.

You can read about Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) in Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis

What Wikipedia says about the perverted practices of OTO under the moral sanction of 'religion':-

"The degrees of the Hermit Triad are of a sexual nature. In the VIII° degree, the initiate is taught masturbation magical practices, in the IX° degree magical techniques related to vaginal intercourse, and in the XI° a form of sex magick involving anal intercourse. The basis of OTO's sex magic is Crowley's theory of mixing of semen and female ejaculate released during the sex magic operation to produce an "elixir", which is ingested or smeared on an object for magical purposes."

OTO have - surprisingly - managed to get tax-exempt status in Australia as a legitimate religion.

That means, when it comes to anti discrimination law, the 'religious convictions' of members of this deliberately transgressive secret society and sex cult OTO have the same legal status in Australia as the 'religious convictions' of persons who believe in e.g., Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Evangelical Pentecostalism, Presbyterianism, so on and so forth.

Once you understand this - and very few Christians do - you can come to understand why the Religious Freedom Bill 2021 proposed for Australia is a counter-productive farce. Thank God it was finally canned before it was converted into real legislation.

Mr Sunol told us at Fifth Estate Press that the case BOTTRILL V SUNOL 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.  

RE: KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimination) [2022] ACAT 40

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, in 2021-2022, it was not a 'religious vilification' complaint, but it was a 'homosexual vilification' complaint against some tweets he put out that expressed his Christian religious conviction that homosexual acts were a sin.

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 a little information if you google "Kerslake v Sunol". But for some inexplicable reason, the tribunal has put some sort of suppression order on the case. Mr Sunol said that Mr David Bottrill seemed to be orchestrating this case against him and that he (Bottrill) attended the Kerslake v Sunol 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.

================================================================

BOTTRILL v SUNOL (Discrimination) [2018] ACAT 21 (13 March 2018)

Here is the email, referred above, that Mr Sunol sent us.

Gmail - My own personal documents to Mr David Bottril on OTO and religious vilification

John Christopher Sunol

To: mailto:tribunal@act.gov.au
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 reference to the New South Wales 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 Constitution 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 Google 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.

Further, 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 vilify 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 Bottrill wants 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.

When I read on what OTO really is (Gnostic Catholic Church that conducts a "Black Mass") I just can not and will not accept this as anything but a Satanic Cult. It was first formed in 1894 by a Theodore Ruess who came out of 32-33 level Masonry. It was taken over and run by Alister Crawley after 1911-1913. Crowley was a psychopath into Satanism and perverted LGBT "Sex Magic", 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 Bottrill. This can be my statements forwarded to the hearing on July 27th in Canberra

Yours sincerely

John Christopher Sunol

← see less