You and Dr. Indrapala might be interested in knowing about the issues relating to current Tamils living in Australia. Otherwise you would become like the Supreme Court judges who 'Tell you what to do'. The letter below might help you appreciate what's in for you if you do not consciously and expressly reject Democracy in Australia:
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
AUSTRALIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
906/ 56, Carr Street; Coogee N.S.W. 2034; Australia ;
Email firstname.lastname@example.org ; Phone 61 2 9315 7417
The Hon Philip Ruddock, MP
08 November 2006 to 13 November 2006
Dear Mr. Ruddock,
I Will Not be TOLD What to do
?First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you and then you win?
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of New South Wales helped me bring about a closure to my traumatic experiences first with the University of New South Wales, then with the State & Commonwealth Governments. The University of New South Wales ignored me; the Governments laughed at me; the Judge fought me and then I won. The Court records, read by any independent assessor would confirm I won with flying colours but the verdict says that I failed and was to be banned permanently from the Courts also ? if the Judge had his way. As the Judge said ? enough is enough. He said it on the basis of costs for the courts. I am also saying enough is enough. I will not be told what to do by any White Australian Administrator. From now on I am a fully fledged Coloured Australian governing myself.
I choose to write to you rather than to the NSW Attorney General who seems to not have the skill or the will to communicate with members of the Public.
The Judge was a replacement Judge and as of now I do not know his name. He looked Senior, seemed very English in his ways and looked noble.
During cross examination on Monday, 06 November 2006, of Ms Petra Zlatevska ? a lawyer from the office of the Crown Solicitor, I asked Ms Zlatevska about the criteria for a matter to be of substance.
During the submission by the lawyer for the University of New South Wales yesterday, his honour asked whether frivolous and vexatious were different. The lawyer said they were not.
My submission after the three Defendants submitted theirs is as follows and is very important due to the wording of the reasons for Judgment ? even though :the Claim was dismissed by his honour:
?Your honour, you asked the Defendants as to where to find the definitions of ?frivolous and vexatious? ? specifically asking whether they were different. I respond as per my work with the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, which is included as part of the Third Defendant.
?Frivolous, is an extreme form or irrelevance. I have established that to qualify as frivolous three ingredients are necessary. They do not include the possibility, however strong it may seem, of, loss of benefits that the verdict is likely to deliver. To my mind, the test for frivolous is ?ownership? established through 3 criteria:
(1) I ought to have suffered pain/ damage
(2) I ought to have provided facts that could be substantiated - through evidence external to myself - that the Defendants were part of the experience that caused me pain and/or damage.
(3) That I had a legal relationship with the Defendant.
?Vexatious claim as per Government policy documents are expressions that criticize government policy and law, outside Due Process. It is not criticism of the person in the position who appears to represent the law. ?
Your honour, you mentioned during the submissions made by the Defendants that I would not be told. That your honour is the Truth. To the extent I identify the statement made by the person, with my own wisdom in a particular issue and law, I am happy to be ?told?. I accept such telling as a mark of respect for the position that the person holds. I follow this in my family life ? to this day with my mother who often ?tells? me what we both know I know.
I pleaded ?guilty? to the 15 September 2003 arrest charges because I did not then know the provisions of the Inclosed Lands Protections Act 1901.
When I know that a person is ignorant of the laws governing our common experience and does not work to know my discoveries through that experience, I refuse to be told by that person. To be told by that person, to my mind would be to contribute to what I consider to be ?breaches of the laws / common principles that bind us as Australians. We think together through such Common Principles. We feel One through Common Values.
If my thinking had been previously approved and recognized at senior levels of Public Administration, I see no need to override my interpretation of the law with that of the person telling me what to do. We just have to recognize that we are not bound by Common Principles in real life ? even though we may both be declared through legal papers as belonging to One family - One UNSW family. One State & One Nation.
UNSW as per my wisdom in the University of New South Wales Act 1989 is a Public Organization and the Public are represented in the Governing Council ? through the Parliamentary Member for Coogee ? my electorate ? The Hon Paul Pearce.
I was at all times during this experience within the Public Area of the UNSW. Any area that is not covered by Administrative rules is a public area. Unless I acted in breach of some other law, which warranted Police action, I was well within my rights as a member of the public ? as I am in this Courthouse.
The Waverley Local Court recognized during the hearing of the 10 November 2003 arrest charges that the Police Officer took instructions from the Senior Advisor to the Vice Chancellor who instructed the UNSW Security Officer, who instructed the Police. I established that Constable Lawson who arrested me did not know the criteria under which Trespass is established. As per the facts confirmed by the evidence submitted, all of the Police Officers who arrested me arrested me because I did not leave when ordered to do so by a UNSW employee. To them UNSW was private property. To me, it is Public enterprise ? not only as per the law but also as per my own investment in the UNSW.
It was by refusing to take orders, that I found to be in breach of my professional principles, that the conflict with the UNSW Central Authorities started. A just and educated assessment of the letter dated 21 October 2004, by the Vice Chancellor of UNSW would establish that he did not have the authority to tell me.
The Police did worse and listed me as Indian / Sri Lankan ? indicating why I was not heard at all. A just assessment of their action would prove that they were guilty of Trespass when they entered the UNSW on the last three occasions when I was arrested. They were guilty of entering without lawful excuse. The first time, they might have thought that I had acted violently.
I have discussed the ruling by her honour Judge Gibson in the submission dated 07 November 2006.
I am an independent user of the law and I feel I am being punished for it.
I have already assured all concerned for sometime now, that these are my last proceedings in this regard. That might help your honour to help not waste court resources looking to dismiss the whole claim permanently.
As for Defamation, all Public records are available to the Public and I believe that I do not have to establish that they have been used. The records have already been used by the First and Second Defendants . The UNSW example is included in my submission dated 06 November 2006. Ideally, I would have submitted that evidence through an affidavit ? but I did not have the time to do so.
