His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena
President of the Republic of Sri Lanka
Presidential Secretariat
Galle Face,
Colombo 1
23 December 2015
Your Excellency,
Buddhists’ Contribution to strengthening the Judicial
system
I write in reference to your Excellency’s
recent communication at the annual conference of the Judicial Service
Association of Sri Lanka held at the Galle Face Hotel in Colombo.
It is reported that your Excellency had:
·
pledged to create an environment where the judges will be able to
deliver their judgments freely
·
that steps will be taken in the future to provide foreign training
to enhance their knowledge while understanding issues related to the Judicial
Service
·
had pointed out the
importance of finding solutions to the issue of delay in delivering a judgment
when the public seeks justice.
·
advised that the immediate attention of the persons engaged in the
field of law should be drawn in this regard.
It is reported also that your Excellency
has stated to another group - that
‘every officer should be committed
to fulfill their responsibilities for the development of the country, without
compartmentalizing areas.’
My
communication is with the purpose of making my own contribution in these areas.
As per my experiences in the Sri Lankan
Judicial system, the main reason for the weakness in our Judicial system is
lack of ownership. This cannot be cured by the Executive which your Excellency
is part of. It can be cured by Governors which group includes your Excellency
as well as us litigants who add our Truth when we seek the judicial process to
resolve conflicts. My recent response to two legal experts is appended to this
letter in confirmation of my ongoing contribution to Governance through the
Judiciary as part of the Judiciary.
Your Excellency, you are known to include
the Spiritual pathway in your Governance and hence I expect your Excellency to
appreciate the value of ownership above benefits of money and status. This is
also the fundamental message from Lord Krishna – through Bhagawath Geetha. We
may work beyond our position borders to become part of the structure and
therefore work the system as owners. But given the sacrifices needed towards
such ownership, only few of us go beyond position borders. Those who do – work
the system as Divine Energies. In summary Governance is Ownership.
The older the matter, the greater the need
for this feeling of Ownership / Governance. The Judgments delivered by the
Judiciary are used towards social positioning – often to a greater extent than
the decisions made by the Executive. It is therefore important to understand
the fundamentals of that part of the Judicial system that we are using and/or
Believe in. In presenting my understanding of the problem, I take the approach
that our comprehension happens as follows:
1.
Emotional level – as per our
physical senses (Body)
2.
Knowledge level – as per
discriminative thinking through common measures (Mind)
3.
Belief level – as per Truth
within us (Soul)
At national level – these are referred to
as - Politics, Administration and
Governance. Those of us who operate close to our inner Truth are natural
Governors. Such Truth already exists through every completed experience. Every
time the Administrator / Judge identifies with this highest component – the
nuclear power of the Nation is strengthened. Such a Nation is self-governing. It
is therefore important to develop this pathway of self-governance to facilitate
the Common Citizen to contribute to this Governing Energy. In Sri Lanka there
is a dire need towards this, now that the positions at the top have been
seriously abused – as confirmed by the new Administration regularly. I believe
that it is important for the self-governing citizen to be facilitated to make
her/his own judgment / decision making once the citizen has fulfilled her/his
duties as per the ‘position’. Any contribution made by such a citizen through
that position, needs to go towards Policy development. When such a citizen is
‘blocked’, the return karma is exponential. It is towards preventing such
shocks that we have facilities in the system of Democracy. The recognized value
of such a citizen would be Equal to that of the top Executive, the same way the religious head of Islam is
taken as being equal to the Institutional Head of Buddhism – the religion of
majority Sri Lankans. I believe that the
core purpose of Democracy is this equal recognition of citizen and the
Administrator / Judge. Towards this, the two side positions in the relationship
need to be close to the line of Equality. Hence the strong recognition of Equal
Opportunity Laws in Nations that are self-governing through the Democratic
pathway.
The views expressed not only by the lawyers
involved in the matters at the center of the letter appended, but also the
judges in general confirm that the ‘gap’
is too wide in the Sri Lankan system. I feel strongly that narrowing this ‘gap’
between the top and the bottom is necessary to reduce the damage to the
Sovereignty of our Nation. Hence the
need for the citizen / officer / litigant - to make higher contribution than is required
as per her/his current position – the recognized value of which is much less
than that of the Executive. Such restructuring is necessary for Democratic
pathway to lead us to Economic self-sufficiency.
