Towards this they have produced in Court many documents – including the report of the psychologist - that was issued towards helping me release myself from prison in 2005. The second last document they produced in court – without prior notice and without time for me to prepare my submission on it - was my Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Australia’s Responsibility to Protect’, in response to article dated 05 November 2011 , entitled ‘Criticism of Sri Lanka ignores Tiger threat’ by Mr. Greg Sheridan - Foreign Affairs Editor of The Australian) article .
l by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
(01 July, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I opened Bigpond news and noted the headlines ‘Let Asylum seekers fly in – Plamer’
I continued to read the message ‘The Australian government should allow asylum seekers to fly into Australia at one tenth of the cost of coming on people smugglers' boats, says billionaire Clive Palmer. Mr Palmer says the federal government's position on not issuing visas to asylum seekers fleeing Indonesia fuelled the people smuggling trade. The mining tycoon said the government should allow asylum seekers to pay their own plane fare into Australia. 'We can say you can buy a ticket if you believe you're a refugee and you can come to Australia in normal transport at one tenth the cost',' he told journalists at the Federal Liberal party conference in Melbourne on Saturday. 'The ones that get here, allow them to be processed; the ones that are not legitimate, send them back on the next flight.' Mr Palmer said Australians collectively bore the responsibility of asylum seekers drowning at sea. 'We can eliminate the people smugglers. We can eliminate the problem. We can eliminate the drownings. We can treat people as human beings.' Mr Palmer said he did not approve of the offshore processing supported by both major parties. 'What sort of a nation are we if we don't follow our international responsibilities and allow people to come here safely?' he said. The council delegates unanimously passed a motion that condemned the federal government's policy of onshore processing of asylum seekers, and called on it to strengthen border protection policy.’
I myself am still recovering from the lesson I have learnt about these ‘asylum seekers’ from within our family. On Thursday in Paramasivam v Sabanathan which was heard at the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I received blow after blow – learning the return of my ‘karma’ in sponsoring ‘refugees’ from Northern Sri Lanka. Escalated to the National level – these individuals would influence another 9/11 – my husband and I being the parallels of the Australian Government that hands out welfare status to their would-be refugee families.
I diligently prepared to examine the minds of the witnesses (also Defendants) in court. (Appendix 1) and had subpoenas issued through Due Processes. But these Vattukottai asylum seekers through their hired solicitor and barrister – applied for the subpoenas to be set aside. The picture that came to my mind was of the Defendants prostrating at the feet of White Australian Lawyers – begging them to use their ‘Business’ powers to have me listed as a Vexatious Litigant in New South Wales. I said to the Judge if these litigants who are low investors in law and order are successful in having me thus listed – then I was likely to return to Sri Lanka, because I would consider such an order most unjust and unfair. Mentally after defeats in court – I have limited my work to the community. Now after this – if they are successful – I need to go back to ‘where these ex-refugee leaders of the Tamil community say I belong’ – Northern Sri Lanka.
Towards this they have produced in Court many documents – including the report of the psychologist - that was issued towards helping me release myself from prison in 2005. The second last document they produced in court – without prior notice and without time for me to prepare my submission on it - was my Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Australia’s Responsibility to Protect’, in response to article dated 05 November 2011 , entitled ‘Criticism of Sri Lanka ignores Tiger threat’ by Mr. Greg Sheridan - Foreign Affairs Editor of The Australian) article . The highlighted section quotes me as follows: ‘In the eyes of Sri Lankans, LTTE did commit atrocities but if Sri Lanka is to be taken as a Sovereign Nation, these need to be relative to the Government’s own actions against the Tamil Community – again seen through Sri Lankan eyes and not Australian eyes that have almost no insight in this regard. If not for the pain and loss experienced by the Tamils as a Community, LTTE would not have had the mandate and therefore the support especially moral support of Tamils.
The strange ‘commonality’ I noticed later was that the above included my comments that the Australian Politicians had almost ‘no insight’ into our problem. The Defendants’ lawyer kept claiming that I had ‘no insight’ into their legal makeup. They state in their submission ‘The Plaintiff’s own evidence demonstrates the Plaintiff’s complete lack of insight into the correctness or otherwise of her conduct’.
To me the ex-refugee Defendants, through their hired lawyers – have returned the ‘lacking in insight’ charges I made against our Australian Political leaders. To me it was no coincidence.