In regards to my complaint against her honour Magistrate Pat O?Shane, the NSW Attorney General and the State of New South Wales ? in the Federal Court - I established that Judicial Immunity does not apply to Court Administrators.
State of New South Wales was included as a Respondent but was not addressed by the Magistrate .
In regards to her honour Magistrate Pat O?Shane, I complained only on the part of her honour where her honour in my assessment was acting as an administrator. I do believe that this is not covered by Judicial Immunity.
Likewise, the administrative actions of the doctors who certified me to be mentally ill ? were not covered by Medical Professional Immunity.
The Report from Mr. Carl Webster to Magistrate Pat O?Shane indicated that the Probation and Parole Office recognized grounds for compensation.
Your honour asked me why I did not apply for her honour Magistrate Pat O?Shane to not hear my matter. I did apply at the Registry - and this would be confirmed by the Court Records ? but was told that the Legal Aid solicitor representing me would have to apply to her honour at the following hearing.
The Legal Aid solicitor kept saying to me that Magistrate Pat O?Shane had her heart in the right place. The solicitor asked me to get references from family and community about my standing and hence that letter from my son Pradeep Paramasivam and other members of my community, which were excluded by your honour.
Eventually, her honour Magistrate Pat O?Shane recorded the sentence after my application papers in relation to the Federal Court matter were served on her honour, indicating my independent use of the facilities available to me. I did submit to signing Bail conditions that I had earlier refused to sign and for which I was sent to prison. I did take advise from the Legal Aid Solicitor on the basis that it would be easier for me to fight from the outside than from the inside.
I conclude that it does not seem just to expect a common citizen to know the law at a higher level than law enforcement officers.
Mr. Ruddock, the session was very traumatic for me. My mind broke down many times and I kept drinking glasses of water to steady my shaking body.
As indicated in the attached submission dated 07 November 2006, his honour was very much led by Barrister Colin Hodgson. The transcript of the proceedings of which I intend to apply for copies, would confirm this to a seeker of Truth. I don?t owe it to anyone to prove myself. His honour is free to sue me if he feels defamed. After all, his honour did not think that I was entitled to defamation compensation for being sent to prison and publicly labeled mentally ill, just for ?waiting? in public area to see the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. What?s good for me is good for his honour. It?s high time the Judiciary and the executive government learnt that there is a world beyond themselves that some of us have discovered through our Truth. It is the world of self-governance and independence, with faith in Truth and Natural Justice. Last night, I died as a migrant. I cried and cried and decided to go and live in the St. Yoga Swami Aachramam (Meditation Village) in Vanni ? the capital of the Tamil Tigers. That is where my brother in law lives. What?s good for my brother in law is good for me.
I thought of what happened to me here in Australia ? which country was presented to me by my husband who was invited by the UNSW to migrate to Australia, as a country of honey and milk. Instead, it has turned out to be the land of Paavakkai (bitter gourd ) and cyanide. I thought of leaving behind my whole family and allowed myself the luxury of feeling sorry for myself in the comfort of my own company.
I thought also of my family and friends ?serves them right for not actively supporting my work. Now they can do without me.? I thought of the accommodation in the St Yoga Swami Aachramam ? which is home to poor parents and orphaned parents. I thought of the beds without mattresses and the common dormitories and toilets. The beds without mattresses did not worry me so much. I already sleep on the floor here in Sydney ? to remind myself of the injustice that I have experienced due to my faith in the Australian system of Justice. As for the toilets, I reminded myself of the toilet facilities inside the cell in Mulawa prison and how I had to share that in one instance, with a drug addict who was hallucinating that someone was coming through the door to murder her ? like her twin sister was murdered. That was the night I was brought back from the horror chambers ? of Caritas, St. Vincent?s hospital. I vowed not to eat any food except fruit for the rest of the two year term in prison ? but a kind psychiatric nurse changed my accommodation the following morning and helped me change my mind saying that my food was not contaminated with medication and assured me that the authorities had made a mistake in sending me to the psychiatric section..
Thinking of all this and planning to write a book on all this as I have been invited to time and time again ? so that the Tamil Tigers would not feel that they are the only ones victimized by Western societies and their puppets, I dozed off. During the creative time of the morning Brammah Muhoorthum, I had a vision from Above ? that I am to help Muslims and Tamils including those here in Australia. It came through Shridi Baba ? the previous incarnation of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, my Spiritual Guru.. Sathya Sai Baba stopped me from going back to Sri Lanka, after I heard Ms Pauline Hanson on ABC?s Four Corners program. Red kungkumum powder ? the symbol of Love, appeared on my picture of Him on 05 November 98 ? the day the Auditor General?s report confirming my observations about the UNSW Administrative systems was published in the Sydney Morning Herald. Since then I have proven the Auditor General wrong, by using the open and public discussion on Performance Indicators ? that they cannot be used in audits because they were management tools. In other words, I have proven that Sri Lankan Accounting fundamentals are far stronger than Australian Accounting fundamentals. They may both look the same. But the real test is through the actual values practiced.
This time I felt that the call was for me to propagate that the NSW Attorney General and yourself are continuing to condone the use of ?Frivolous and Vexatious? clauses in legislation, to arbitrarily dismiss legal claims. Yesterday?s Judge also tried hard to dismiss under this clause. The real judgment says that he could not. His honour in accepting my definition said that he could not use the term frivolous to me ? and said that I held deeply entrenched convictions. His honour said that in terms of vexatious also, that he could not apply the usual imputation to me but said that it was difficult to make out what I was pleading for. In summary that the format in which I had made my claim was not in order. My Claim was dismissed on this basis. My basis was as per the rules of the Supreme Court and as per the orders given by her honour Judge Gibson of the District Court, on 16 March 2006. No Judge went through the facts presented as per that Objective format. Like most other documents, including our citizenship papers, that was just for the records to show others that the courts were democratic. But in real life, the way Asian migrants are considered to be ?inferior? to the White Australian, these Objective statements are considered inferior to the Subjective statements made by lawyers. The more expensive those lawyers are the easier it is to win the judge over. My Statement of facts was difficult for the Senior Judge to read and appreciate because it is an Objectively drawn up statement. I did do the summary ? called pleadings which were expressions of my Truth. Naturally, the Judge led by expensive lawyers representing three of the most powerful clients in this country, could not identify with my pleadings. His honour was used to fancy legal language that brought lawyers money and success from those who are fooled by qualifications and style. The Defendants did not make any written pleadings themselves. Their submissions were their pleadings and they were fool of theory.