Positions in relationships need to be
restructured each time a citizen / officer / litigant makes that contribution
beyond the call of duty. Every time the occupier of the higher position in a
relationship takes the credit for such contribution – for example – lawyers in
the judiciary – the pathway to access Natural Sovereign Powers through such
relationship by the ‘top’ is blocked.
There is Common Belief that the current Sri
Lankan Government came into power due to such ‘blocks’ placed by the previous Executive
in its path. This happened also in Australia in the case of Mr. John Howard who
was present with President Bush during 9/11 attack. Mr. Howard lost his seat –
and I believe that by doing my DUTY as a migrant and suing Mr. Howard for
failing to recognize the self-governing value by me as a migrant – I made my
contribution to the removal of those
blocks so ordinary Australians would more naturally access the Sovereign powers
of Australia – without the intervention of the Priest / Executive. Sovereign
powers are Natural Powers that we could identify with but not control.
Your Excellency, you may have knowledge of
the great Indian epic Mahabharatham. In that – Sanjayan the chariot driver of
the king, is endowed with the vision to
witness the details of the great war – between majority and minority powers. King
Thirutharashthiran – the father of majority – and the parallel of Mr.
Rajapaksa – is presented as the blind king. The inner vision could not be
rendered to this king – due to his attachment to his son. Hence Saint Vyasagar shared
his insight with Charioteer Sanjayan after Sanjayan resigned from his position
as charioteer. By then Sanjayan had completed his DUTY as per his POSITION. Hence
he was a governor with ‘insight’. Such governors have the ability to make the
connection between cause of effect – as Natural heads of the Nation. Our elders
are taken to be such self-governing members and hence the respects we pay them.
In Democracy – citizens such as Sanjayan have the right to be recognized at
equal level as the Executive at the top – be it President and/or Prime
Minister.
In Sri Lanka, Buddhist leaders have been
made part of the Executive through Article 9 of the Constitution. This renders
institutional value to such Leadership at the Common level. Given that the Constitution is the Soul of a
Nation – any abuse of power by the Buddhist clergy would be of exponential value.
In my letter to our lawyers I have
responded to the following accusation by the lawyer/s in this regard:
‘I
have to refer to your statement relating to the manner in which evidence of Mr.
Piyadasa was recorded at the trial before the District Court. In this regard I
have perused the brief to refresh my memory on the relevant circumstances. Mr.
Piyadasa had been duly affirmed prior to his evidence being recorded. Perhaps you are not aware that witnesses of
the Buddhist faith do not swear but affirm. In the circumstances your
inferences arising from this misconception and the reference to the learned
trial judge in that case is altogether unwarranted.’ - Lawyer
No, I had no knowledge that Buddhists did
not swear but affirmed in Court. It did surprise me. The picture that came to mind when I read the above passage was
that of an experience in 2009 – when I was waiting for approval by the Ministry
of Health to share in the pain of my folks in Chettikulam camps. I went many
times a week for six weeks to obtain this approval from the Ministry. At one
stage a senior officer said ‘don’t go there and ask for separate state’. It was
hurtful that I, a Tamil, would be recognized through LTTE – a group that
rightly or wrongly represented a section of the Tamil Community. But taken at the higher common level – this is
also the ongoing claim of self-governance by Tamils and as a self-governing
Tamil in need of clearance to serve my own people – I accepted that accusation
– as if I was LTTE Leadership. More to the point in the current context – I
prayed to Lord Buddha through the statue in the office of that senior officer.
I got the clearance as a reward for such forbearance. That BELIEF in the
Divinity of Buddha made all the difference and it was as if I worked the mind
of that officer from then on. As they say – ‘to err is human and to forgive is
Divine’. I believe that by including as part of myself - the authorities from
whom I had to get approval to provide higher services of the kind you are
referring to now – I became part of the nuclear force that worked the
Government. Such is the value of ownership.
I highlighted the difference, to a relative
of the Deceased whose Estate is at the center of the Jaffna matter mentioned in
the appended letter, as follows:
1. The sister who wrote to
Foreign Bank without consultation with either
of the brothers claimed in Mallakam District Court - that she looked
after the Deceased and her other siblings after their mother passed away.