These Defendants through their lawyer described me as a ‘serial litigant’ – which sounds like ‘serial killer’. That to me was the return of my changes that they – including the former Prime Minister of Australia – Mr. John Howard against whom also I instituted proceedings on the basis of unlawful racial discrimination, were serial racists. Another statement made is ‘The Plaintiff admits to publishing the letter and report on the internet, does not dispute the content of the report of Dr. Wilcox and admits that she has not taken any medication for mental illness’ That was my karma for protecting and finding a ‘home’ for a member of the Defendants’ immediate family, who was isolated as a mentally ill person and whose son was the first one I sponsored to migrate to Australia – when my husband and youngest daughter were seriously injured when crossing the road. With two invalids – one on crutches and continuing to receive treatment for collapsed jaw and crushed lip – and the other in braces for back injuries – I sponsored this relative – the Fifth Defendant in the matter – to come to Australia on the basis that I needed help. The Fifth Defendant – went about in pursuit of his own desires. I heard his lawyer say in Court that I had not provided ‘conduct money’ for the witness to come to court to give evidence. This was claimed despite my note in this regard – that the money would be deposited in his bank account (as per our previous pattern) once he provided us with the estimated costs of travel.
The passages highlighted by the Defendants – (ex-refugees) included the following:
‘Mr. Sheridan says ‘Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign minister for 11 years of the war, tells me: "I know the Sri Lankan government played very hard ball and committed some human rights abuses, but it's a wonderful thing the Sri Lankan government won that war. I have always regarded the Tamil Tigers as absolutely a terrorist organisation."’
Australians like Mr. Downer, are relatively remote to the Sri Lankan problem and hence their conclusions would largely be outcome based, as confirmed by Mr. Downer himself, through his reference to the Sri Lankan Government winning the war. A true Sri Lankan would not ‘show’ his win that demotes the ‘other’ side Sri Lankan, in the eyes of outsiders. In Democracy, we show our work and the Opposition shows its work. One with majority approval takes the lead. Had Mr. Downer understood these fundamentals and applied them in his work – he would not now be known as one of the shortest serving Leaders of the Opposition in Australian Parliament and also one who did not lead his party into an election……… Mr. Sheridan says ‘In 2007, several Sydney and Melbourne men were arrested for providing funds to the Tamil Tigers. They were charged with terrorism offences but, because Canberra had not listed the Tigers as a terrorist organisation, the charges were downgraded to supplying funds to a UN-proscribed organisation. The courts heard evidence that more than $1 million had gone to the Tigers from Australia, and electronic components that were used in terrorist bombings had also come from here.
The men were convicted of the lesser charges and given suspended sentences. The prosecutions occurred as similar charges were laid against other men of Tamil background in several other Western nations. The Sri Lankan government in 2005 provided Western governments with intelligence and urged them to act to stop the flow of funds to the Tigers. These funds, though billed as humanitarian relief, were essential to the Tigers' ability to continue their terrorist campaign.’
During the period 08 November to 13 November 2006, I wrote my last substantive letter to the Hon Philip Ruddock, who was then our Attorney General, about my legal experiences. The first part of the letter reads as follows:
‘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’- Mahatma Gandhi
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…….My letter to Mr. Ruddock ran into 18 pages. Soon after, I had a call to talk about my experiences at a Ladies’ Day meeting of Sai Baba devotees. As part of this group, I felt the need to help the above Tamils in custody. If they were wicked Terrorists – I would not have felt that need unless I was myself a wicked Terrorist. ‘
’
To these ex-refugees, I am now the Vexatious Litigant – another form of Terrorist – all because I handed out ‘Australian Status’ – like a welfare benefit. I failed to insist that they earned it – including by coming in boats or ‘staying back at Vattukottai’ – where they pretend naturally to submit to elders and the armed forces including the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Army.
Appendix 1
As you would be aware, an application has been made to this Court, including on your behalf to Dismiss my Statement of Claim and also to have me listed as a Vexatious Litigant. Evidence has been produced on your behalf to support this application.
I have stated at paragraph 4.80 of my affidavit: I affirm my belief that my husband and I carried the responsibility to ensure that those sponsored by us were seen to be part of our family unit and NOT independent refugees. I confirm that I had/have knowledge of others in our community with closer relationships to family members than the Defendants had with us, whose applications were rejected by the Australian Immigration Authorities. I affirm my belief that I had the social responsibility to demonstrate to wider community that it was our credit as sponsors that resulted in our family members being more successful in migrating to Australia, than others who were known to have suffered more due to the war. I affirm my belief that this helps promote good & genuine Australian sponsorship which I believe is strongly needed for Australia to be a successful nation of immigrants. ‘
The next set of questions I ask you would be to substantiate the above and also to highlight that I USE the institutions that uphold law and order and that I do not abuse them.