His honour indicated that he had followed my advise about the Defendants not having followed Due Process and criticized that the ?structure? was lacking in their work. They got the outcome they wanted - but there is a grave error of law in this ruling. His honour stated that the self-represented litigant was a fact of life ? but that it was also causing the Courts much damage. As per my observations, the damage was largely due to lawyers still living in the Subjective world ? the same way Universities are.
In summary, the Courts have failed to draw the line between Administration and Judicial Specialty. The higher the Administrative line, the more democratic the organization. It is within this area that the customer is equal to the supplier until the merit based marking says otherwise. Above that line of demarcation, the supplier is superior to the customer and is allowed discretionary powers. Some parts of this middle part are also administration specific to that profession ? such as Medical Administration and Judicial Administration. The elders of that profession are responsible to monitor these parts. Beyond that is the Truth that the Judge / Doctor identifies with. This is the only part covered by Judicial / Professional immunity. It is the parallel of our statements through affidavits. But here in Australia, affidavit evidence is given to submit facts produced by other sources. Apart from the Strikeout orders and the quotes from the legislation, that seemed to fit the wishes of the lawyers, there was only external evidence submitted by the lawyers under cover of ?affidavit?. These are secret codes through which lawyers inform the judge that the subject - in this instance myself - is a criminal. Ms Claire Smith, Senior Solicitor with the Office of the Crown Solicitor, sent me through courier in the afternoon on Friday 03 November 2006, her affidavit to submit evidence of Criminal Court proceedings dated 29 October 2003, relating to the arrest dated 15 September 2003, transcripts of proceedings in courts, Judgments and a copy of the Supreme Court withdrawal notice which confirms my fact that I withdrew the Supreme Court action on the basis that I faithfully believed that the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales would ?talk? to me. I asked Ms Smith what the purpose was and the Judge responded by saying it was to inform him. I pointed out that that was done through my facts but was ignored. The judge kept ?telling? me that I had to ask questions and not give answers. But when I asked questions the Judge was giving the answers, indicating his fear that his lawyer prodigies might give out the Truth and ruin his game.
The lawyer for the Commonwealth, Senior Solicitor Mr. Ian McNeilly was totally suppressed after I sent him evidence against the Commonwealth. Mr. McNeilly was retired and in the afternoon of Friday, 03 November 2006, I received letter dated 01 November 2006 informing me that Mr. McNeilly had retired and to would not be available for cross examination as requested by me on 19 October 2006. Ms Fisher, the replacement lawyer said in court on Monday 06 November, after I had examined Mr. James Mattson (UNSW) and Ms Petra Zlatevska (State of NSW) ? that Mr. McNeilly was not available for cross examination. His honour asked Ms Fisher whether they knew his contact address and was informed ?no?. I stated the following day that I considered that to be suppression of evidence. I ought to have said suppression of ?witness? but felt that that would have infuriated the judge. As it was he tried to ?tell? me that that was not the case. He tried to bully me by saying that I had received the letter on Friday around 2 o?clock and had not contacted the person stated in the letter ? but instead had done other things. I said that those other things were the studying of the material sent by Ms. Claire Smith on the eleventh hour and more importantly, my response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission about the complaints against the UNSW and the NSW Police which was attached to my submission dated 06 November 2006, to the Courts. His honour asked me most harshly why I had not contacted the person stated in the letter dated 01 November 2006. Instead of asking Ms Fisher as to when and how I was communicated the information, his honour asked me. I gave him the letter and this was retained ? as if to discourage me from publishing it. I asked whether I could submit the list of questions I had prepared to be asked and his honour said ?no?. I attach a copy for your reference. I said that I had done much work to inform Mr. McNeilly and was entitled to examine the mind of the person who received that information. I said I consider the denial of Mr. McNeilly?s mind to be suppression of evidence and his honour told me harshly that he would not have me making such statements. I felt that if I pressed the point, I would be condemned to prison and mental institution ? as her honour Magistrate Pat O?Shane did.
When organizing his work at the start, his honour spoke to the Defendants and stated that they had all three, applied for Strikeout and no mention was made of my application for a hearing of the Strikeout as well as the main trail by a Jury. I spoke up and drew his honour?s attention to my application for a Jury trial. His honour said that that would happen only after the matter was ready to go to trial. In my experience the main trial is heard through the strikeout applications ? both in the Federal Courts and the State Courts. The respondents / defendants submit facts produced by me evidence to support them ? volumes of them ? and then claim that my complaint is lacking in substance !! I have often wondered whether we spoke the same language.
As per my Hindu Tamil mind, proceedings in relation to Strikeout motions on the basis of ?Frivolous, Lacking in Substance and Vexatious? must be heard on ?ownership? basis. It matters not whether the litigant would win or lose. An owner would strengthen the process and the minds of participants ? irrespective of whether s/he wins or loses. It is high time that the Courts rewarded such ownership efforts.
During his judgment of another matter on Thursday, 09 November 2006, his honour referred to passages from law books that said ?cheaply? and also referred to the lower courts as inferior courts. Her honour Judge Gibson also mentioned her desire for cheap litigation and called my claim ?rubbish?. Her successor, his honour Justice Hughes rubbished her honour?s format for ?causes of action? by not even reading the book prepared in that format. Instead he merely referred to her final judgment, copied it into his mind and delivered it as if it were fresh. The Supreme Court judge blindly copied his honour Judge Hugh?s judgment and delivered it as his own but with changes based on the hearing and my submissions. Had the District Court matter been actually heard, the Supreme Court would have delivered better outcomes.