2. Since I am a relation by marriage, I asked the
relative by birth at one stage whether this sister experienced hardship
3. That relative said words to
the effect ‘she cooked for 10 persons’
4. I said the relative was
confirming ‘what happened’. That is an Affirmation. If that relative had shared
in the experience, the relative would have simply said that the lady had
experienced hardship. That would be as if the person giving evidence had been
part of the Experience and hence amounts to swearing.
Your Excellency, the above kind of sharing
through swearing is ‘Sharing at Soul level
– which happens when we are in Truth / Love. There needs to be a Judge / Legal
Leader to receive such sharing on behalf of the Legal experts.
The component of evidence from the document is completed by the reader/judge – for her/his purposes through her/his Truth
- but the evidence itself is available to all. Hence the need for Transparency.
In Democracy – this component is greater
than personal evidence under oath – through common belief.
By swearing – we invoke the power of the
Absolute – beyond institutional structures. Affirmation on the other hand is
confirmation at physical level – that we observed and that we present to the
Court – the observed value. Life to this
is from us the self-governors/judges. The Common mind of those who contributed
to the production of the document is not recognized in particular form of
belief. Documentary evidence of what
happened – stands on its own rights and does not need a subject to prove it, so
long as the document itself is authentic. Like the gross body, the document
itself has no belief of its own. The reader of the document adds the Soul – her/his
soul – to interpret the value for her/his purposes. This then connects to that
invisible Common mind without a particular form in Court.
On the other hand, when a person gives
evidence, after Swearing – s/he is entitled to add that ‘interpretation’ as per
her/his belief as ‘owner’ of the experience in particular form, mapped by the
witness though religious faith.
Affirmed information is thus the parallel
of Documentary evidence. If majority litigants in the Judiciary are Buddhists –
and as the lawyer has highlighted they do not Swear but - Affirm – then effectively – the value of the
Constitution is limited to the followers of the architect of the Constitution –
Mr. J.R. Jayawardene when he was President and the Nation is not able to access
the Divinity of Lord Buddha independent of the Government – to strengthen the
Judicial system.
All oaths taken by members of Government –
on the basis of the Constitution of Sri Lanka which includes Article 9 are
actually Affirmations due to majority practice in Court by Buddhists. I noticed
that Mr. Wigneswaran who presents himself as Hindu also committed himself to
the lawful structures of Sri Lanka, when he assumed office as Chief Minister of
Northern Province. He did not swear on the Bhagawath Geetha – the globally
accepted Hindu Bible. He thus did not confirm in action that he represented the
Common faith of Tamil Community bound by common faith – given the form of Majority religion – Hinduism. Hence the seed
of his position is Common Sri Lanka through the face of majority empowered by the Constitution and therefore Article 9.
To earn the Equal status of Diversity
of particular faith – that faith needed
to have been given form where one had the Opportunity to do so. In that
instance Mr. Wigneswaran was the parallel of the litigant bringing her/his
Truth to Court. A member of minority, who confirms allegiance to the existing
Constitution with Article 9 has the duty to invoke in Action Articles 10 and 14
(1)(e) which provide for the practice of religion by every citizen as
individual and/or as part of a group.
Your Excellency, where one side in a
relationship completes her/his position duties and contributes beyond that
level – such a person naturally invokes the Truth in the other to the extent of
the Natural contribution beyond the call of duty. This could be damaging to the
structure through which Governance is executed. To minimize this risk it is
important to lift the bar to place higher responsibility on the lower relation
– so the gap between the relatives is close to Equality. Where the citizen
fails to raise her/his contribution, it is important for the leader to reduce
her/his level of activity – so the other side could ‘see’ and identify with.
The risk in the latter is that the leaders then tend to become like their
followers and therefore get attached to benefits rather than becoming owners of
the structure itself. Thus far you have demonstrated largely that you have more
simplicity than your predecessors in that position. Our genuine investments in
global structures are available to all who seek self-governance at global
standards and it is hoped that our services would be valued and recognized to
strengthen the structures to suit next generation and beyond.
To become global in Judicial structures –
we need to repeal Article 9. To become Universal in Justice system – we need
majority to Swear as per their form of God. Those who swore on the Sri Lankan
Constitution are accepting that Sri Lanka is their form of God – not Buddhists empowered
by Article 9.
