18 Aug. 2024
Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
CLAYTON
UTZ – DAVID & GOLAYTH?
“But that optimism faded when she arrived in Canberra
and unknowingly entered a "slavery-type arrangement", says "David
Hillard, a pro bono partner at law firm Clayton Utz”. "https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-16/former-deputy-high-commissioner-sri-lanka-to-pay-unpaid-wages/104226080
I learnt about pro
bono lawyers when I sued my seniors – including Ministers who failed to hear
me. That was when I learnt about “Clayton Utz” also. As per my memory, they represented
the then Prime Minister in IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA in matter No S49 of
2001. I recently discovered when I searched
under my name, that Austlii had published the transcript of the above hearing. Below
is an excerpt.
MRS
PARAMASIVAM: The judgments delivered in the Federal Courts did not
show their connection to the law. It is
human nature to keep following past practices until one is challenged. Judges also being human are no
exceptions. One who is therefore
consciously overriding past practices would show the flow of reasoning from the
root laws and not take the easy way of saying that I had no gross proof to substantiate
that the discriminatory actions were based on my race. By requiring gross proof, the judges have
confirmed that they did not inquire deeper.
All anti‑discrimination laws require deeper inquiry for the judges to
first know the truth.
The reason why is in the dictum “no one is judge in
their own case"/ Nemo iudex in causa sua .
Deep inquiry takes the mind of the seeker to stillness,
which is the seat of belief. Belief has perfect logic. I recently declared as
follows:
The only decision acceptable to me, would
be belief based. Belief based decisions are always beyond doubt.’
In criminal cases ‘reasonable doubt is allowed due to
laws that we do not believe in , but use on relative basis. To that extent, we
need evidence. Belief does not need evidence due to ownership. This is the
foundation of Prescriptive rights.
In management, we use Performance Indicators
with internal managers/owners.
Belief is exponential. Money is most relative and
often leads to entry into Dark money networks. You were especially concerned
about this in terms of my share of the sale proceeds, and mentioned
‘money laundering’ , until I stated that it would stay in Sri Lanka . I confirm
that I wrote as follows to you on 30 July:
‘I assure you that I am determined to keep
the proceeds in Sri Lanka. Towards this, I would be consulting with my
Auditors.’
When you urge me to accept Mr Wickremasinghe’s
proposal, you are demonstrating a wakening of your own stand with me. I
therefore urge you to NOT encourage Mr X to become the judge in this matter.
Belief happens in the still mind. It has no form. Money driven decisions
require ‘judgments’ because they are most relative. They need most form as per
the stated law common to both sides.
In the case of the Sri Lankan diplomat, both minds
were Sri Lankan. Hence Australian law has no jurisdiction. If it does, then I
also ought to have been paid at the
same rate as an Australian Charted Accountant.
Is the Government ready to compensate me? Is Clayton Utz ready to reverse its own karma, by providing me pro bono service against Australian Government?