Instead, the Supreme Court heard for much of the time, evidence and opinions about the proceedings in the District Court ? all through the leader of the pack - Barrister Colin Hodgson.
In terms of my application for Jury hearing, I referred to the Supreme Court Practice Notes which provided for such facility. His honour referred to the legislation and stated that the legislation did not allow for Jury hearing in interlocutory proceedings. I said as per my interpretations there was no such distinction. His honour asked me how I would establish that and I said that the law said ?proceedings? and not ?principal proceedings?. His honour accepted that and stated that he was exercising his discretionary powers to deny me jury hearing of the Strikeout applications.
Where a self-represented litigant passes the Administrative test, s/he must be facilitated to be heard by a jury if that is the preference. The excuse given by courts is that jury hearing is expensive. The Truth is that lawyers are expensive but it is all covered up because the Courts are the playgrounds of Judges and lawyers. We, the Public who bring our Truth to the Courts are often ridiculed, defeated and demoralized and financially killed for daring to represent ourselves. My friend Ms Florence Vorhauer with whom I shared the cell of Mulawa prison on Mother?s day last year, was injected with medication for representing herself to defend the criminal charges against her. Florence urged me to leave Mulawa prison before that happened to me. I helped Florence after I came out and Florence is also out of Mulawa prison now ? and we are friends.
Mr. Ruddock, the Court records would show ? that following are some of the deficiencies that polluted the process:
1. The Defendants did not Defend on the basis of Facts. They merely copied the respective sections of the legislation and drafted the orders for the Judge to deliver.
2. I followed Due Process as per the Practice Notes published by the Supreme Court Registry. But the Defendants through their lawyers, led by Barrister Colin Hodgson did not follow the Practice Notes ? either in terms of Defending through facts or in terms of Electing to be heard by Jury
3. The Defendants and the Judge tended to use the forum as their ticket to money and status and hence were distracted away from the core issue of the claim.
4. The Defendants successfully distracted the Judge away from the core issue, by having a go first in informing his honour about what happened ? much of it being speculation and hearsay for them because they were not part of the fundamental experience.
5. Barrister Colin Hodgson did not give affidavit evidence and hence did not have the authority to express his beliefs and worse opinions. Yet he held the floor most of the time. He ought to have limited himself to discussions and presentations of the applicable laws concerned.
6. No discussions were presented as to whether or not the fundamental orders by the Central Administration of the University and later the Criminal Courts were flawed, as upheld through the facts in my Statement of Claim. Facts must speak for themselves and must be read before any pleadings are heard.
7. The Defence was made by presenting the core experience as if the lawyers were present at the scene of the primary experience.
8. Affidavits were filed and served to submit evidence external to the lawyers ? which to my simple mind is in breach of the core purpose for which an affidavit exists.
9. The Judge said that such affidavits and their annexure were towards informing the courts. This is in breach of Practice Notes published by the Supreme Court.
10. This is also in breach of the very basis on which the Defendants claimed that my Claim was Frivolous & Vexatious.
11. The lawyer representing the University of New South Wales ? Mr. James Mattson from Bartier & Perry did not know the difference between ?Frivolous? and ?Vexatious?. He stated they were the same. That is the real standard of the UNSW Faculty of Law, to enter which there is a high mark at the HSC.
12. Mr. James Mattson also insisted on the Judge hearing his pre-prepared speech / submission about why my Claim ought to be dismissed. On the basis of his performance in Court ? that submission is a standard submission that would apply to almost any such Claim. In other words there was little investment in the real issues that were before the court through my Claim. His honour did try to limit Mr. Mattson, but Mr. Mattson persisted. Had I, the lay litigant done that I would have been condemned for contempt of Court. In fact, his honour kept cutting me short and often tried to insult me about the importance of my work ? for example ? about my work for the University of New South Wales ? through the discussions I had with senior Administrators and the Chancellor. His honour indicated that he considered it to be vexatious for a member of the public to question the government on Student Fees issues about which I had communications with the Chancellor Dr. Yu
13. His honour tried also to get me to state that I did not hold any position in the UNSW after 30 November 1999 ? the date given by the lawyer representing the UNSW which was taken as ?fact? by his honour on the basis of the affidavit given by Mr. Mattson and the submission made by Barrister Colin Hodgson. I referred to my ?facts? where I had given full details of work done by me after November 1999 ? at the invitation of UNSW officers, for which I was not paid. The last of this work at their request / invitation was for the Director of Human Resources as a result of which I was paid through Police arrests, prison sentences and enforced treatment to manipulate my thinking to that of the perpetrators. I had project reports that confirmed such work. I submitted the Newsletter by Dr. David Garlick, the founding head of UNSW Sports Medicine, which stated that I was providing services as a Consultant on ongoing basis. I stated that that contract was never lawfully terminated. But his honour refused to hear me. Each time he asked me for evidence indicating that he thought I was lying and I provided such evidence ? he chose to ignore it or gave a different definition of his own to the requirement. In the case of employment payment was the criterion and not work. In fact, during cross examination of Mr. Mattson, I asked about the assessment of work ? on the basis of time ? as stated by him ? rather than work done and value added ? as per the references provided by me through the facts schedule and previously in the District Court matter which his honour stated on the basis of Barrister Hodgson?s opinions, were the genesis of the Supreme Court matter and in the foundation case in the criminal courts. Most of these references came from within the University of New South Wales led by my Higher Education Guru ? Professor Bruce Dowton ? then the Dean of Medicine at UNSW. But his honour was content to be advised by the Defence lawyers who had done very little work to know my standing and to whom my claim for loss of goodwill was to be laughed at. As stated in my submission dated 07 November 2006, his honour and Barrister Hodgson laughed at my claim. The claim of ownership was totally beyond them. And then Prime Minister Howard tries to fool us that once we learn the English language we would become Australians!!!