Yours sincerely
Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
CEO
CC: All Concerned
APPENDIX
Phone 61 2 9315
7417; 94 21 2051313 ; 94 771117607
N. Manoharan,
Attorney-at-Law & Notary Public
109, Hulftsdorp Street,
Colombo 12
19 December 2015
Dear Mr. Manoharan,
THE DISMISSAL OF MR. PARATHALINGAM PC
Thank you for your letter dated 18 December
2015 in relation to my letter to Mr. Parathalingam PC. I respond to your
questions as follows:
1.
The Root Cause of Termination of the Services of Mr. Parathalingam
PC - Conflict of interest
You
state: ‘Mr.
Parathalingam PC is the senior counsel retained by you through me to appear in
the said appeal. You did not discuss with me or in any manner bring to my
notice the allegations you have made in your email against your counsel except
your concern that he was appearing for an opposing party in an appeal in the
Jaffna High Court, which appeal was in no manner connected to the appeal under
reference.’
My
Response: Your position in this legal team representing
my side – did not warrant me discussing details of how I felt about various
attitudes. I respected you as per your POSITION. That was my DUTY. Had we sat
down and discussed with you – as my husband’s friend - then I would have
discussed with you on the basis of my experience and my feelings as per that
experience. I recall having done just that in regards to Mr. Nadarajah whom we
appointed at the primary stage of the Jaffna matter - due to the recommendation
by the same person – Ms Viji Singaram Thadchan – who recommended Mr.
Parathalingam PC (as confirmed in my letter dated 05 December 2015). As you
would recall if that discussion was important to you from a professional angle
- I was concerned about the lack of commitment to professionalism by Mr. Nadarajah
– an uncle of Mr. Parathalingam PC. I was particularly upset by the direct
involvement of Mrs. Nadarajah in the legal matters – especially when dealing
with clients. I was paying for legal expertise and the form was Mr. Nadarajah
and not Mrs. Nadarajah.
In the Colombo case in which Mr. Parathalingam PC represented me – you had
a position. Not so in the Jaffna case and therefore the appointment of Mr.
Nadarajah to represent us in Court was independent of legal duties. I believe that where there is position –
there is DUTY. That DUTY comes first to me except in emergencies when Truth
overrides all else.
It is interesting that you claim that the
two appeal-matters have no connection whatsoever. Mr. Manoharan, the two
matters are at appeal stage. As per my experience in the legal system – appeals
are largely about:
1.
Errors in Law
2.
Errors in Fact
The way the same
law or fact is interpreted varies as per our own thought structure. A
President’s Counsel would need to have invested much more deeply in the
interpretation of Law by higher minds close to Policy, and it is this
investment that we pay for through the higher fee relative to an Attorney at
law like yourself. You would note that the fee I paid you in relation to this
appeal – is higher than that of Mr. Parathalingam’s son’s as claimed through
the father. As a Chartered Accountant I upheld the value of the costs paid by
me and placed you above Mr. Parathalingam’s son. That was as per my Truth and
the position I hold in this team as the litigant. Towards this I had to
override your readiness to not charge us because my husband is a friend of
yours. At the primary stages I included it as goodwill on your part. But at
appeal stage I took over the appointments and hence the payments to you.
My husband
informed me that you had rung him earlier this week – in essence saying that I
had erred. I accept that - as your professional stand in this matter but
expected you to have contacted me. To the extent you contacted my husband, I
took it as goodwill- sharing. It is this personal investment in each other and
in different positions beyond the average participant that earns us the higher
membership in our respective professions and in society – the place where we
merge, naturally through our Truth.
Mr. Parathalingam
PC’s services were commissioned for that higher personal component which would
contribute towards development of new laws and/or maintain existing laws. If it
were for money value only – I would have been richer spending my resources in
Australian activities – selling my services to the one who was ready to pay me
most. I renounced such offers to contribute to policy at this stage of my life.
My book Naan Australian, of which you have a copy - has all the details of how this happened.
Given the importance
of that personal element at appeal stage – I felt strongly that Mr.
Parathalingam would lack the higher level independence to interpret
Thesawalamai Customary Law as it was practiced by our Common Family – which
includes me for legal purposes. To the extent – my brother in law Mr.
