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?