14. His honour with the help of Barrister Colin Hodgson, tried repeatedly to bully me and to break my spirit and to get through my mouth statements to support his first impressions ? i.e. ? that my pleadings were not proper ? that they did not show a cause of action and therefore to dismiss the matter. In fact his honour went behind the legislation and tried to work out a way to permanently stay the proceedings. How cruel a mind would do that?
15. His honour also tried to put words into the mouths of the lawyers, especially the young lawyer representing the Commonwealth ? towards getting the outcomes he wanted.
16. His honour stated that my son?s letter ?to whom in may concern? stating his feelings about my imprisonment were indignant. Likewise the petition from the Tamil community. But the Court record would show that his honour was very kind to the young lawyers who gave evidence ? as if they were his children. He was very protective of them. Even a bad court record against them was not acceptable to his honour. But according to his honour, my son was out of order in protesting peacefully against his mother?s incarceration. In other words, his honour was encouraging the Tamil community to follow in his footsteps and cover up their own children?s weaknesses and mistakes from the outside world even by suppressing evidence and witnesses and denying earned benefits of their opposition.
17. His honour asked me during the proceedings on Monday who the gentleman in the striped shirt and seated behind me was? I turned around, looked and then responded that it was my husband. My husband gave me a lift to the courts in the morning, then went to UTS to do his teaching work and then he came after the court proceedings had commenced. I did not know that he had come in. His honour wanted my husband to remove himself from the table behind the bar-table, which is usually occupied by assisting lawyers, to the public gallery. He had no feelings that I might have needed the moral support of someone on my side ? against three lawyers representing three very powerful parties fully funded by the Public. My husband promptly removed himself to the Public gallery and I apologized to his honour. But when his honour was delivering his judgment, Barrister Colin Hodgson fell asleep at the bar table and Ms Fisher ? the lawyer representing the Commonwealth and I heard him snore and woke him up. Not a word from his honour about that. Self represented litigants must be allowed to have their own assistants behind them in the section allocated to the legal profession.
18. His honour asked me during Submissions time to refer to the written submission made by the Defendants. I said that I had not read them. I did not want to read the ramblings by Barrister Colin Hodgson which were his ticket to his next job and full of antiquated case history of Autocratic Australia. His honour wanted me to read from paragraph 6 to paragraph 18 under the heading Background facts - to verify for himself whether I had any objections against them. I read through after that ? and said I did against some of them. His honour wanted to know which ones and why. First of all such background facts were required by the Administrative Rules to be submitted through proper Defence papers before the Court hearing and ought to have been part of the Court hearing. When they are given through closing submissions they are towards covering up any lack of knowledge of the actual happenings based on which I was claiming compensation. By asking me whether those facts were correct in my opinion, his honour was indicating that he had come to the end of the hearing without knowing all the facts.
19. I stated that the statement that I had worked until November 1999 was not correct. His honour wanted to know why. I had already gone through that when I cross examined Mr. James Mattson of Bartier & Perry on Monday, 06 November 2006 when I asked him whether he was not aware of my work for UNSW Sports Medicine after that and my work done at the request of Central Administrators just before my arrest in September 2003. I had also submitted through affidavit evidence, the questions I had prepared to be asked of Ms Carol Kirby ? the UNSW Solicitor and these questions would have brought out the answer to the question about my work for UNSW after November 1999. I had asked that Ms Carol Kirby be present at the court for cross examination ? but Ms Kirby was not. His honour said that there was no need for me to examine Ms Kirby ? because her affidavit was only confirming the representation by Bartier & Perry. I pointed out that Ms Kirby had done more than that ? that she had confirmed Defence Statements made by Mr. Mark Cooligan Paul - the solicitor from Bartier & Perry and had stated that she did not have knowledge of facts in my facts schedule. His honour ruled that I did not need to examine Ms Kirby.
20. I confirmed again that I had worked at the UNSW after November 1999 and pointed to material that I had brought with me ? confirming that I had. Most of them were bulky material which I felt would be rejected by the bullying Judge and hence I submitted only a newsletter from Dr. David Garlick ? confirming that my work was on-going and mentioned the other evidence. His honour said that the newsletter was dated September 1999. He then asked me ? must have thought he was being very cunning !! ? whether I held any positions within the UNSW after November 1999. I said no. His honour fooled himself and denied himself the opportunity to learn from me the value of Goodwill work and ownership work. Goodwill work wins people and ownership work creates opportunities.
21. His honour went through the papers submitted by me and returned one set of transcript which was duplicated by me. But later when it came to communication between myself and Mr. Neil Morris ? the Director of Human Resources at UNSW regarding the work Mr. Morris asked me to do in relation to the UNSW Recruitment Guide, his honour kept saying there were duplicates but kept it in the folder of exhibits ? as if to deny me the opportunity to renew my claim through another source at another time.
22. His honour asked me in a ?disciplinary action? tone ? whether I had written to the Chancellor protesting against Student Fee increases in Universities. Obviously, that was not work for his honour. He must be paying his family for all the work they do at home and he must expecting to be paid for the work he does at home. Our Asian culture is different. We do not calculate for Common Family work.
23. His honour asked me what other objections I had about those paragraphs in the submission. I said I objected to the statement in paragraph 9 which said ?During the period April 2003-September 2003 the Plaintiff sent various e-mails requesting meetings with the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales and to other officers of the University of New South Wales.? To me, that was not a fact. I was misleading by omission. I have been sending emails to UNSW staff including the Vice Chancellors ? since 1999 but the above statement gives the impression that it was only from April 2003. A read of my facts schedule would have informed his honour of the facts ? as they happened and not as per the whim and fancy of the defence lawyers. His honour asked me whether I had sent emails. I said yes but that apart from the emails after talks broke down between the Director of Human Resources and I, when I did ask for the matter to be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor ? I had not asked for appointments to see the Vice Chancellor during that period. When I tried to elaborate and recreate the scene for his honour, his honour cut me short in a very stern tone and asked me to answer to his question. I said I did not agree with what was said in that paragraph.