Subramaniam Yoganathan accepted me and placed me at a position above his
sisters for structural purposes – I carry true position in relation to the
settlement of his Estate.
Mr. Manoharan,
you have confirmed in your letter, the claim you made to my husband that my communication was defamatory. The records
would confirm that I took legal action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
for Defamation – against the Party that Mr. Parathalingam is representing in
the Jaffna matter. The Australian Court dismissed the matter claiming lack of
jurisdiction over what happened in Mallakam Court. But I registered my pain
genuinely through the processes available to me. To the extent I was genuine –
the pain was submitted to the Court of Natural Justice which is accessible to
all and is workable by our Truth but is not under anyone’s particular control.
One who swears genuinely, accesses this power. Such a litigant is God’s servant
and such a witness is an instrument of God. The workings of this system are
known once we go beyond the seen and the known, on the basis of our
Belief/Truth. Often as you seem to have also done – this part is not recognized
by lawyers and judges who are actively playing the legal game for personal
gains – including for legal grades through cleverness.
The litigant who
submits her/his pain on the basis of Belief / Truth – holds the highest Natural
Position in a court of law where FACT has equal recognition as investment in
Law. Where the former exceeds the latter the conflict is naturally escalated to
the higher level – the Court of Natural Justice
- with the person so submitting being recognized as the Appellant. Where
this is done through the legal process of the environment (as was the case with
my Australian Court Process for defamation) the results happen through the
legal process also. Hence the defamation pain felt by Mr. Parathalingam PC who
caught the infection waiting for someone who had earned it instead of me. It
may be necessary for the Sri Lankan system to prevent such Dual Representations
if that pain is too strong for the Sri Lankan lawyers. It’s based on the
Doctrine of Separation of Powers. Where a person is driven by Truth – the
boundaries cannot be justly limited to matters. If indeed Mr. Parathalingam
felt such defamation pain – then it is his DUTY to sue me through his legal
system. Otherwise I would conclude that it is mere ego pain which is more
easily cured once he makes me an outsider / opposition in both matters.
2.
My Duty as the Litigant and as your client
You state: ‘I did not have the faintest idea that you
were contemplating sending an email as you have done or any communication at
all. In fact I was shocked when I
received a copy of your email. On the face of the email I noticed that you have
sent copies thereof to multiple parties but not to Mr. Parathalingam
himself. If you had any concerns arising
out of the professional relationship between your counsel and yourself you ought to have brought them to my notice
as your instructing attorney so that I could take appropriate action if needed.
I am constrained to observe that your conduct is in breach of your duty to me
as your instructing attorney and has caused me distress.’
My Response: Until I knew
otherwise through my experience with you, I expected you to receive my
communications at the same level of commitment with which I received your
communications. On that basis, when I
informed you outside the Courtroom on 03 December 2015 – that I was upset with
Mr. Parathalingam representing my opponents in the Jaffna matter – while my
Colombo matter was still active – and asked you to find another Counsel to
represent me – I was instructing you to terminate Mr. Parathalingam’s services.
As per my memory you did agree to engage another counsel. Hence to my
mind, any shock in your mind, is due to
you becoming the spokesperson of Mr. Parathalingam instead of my Attorney –
representing me to all other participants in this matter.. Between you and Mr.
Parathalingam – there may be legal standards as per your Administrative
processes and professional standards. They are
not however binding on the litigants who engage your services. By
instructing me – you have effectively reduced my status below yours in this
instance and that is indeed defamatory in action.
3.
You refer to my DUTY. Duty happens when there is POSITION. Between
you and I – as per our positions, you
are the legal expert and I am the facts expert, respectively. When user of law
is allocated a higher position than the user of fact – we become an
over-litigated society and confirm the high risk of abuse of legal power. The
highest position taken cannot be above the value of Facts submitted in Court,
including through Affidavit evidence. Any position above the value of such
Facts – is abuse of power. I instruct you and you instruct the Counsel who
submits to the Common Judge. In this case the picture in your mind seems to be
that you are instructed by the President’s Counsel and that you are instructing
me. When I sent you my understanding of the matter through relevant laws,
including case laws, they were submissions and not direct legal arguments. This
required me to renounce any direct
benefits from my knowledge of law. That was the Separation with which I bound
myself. As a lay litigant which position is facilitated actively in the
Australian system – I had the satisfaction of submitting to Court – my
interpretation of the law – as a non-legal user. But as a litigant represented
by the legal profession – I had to ‘forget’ my own interpretations of the law
in this matter – so I would better hear the legal version. This then limited me
to the power of my facts alone. The reward is that I am an Equal to the highest
legal person in the matter – and hence cannot be found fault with through legal
standards and rules. Once I wear the legal cap – I make myself your junior.