24. His honour asked which other paragraphs I did not agree with. I said that the statement in paragraph 10 stating ?She was asked to not attend at the university on 15 September 2003? was incorrect. His honour asked me why? I said because I was not asked not to attend. I said I had applied for the position of Senior Assistant Accountant within the Faculty of Medicine in May 2003 but was not even called for an interview. I said I had asked to know, as part of the advisory process to improve recruitment at UNSW, to know how I had fared against the candidate who won the position. I said I had given the assurance that I would not take legal action on the basis of that particular matter . I said at first the Director of Human Resources did promise to give me the information but that later he refused to. I said that what when I had asked to be put on to the Vice Chancellor. I said then I was threatened with security action. His honour said that was asking me not to come to the University. I said not so ? that was threatening me with security action. To the less courageous that might seem the same. But not to me.
25. His honour asked me whether I agreed with any of the paragraphs in that part of the submission. I said I had no objection in relation to paragraphs 7, 8, 12,13 and 16 except where the section of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 under which I was arrested was misquoted by the Defendants. I said also that the submission included excerpts from transcripts and Judgments which did not need my certification and in fact it would be wrong of me to express an opinion on them. They were objective evidence which could be verified by any interested party. His honour was obviously trying to get my endorsement ? so I would effectively dismiss myself. Wishful thinking indeed. My Tamil brains are too smart for that.
Mr. Ruddock, I can go on and on about the breaches of protocols and deviations from Due Process. Compared to many other Judges, including of the Federal Courts, his honour was far more involved and I appreciate that very much. The smartest Judge I have thus far come across is his honour Justice Gyles of the Federal Court who did find that I had proven my case in my complaint of Racial Discrimination against Ms Milena Juraszek of Health Services Australia Ltd. But his honour Justice Gyles made the mistake of reserving judgment after Dr. John Griffith who represented also Mr. Howard, the Prime Minister ? jumped up and said that his client?s reputation would suffer if his client was found guilty. Extemporary judgments are fairer to self-represented litigants. Once Judges go into their chambers they seem to be subjected to peer pressure.
His honour Justice Sackville of the Federal Court of Australia is the judge most committed to Due Process.
His honour Judge Moore of the Federal Court who heard my first case against the NSW Ombudsman is the kindest Judge.
His honour who heard the matter on Monday and Tuesday is the most involved Judge and hardest working of all and is the one I consider to be most suited to lead the development of Restructure of the Courts to recognize the special contribution from the Public through self-represented litigants.
I went back to Court on Thursday, 09 November, to support George ? another self-represented litigant who told my husband and I on Tuesday that he goes to pieces after the hearings and had to take medication to go to sleep. His case was one where his ex-wife filed a case for compensation on the basis of domestic violence and the Victims? Compensation Fund authorities instituted proceedings against George for recovery of those monies. George said that he was sent to prison over the matter and that thus far no one has even apologized. I did not need to know the details of the case. Just a brief interaction with George helped me appreciate that he felt genuinely wronged. I therefore went to courts to morally support George. I was the only one in the Public gallery, and I kept praying for George and his honour did set aside the verdict of the lower courts and I was happy for George. I advised George to let go and said that the opinions of those who were not just and fair themselves did not matter. I said that the system was in a mess and that we must help other members of the public prevent themselves from becoming victims.
Mr. Ruddock, I believe that this needs to be through strengthening of the Court Process. On Monday, when I entered the Court House, Security Officer ? whose name I now know to be Mark ? assisted me with my heavy bags ? full of files ? most of which were not used by his honour. On Tuesday, when I walked in through the doors, Mark came forward and took my backpack off my shoulders and lifted my heavy bags on to the security belt. These officers are also part of the courthouse. If , like the NSW Police, Mark had suspected me to be a terrorist ? my misery would have started at the entrance to the Courthouse and not in the specific courtroom.
The finally visible outcomes are for quick and casual users who are majority persons I interact with. The process and the experience is for the long-term owners. If the process is weak, the indicators are that ownership is weak.
Until the self-represented litigant is facilitated to lead the hearing, the court proceedings would continue to suffer from serious deficiencies and would continue to be the source of mental depression and mental illness not only for litigants but also for judges who seek to seriously serve their community.
Democracy is not as it may seem at first glance. Higher Education and Democracy compete with each other. Status suppresses democracy as was proven time and time again during the proceedings in the Supreme Court. Money buys over any investment in democracy. Those who submitted to autocracy would in turn become autocratic when they get into those positions. Only self-sacrifice on the basis of Truth, by one generation would help us succeed through the system of Democracy.
I have had enough of this Equal Opportunity lies. In theory it is right. But it also limits us to low levels of activity with a tendency to be money oriented. Money has two sides and hence it is easy to calculate whether we are equal or not. It would be more productive to use the positive wording by stating that where a person ?looks? and / or is known to be of different race, ethnic origin, gender, age, physical and mental ability and intimacyual preference ? then the Objective merit base must be expressly used and Objective evidence must be produced to support any decisions and divisions made. Any custodian of authority who fails to produce such evidence is automatically guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Without discrimination on the basis of at least some of the above factors, there would be very little diversity. The wording of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, works against diversity. As per that legislation, we are all acting unlawfully, each time we invest in our specific cultures. There are times when we want to be with those who are naturally like us. His honour looked exhausted on Tuesday because of our cultural difference. He was strong in his culture and I in mine. It did not seem that difficult for his honour when I looked meek and gullible. But when I felt hard and strong and he failed to break me down, his honour started showing signs of exhaustion. After I handed over my written submissions to be read by his honour as well as the Defendants, I heard Barrister Colin Hodgson make indignant noises. This meant that my submission ? especially the one dated 07 November 2006, pointing to breaches in the process, were giving anxieties of Defamation pain / Loss of Goodwill to Barrister Colin Hodgson. On Monday, Barrister Hodgson and his honour laughed at my claim. They already have awarded me the opportunity, which is part of the claim ? to publicize their actions. I have already made rich investment in the reporting media thanks to Sri Lankan Tamils. The University of Jaffna has already published my work. Who knows? One day the University of Jaffna might open its branch here in Homebush.
The thought of working in my natural environment relaxes me and is curing me. It?s like working from the lap of Mother Nature. We all need this to a degree and hence the need for limits to Anti Discrimination Laws. By believing in your system driven by the theory of Equal Opportunity, I went to the edges of actually becoming mentally ill. It is only by deep faith in God that has protected me. Right now, I am not talking to any member of my family or friends. I spoke to my mother on the morning after Judgment when I my husband and I planned to sell the home-unit and move to Homebush and live a rented unit ? and symbolize how we had failed here in Australia. I felt that would
be the best way to symbolize my life here in Australia. I communicated this to my mother ? so she would not stress thinking that I would run away to Vanni ? in Sri Lanka?s North. I spoke also to my son who the best child to understand me without needing too many explanations. He was very upset about it ? even though the sale would have meant money for him and his sisters. But gradually, my husband said that he could not go through the sale and the financial management that it entailed all by himself. The thought of calculated moves in this Australian system literally causes me pain in the head. I am ill alright ? and I was holding out until the Supreme Court hearing was completed. Now, I have told all concerned that either they do not bother me with the material aspects of family life or I go away to Vanni. I have refused to speak to family and friends. I just can?t. I spoke briefly to my mother this morning and she cried in relief. My mother said that she was having chest pains due to anxiety about me and said that she had thought how much worse it would be for me. My mother wanted me to talk to my brother who is like a son to me ? but I said no. I said I could not take family life any more because they are part of the Western world which has failed me. I said now I understood why Buddha left his family overnight. I said to my mother as a concession ? for her to ring me when she needed to talk to me. Not otherwise. I said people tended to talk on the basis of their own weak investment in the issues and said that that would be upsetting for me. I said I needed to live with myself and my Truth. Likewise I live with my husband only because he has expressed a need for me. When my husband is not able to make enough money for our living which includes high mortgage, we propose to sell the home-unit. The way we would divide the money is ? to distribute our children?s shares towards their investment in homes; a token of appreciation to my mother and the rest to be divided equally between my husband and I. Your system would still have access to my share and it would then be easier for you to recover the money in its liquid form. It would be interesting to see who would dare.
Yesterday, Friday, 10 November 2006, I received letter dated 9 November 2006, from Mr. James Mattson, Associate, Bartier Perry ? claiming costs of $9,300 and a promised discount of $1,800 if I paid within 14 days. I find it so hard to digest that University staff would be so callous and so cheap. This is what happens when we seek solutions through cheap courts.
It is interesting to note that the UNSW is claiming only $9,300 for a much longer hearing and a more complex case whilst the Crown Solicitor charged $53,014.50 for the District Court matter which his honour considered to be the genesis of the Supreme Court matter. In fact, much of his honour?s hearing was of what happened at the District Court. This to me is in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
His honour read from my statement of injuries ? that I felt alone and miserable and has delivered punishment to make it worse. That is how cruel the minds of judges have become. It?s accumulated cruelty ? the cruelty that started with the UNSW was added to on the way ? and the compounded punishment was delivered through the Supreme Court.
Until the meaning of Frivolous and Vexatious are legally defined, and objections to format are limited to Objective assessment ? the Courts would become an expensive medium through which lawyers and judges swindle money from the Public ? through our taxes and through those who seek the Courts as the medium for Conflict Resolution. This in turn often results in anger, alienation and separation not only of the opposition but also against the Judiciary and the Government that is responsible for Due Process. The government hides behind Judicial Immunity and incurs opportunity cost which translates as terrorism.
I myself would not directly attack my opponents at the physical level. That is the way of the UNSW which called the Police to arrest me ? not once but four times. I am an intellectual fighter and I will continue to fight intellectually. But if your government and its agencies continue to cover up and avoid the Truth, my pain will go towards self ? governance for Asian migrants ? especially for Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims. I will do it the right way ? and who knows, one day Australia would be governed by Asians.
Right through the delivery of Reasons of Judgment on Tuesday, 07 November 2006, I clung to the picture of my Spiritual guru, Sri Sathya Sai Baba. That picture was sent to me through the internet by a Sri Lankan Australian at University of Wollongong, who was very appreciative of my contributions to development of Peace in Sri Lanka, through Lankanewspapers.com . The communication came to me on 22 March 2006. I printed it and in the printed version, due to some flaw in my printer ? the picture came out as if Sri Sathya Sai who was speaking through a microphone, was wearing a wig ? like the one his honour was wearing. It is strange that his honour asked me at the beginning of the hearing to place the microphone on the folder with the picture of Sri Sathya Sai. To others it may seem like mere coincidence. To me it is a miracle. The message in words is:
?I do not make decisions only on your present situation. For I have known the past, more than you can ever remember, and I see your future ahead. I decide, when I look at your past Karmas, your present spiritual effort. That determines your future. Spread your hands, ask for My grace, spiritually discipline yourself and leave the rest to Me.?
Mr. Ruddock, I kept reading over and over again during delivery of Judgment the last part of the message ? ?leave the rest to Me?. I have done my best and am leaving the rest to Him. In concluding I strongly suggest that your government and the State government re-mark our work on the basis of the material already available to the Courts. If you remove all opinions that were delivered outside Due Process you would see that the results would uphold the fact that my Claim has substance. The Claim, including the Book of Causes of Action, is in a format that the lay person would relate to. Please facilitate for it to go for a Jury hearing.
Right now, I personify the Truth that at UNSW, with the NSW Police and the Courts ? both State and Federal as well as other government agencies ? there is little democracy. The message I stand for is ? if a minority person follows Due Process to stand up for her earned benefits and opportunities ? she will be punished as a mentally ill criminal. Right now even little things like opening the mail box or speaking to a solicitor in relation to the sale of our home gives me throbbing pain in my head. It is mental illness alright in a world of lies and deception. It is time you acted as per your conscience. Otherwise the karma would come back strong and hard ? to hurt all Australians who are part of your circles and benefit from that status. The pain I feel now ? would be felt by University Administrators, Court Administrators and the Executive Government.