There needs to
be a common law that gives you the authority to judge me – as having acted in
breach of my duty. Since I have no knowledge of such a law, it is YOUR DUTY as
the legal expert – to advise me but you have no authority to judge and deliver
such judgment. The distress comes from your own breach as judged by your
conscience and it is inappropriate to pin the blame on outsiders – which I have
become to you. To that extent you have to ‘wait’ until you have objectively
measurable proof of wrong doing as measured by Common Principles/Law. As a
friend I feel for you but I feel more for the legal system which belongs
equally to the litigants who have acted within the boundaries of laws of the
Nation. As a friend, I recommend meditating on the Truth to bring yourself out
of the stress caused by ‘attachment’ to benefits than to contribute to the
maintenance and development of the system itself.
4.
My Duty as the Litigant and as your client
You
state: ‘The
better part of your letter contains your views of the existing legal system and
procedure and the need for improvements with religious overtones. I cannot
comment on these views although I find some of it incomprehensible. However I
will deal with those statements of yours that relate to Mr. Parathalingam PC.’
My
Response: Mr. Manoharan, in your offices – at
Hultsdorp – the legal capital of Sri Lanka and at Havelock Town, you have the
photo of Swami Sathya Sai Baba who is my Spiritual Guru. If you did not believe
in the religious path – you would have had the picture of Lady Justice instead
of Swami Sathya Sai Baba. In addition to this ‘personal’ component – the Sri
Lankan Constitution includes Buddhism as a pathway to Healthy Justice system.
Once it is a law – it has a positive role as an active measure of judgment.
Hence as a Hindu, you have the DUTY to use the parallels of Article 9 and
practice your religion in Sri Lankan Court Process also.
As per my knowledge a good proportion of
Sri Lankan laws have their base in Western cultures through Roman Dutch Law and
English Law. Much of this would be incomprehensible to the rural folks strongly
driven by religion through which they interpret Natural Forces. The positive
aspect of Article 9 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, is the role it plays in
filling that void – so minds would come together through Buddhism also. To
effectively equal the substance of this – we, of the minority religions have to
practice more actively our respective religions. Otherwise we would be
contributing to Discrimination on the basis of religion happening when majority
Judges/Administrators are Buddhists. The
risk of this happening is much higher when the Judges /Administrators become seniors due to age and are comfortable
and complacent in their positions. They then bring out their true mind
structures formed by their home-cultural environments. If your above statement
is true of majority in the Sri Lankan profession – then the Sri Lankan legal
profession also has the contributed to the ethnic war in Sri Lanka – after
Buddhism was made part of the legal system. The Constitution being of nuclear value – automatically
generates its own powers through those vested with the responsibility to practice
the law. Like air that we do not ‘see’ – the power of the Constitution affects
all of us one way or the other. Just because we do not recognize it does not
mean that it does not exist or that it is dead matter.
You state further in this regard:
‘Next, I have to refer to your statement
relating to the manner in which evidence of Mr. Piyadasa was recorded at the
trial before the District Court. In this regard I have perused the brief to
refresh my memory on the relevant circumstances. Mr. Piyadasa had been duly
affirmed prior to his evidence being recorded. Perhaps you are not aware that
witnesses of the Buddhist faith do not swear but affirm. In the circumstances
your inferences arising from this misconception and the reference to the
learned trial judge in that case is altogether unwarranted.’
As per my interpretation, one needs religion
based swearing to activate the power of common faith. To the extent one submits
in Court only the ‘observations’ as a witness – like any other observer and no
more – affirmation is sufficient. But where one seeks to submit one’s personal
belief – the witness is her/his conscience and the closest pathway to this is
personal belief. Where one is of a particular religion God in that person’s
mind is given that religious form. If no such God is recognized by Buddhists –
then their belief is taken to be limited to the belief in the legal system.
This is further facilitated by Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Bible/Constitution.
Mr. Piyadasa who claimed ownership through Prescriptive Rights – had the
authority to submit evidence only from the day he declared his ownership
through the legal process – which was years (10 years as per my memory) after I
recorded my lawful purchase of the land from Mr. A.T.Benedict – a respected professional
in our Accounting circles. All evidence regarding occupation and possession
prior to Mr. Piyadasa’s legal declaration become inadmissible when he affirmed
instead of swearing. In affirmation we are observers. In swearing we are also
judges as per our conscience. Hence we use the Bibles of respective religions.
I stated in Australian Court that there was no Hindu Bible on which I could
swear. Magistrate Smith whose conscience was stronger than most other judges,
gave recognition and asked the Court Officer to produce a copy of the Bhagawath Geetha. When the officer informed
the Court – that there was none in the Court – I smiled and said I would
mentally swear on the Hindu Bible while touching the Christian book. The Buddha
Sasana/Bible is invoked through Article 9 of the Constitution but unless a
Buddhist invokes this by swearing – the
evidence is merely to confirm what happened – as if the witness is an outsider.
It does not confirm in the language of the law – the Belief of the witness as
to why something happened. In this instance – it may confirm that Mr. Piyadasa
occupied that land at certain periods. But it did not confirm validly in that
Court that he BELIEVED the land was his. It is that deep belief in the higher
powers beyond the seen and the known that adds validity to our Affidavit
Evidence in support of WHY? Had Mr. Piyadasa sworn on Article 9 of the Sri
Lankan Constitution – his evidence as to why what happened after he became a
member of the system of Law – would have been admissible. This on its own still
does not deliver a win for Mr. Piyadasa but his evidence would have been more
admissible in regards to his belief based ownership from that moment of
declaration until he was challenged by me through the legal process. This is
way below the legal requirement of 10 years.
Given that you state on behalf of Mr. Parathalingam, that my observations in
this regard were ‘altogether unwarranted’, I conclude that I did hire the wrong
Counsel who could not distinguish between belief as an insider /owner and
observation as an outsider.
Take for example your following statements:
‘You
chose Mr. Parathalingam PC as your counsel for the appeal and pursuant to your
choice, with which I was also in agreement and I retained Mr. Parathalingam PC
as your senior counsel. I also retained Mr. N. K. Parathalingam as junior
counsel. You were well aware of this position and handed to me the fees due to
both senior and junior counsel which I paid to them.’
They become ‘facts’ only to the extent one
believes in the causal forces. Otherwise they are merely bodies of facts and are irrelevant beyond constructing
the picture of what happened. In the above passage you have confirmed that Mr.
Parathalingam PC was retained due to my decision. I was the causal force. If
YOU retained Mr. N.K. Parathalingam then YOU became the causal force. As per my
observations – Mr. N.K.Parathalingam is Mr. Parathalingam Senior’s assistant
and does not have any independent standing in this matter. Yes, I was aware of
this position and by paying the money to you I accepted what happened. This
does not mean that I caused it to happen. That team formation may be beneficial
to both Counsels. But to my mind, if one was hired independent of the other –
then I as the client would have received more wholesome service through a
different angle of interpretation, of this matter. This to my mind, is the
philosophy underpinning Lord Muruga’s six faces of observation – with each face
representing an organ of observation plus the sixth – being the Common surface
memory in our brain through which we receive the observations and forms the
wholesome picture of 360 degree view. If
you hired Mr. N.K. Parathalingam as an independent contributor – then you ought
to have demanded independent input from him as an Equal to his father but for a
different part of the process – as is the case with you.
You state: ‘I must add that as your senior counsel in the said appeal Mr.
Parathalingam PC has on every date of hearing been present in Court with his
junior counsel ready to argue the appeal and was not responsible for the
postponements.’
Mr. Manoharan, your friend and my husband
would inform you that there is a component of marks allocated for ‘attendance’
for fresh students at his University. A committed University student would not
need such allocation. Likewise a committed senior lawyer who stands as an
independent would not need to prove that he earned his fee by attending Court.