I have realized by actually practicing the system of democracy, that it is the more difficult one for the better educated person. In other words, Higher Education and Democracy compete with each other. Democracy is not for feelers. It is for thinkers. Given that majority people do not think by including others, but rather think selfishly and in the case of women, emotionally, democracy is more for showcasing and for economic purposes than for real use. Democracy would work only when the custodians of power are not allowed to use discretionary powers at all. Once discretionary powers start working, there is no Equality or Equal Opportunity except where such discretionary powers are used to elevate the ?natural status? of the minority party in a conflict. This is usually done by someone who feels naturally connected to that minority ? as family and or community.
Traditional powers are intuitively carried and if one were asked to explain logically, that would be very difficult. During the Court cases for example, I relied heavily on the power of Manu Neethi - the Hindu Justice system ? so I would not unwittingly rob my opponents of their earned benefits and / or opportunities. The Personification of that Hindu Justice system during my times is Sri Sathya Sai Baba. One only needs to participate in the group activities carried out in His name, to appreciate this. There are those who feel connected to Him through Love. They are the mothers ? the feelers whose power is preserved with not needing to explain logically. This is the deep power that we have lost or at least weakened due to democracy. Women who earn money and status have to think. When you think, you cannot feel. Hence the power of the mother has been weakened in Western society. The only way to recoup that is through Truth. It is not by influencing Asians also to lose their mothers.
Common Principles and Truth / Common Values cannot be used at the same time. Common Principles are the path of thinkers. Common Values are the path of feelers. Those who think, do not feel at that time and v.v. The person who has invested most and all those who follow that person consciously are the leaders of a group. Others must live in Truth. To use traditional terms, Fathers and sons are thinkers and Mothers and daughters are feelers. I have done both and have suffered deeply, by trying to work both systems. Judges who are committed to their work, often feel and deliver judgment. To them, that is the right way. But to a migrant that is wrong because the migrant does not feel with the Judge. The migrant feels with other migrants.
Our governments and their agencies have failed to keep our systems efficient. Hence they do not know how to work the system of democracy. Hence we, the people cannot rely on the outcomes. It has become a real gamble. This is why I feel like screaming when someone gives credit to the ?system?, above Truth. A caring friend said ? it was like in the story ?One Flew Over the Cuckoo?s Nest?. I do not know the story in detail ? but as an English Australian, you might know what he meant.
In essence, Mr. Ruddock, I am saying that right now, you and I do not belong in one group. If it did not work out for me here in Australia through your system , it would not work out for any Asian migrant, through your system. We would continue to be second-class citizens ? because you have not kept your systems efficient. You did not make the sacrifices necessary to help democracy work. If you had not tempted us with that system, we would have accepted our lower status and realized independence through such lower status. We would not have had the war in Sri Lanka. We would not have had 9/11 tragedy. Had majority Muslims and Tamils been tempted by Democracy ? they would not have taken revenge at the physical level ? an eye for an eye. They would have become mentally ill and committed suicide mentally and with time physically. This is what?s happening in White Australian society also but more so for Asian migrants. I have discovered the answers for them too ? by sticking to my Pariah (Toilet Cleaner) status. All those who use it will be saved. Implement the definition I have given for Frivolous and Vexatious or Lacking in Substance ? at the administrative level and require judges to establish Objectively through those tests that a matter is lacking in substance. Otherwise you would not have ownership work and hence only alienation work through discretionary powers. Lawyers would continue to work to get into the higher positions and / or to influence higher positions ? and that is NOT democracy. When you implement that definition at the admin level ? the Courts would automatically lose much of the excessive costs ? in time and money ? and become efficient. If you fail to do this, Asian migrants would continue to wage war against governments and White Australians would lose their investment in the system of democracy which would not have the stage on which to work.
Discretionary powers work against democracy and ownership through the Objective path.
For myself, I propose to develop our own cultural system ? based on Hindu Manu Neethi and supported by the Tamil system of Jaffna ? Thesa Vallmai. (Customs of the Land). This would help me heal by feeling that my work has not been wasted. I already counsel victims, on this basis and the Sai Centers teaching Human Values and other humanitarian groups are very supportive and all I require is time to myself and with those who feel with me. Enough is enough. I have tried and tried to educate your governments and it does not work. I am not bound by your government or your judiciary. I am bound by my Truth. You have supported the actions of those who killed Jesus. Hindus and Muslims have continued to use God as the ultimate Judge ? more than Christians ? because Hindus and Muslims continue to feel more and have faith in their elders. When we have faith ? we do not question whether the leader is right or wrong. We follow with faith and find out ? as I did by having faith in your government. I now know that it was never my government. The governments have failed the ownership test.
As a person, I consider you to be my friend. This will protect you from being singled out for punishment through the system of Natural Justice. I have and am continuing to go through much mental pain. Even a little bit of thinking is hurting me and my family are at the receiving end. The other alternative is for me to go away and live in Vanni. I have to heal myself in my own way - by living in my Truth. All those who want lies, must stay away from me as most of your government led by Mr. Howard have chosen to do. Australia has given up on her Mother ? Mother Mary. Hence the curse from feelers to shallow thinkers.
Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
CC: All Concerned, including:
The Hon Kofi Annan ? Secretary General of the United Nations
The Hon Louise Arbour ? UN High Commissioner for Human Rights OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland
The Hon John von Doussa, QC ? President, Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission
The Hon John Howard, MP ? Prime Minister .
The Director, Human Rights Brach of the Australian Commonwealth Attorney Genreal?s Dept.
The Hon Peter Debnham, MP ? Leader of the Opposition ? State of NSW
The Hon Morris Iemma, MP ? Premier, NSW
Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW
Edited By - Gaja - 12 Nov 2006 23:35:21 GMT