All of you are contributors to the delays in Court. Did you ever allocate marks
to me for coming all the way from Sydney, Australia to confirm my commitment to
the legal system? Someone Up Above did and hence my contribution to the Legal
system to improve Administration. During the last session in the Jaffna matter,
despite learning that the Court would not hear the Appeal due to one of the
Judges being on leave, I attended Court as a mark of respect for the Court
staff who did their duty. Above all, I respected my own contribution to that
matter and therefore registered my presence in Court for Administrative
purposes. Now I realize that the True Administrator in me took me there – as if
the Court was in session for registry purposes. But there Mr. Parathalingam did
announce to the judge the angle from which he was seeking to argue the matter.
This to my mind, was unethical given that my side lawyer was not present and I
myself was not recognized and allocated a position to represent myself for that
time. I did the needful anyway and apprised our attorney at law of the gist of
Mr. Parathalingam’s presentation – to the extent I understood it. The reward is
the revelation through you that Mr. Parathalingam is not as strong as I in
Administration which is common to the lawyer, the litigant and the judge.
Unless Mr. Parathalingam argues through a particular section of law within
Thesawalamai, applicable to Intestate Estate
and its interpretation by the legal fraternity – it would be very
difficult for him to win on merit basis. If it were that easy – Mr. Yogendra
who represented my opponents in the Jaffna matter at the primary stage – would
have represented them at the appeal stage also. On the other hand it could also
be due to his fear of our Attorney at Law – Mr. V.Manivannan’s expertise –
despite the latter being a junior – more or less parallel to Mr. N.K.
Parathalingam.
If Counsels do not take money for mere
attendance they are more likely to
promote competition which is healthy for legal business. Every postponement is
confirmation of Administrative weakness within the legal system.
You state:
‘I
disassociate myself with and totally disapprove of other general remarks you
have made about Mr. Parathalingam PC.’
I strongly suggest that you send a copy of
this letter of yours to Mr. Parathalingam PC so he gets the right message about
you. I in turn did NOT associate you with those remarks and hence am
outside your circle of approval or
disapproval.
You state:
‘I
have taken note of your wish not to avail yourself of the services of Mr.
Parathalingam PC and junior counsel in this appeal. In the present
circumstances I am sure he will readily return the brief to me.’
If Mr. Parathalingam does not return the
brief and you are therefore not able to replace the services through another
legal expert – I propose to represent myself and ask you to please do the
needful to facilitate this – of course for a fee.
You state:
‘In
your email you have not made any allegation whatsoever or any lapse of Mr.
Parathalingam PC in conducting this appeal and I myself was also convinced that
Mr. Parathalingam PC has done his best. I noticed that the statements made by
you against Mr. Parathalingam PC are unwarranted and unjustifiable. It is very
wrong of you to question his integrity and honesty because he has conducted
this appeal without a lapse on his part and in the best possible manner.
Further it was very wrong of you to copy other institutions and individuals as
they are not in any way connected to this appeal.’
Mr. Manoharan, Mr. Parathalingam PC’s best
does not include his higher integrity needed to maintain the core purpose of the existence of the
Doctrine of Separation of Powers. To me as a deep investor in the system of
Democracy – this commitment to the Separation of the mind from the ‘other’ side
is an essential part of success through the Legal Process. It is also strongly needed by our National
Government and each one of us has the opportunity to strengthen this power
through our genuine and independent practice of the Doctrine. Mr. Parathalingam
confirmed his weak investment in Democracy – by failing to separate himself
from one side or the other. I did the needful to uphold that separation and
this I believe is healthy for the system as a whole.
You conclude by stating ‘In the circumstances I advise you to
withdraw all allegations and apologize in writing to Mr. Parathalingam PC and
send copies of same to all concerned.’
You use the word ‘advise’ but in essence your message has the quality of
‘instructing’ me as to what I should do. I decline to withdraw any of my
statements but I promise to continue with MY PRACTICE of being Transparent to
all concerned. Mr. Parathalingam PC
himself has not listed his email address publicly and hence our staff here sent his letter by registered post on 17
December. But as expected, the email has reached Mr. Parathalingam PC though
his junior. I inform you that this is my
pathway while in Vaddukoddai which is very very slow in its Administration –
after 30 years of war. No withdrawal no
Apology. May I remind you that we Sri Lankans are moving towards a laissez-faire
system under the current leadership.
Yours sincerely
Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
CC: All Concerned