1) As you would be aware, even recently, refugees from Sri Lanka arrived in Australia by boat
2) Would you confirm to this Court that you were sponsored by my husband and I to come to Australia
3) Would you confirm to this Court that when you arrived in Australia, you initially lived with us at 906/56, Carr Street; Coogee, as part of our family
4) Would you confirm that my husband and I closely monitored your conduct and specifically your progress in relation to your education and later your employment?
5) At that point in time – would you say you treated us as being of higher status – for example your guardians?
6) Would you confirm that I am related to you as per Australian Marriage Law through which I am the lawful wife of your uncle Mr. Subramainiam Paramasivam
7) Would you confirm that when you came from Jaffna to Colombo with your uncle Mr. Sabanathan who is listed in this case as the Second Defendant, your cousin Nithi refused to accommodate you at her place and you were very upset and cried over the phone to us saying ‘I have no one to stay with; let the army take me’?
8) Would you confirm to this court that my husband & I arranged with the Second Defendant’s sister to find you appropriate ‘paid’ accommodation and that we remitted funds towards this?
9) Would you confirm that we were taking over the responsibility of your parents in doing this for you?
10) When you said ‘let the army take me’ – were you saying that they would take you because you as per your knowledge of yourself were a Tamil Tiger and therefore legally a Terrorist in Sri Lanka or were you saying that the Army and therefore the Government of Sri Lanka would according to your assessment - abuse their power and therefore arrest you just because you were a young Tamil from Northern Sri Lanka?
11) If latter, do you consider this to be a vexatious statement against the Government of Sri Lanka considering that you were a Sri Lankan citizen at that time?
12) Would you confirm that your parents continue to be legally Sri Lankan citizens and that they have nominated themselves as the legal Administrators of the Estate of my brother in law and your uncle – Mr. Subramaniam Yoganathan.
13) As you would be aware, my husband and I have strongly objected to this nomination on the basis of our assessment that brothers of the Deceased are the rightful heirs as per the Laws of Northern Sri Lanka – which include Thesawalamai – the Customary Law of Tamils.
14) At paragraph 43, of the Defendants’ Affidavit there is reference to a document , marked ‘JL30’ described as an email comprising a letter to Mr. Keith de Krester as well as the psychiatric report of the Plaintiff (myself) undertaken by Dr. Rosalie Wilcox following the release of the Plaintiff on bail after her arrest in 2005. (produce that as exhibit 1). I draw your attention to the statements by me to Mr. Keith de Krester ‘At first read I felt appalled that a fellow Sri Lankan would publicly write to a position that is a part of the highest official position in Sri Lanka. Given that you carry the name ‘Sri Lanka’ in your current position as President of Help Sri Lanka Inc., you degrade your own position by trying to degrade the position of President of Sri Lanka. Until we are driven by Truth – we have the responsibility to work within the official structures and their positions, through which many outside our physical circles invest in the common institution – in this instance Sri Lanka.’
15) Did you take any action against Mr. Keith de Krester – socially or legally over his ridicule of the President of Sri Lanka through Sri Lanka’s lawful representative – the Consul General of Sri Lanka.
16) I draw your attention to the following paragraphs in that document where I state : ‘I realized through my direct experiences, that if I had won legally, I would have set the precedence to others who think they are like me to ‘use’ the system which is not strong enough to deliver judgment on racial equality. All our pain and loss could be described in many forms and to the extent they are based on our belief – they would all be ‘right’ in their appropriate forums. Mine was the wider Australian Public because I had diligently followed Due Process and matured beyond administration. Given that majority Australian Tamils did not share my pain – I concluded that it was the wrong form for them. Like the Tamils of Ceylon, Australian Tamils are currently seeking to elevate their economic base and to them the same loss would seem to be part of General Administrative problem rather than racial. Only those who have contributed strongly to racial equality would give it racial ‘form’ and rightly so. Others do not have the fundamental right to take action except within the limits set by their carers. Hence in this context, what you see as being ‘brazen’ could be seen by me as commitment to Due Process.’
17) As per the above, I have confirmed that the Australian Tamil Community which you are a part of, did not have strong investment in racial equality. Have you made strong investment in Racial Equality in Australia? Would you as per your knowledge, say that your investment is stronger than mine?
18) Do you consider yourself to be of Equal or higher status than I in the world of Law and Order – high enough to have me listed as a Vexatious Litigant?
19) I refer to the following paragraph written by me and included in the document produced by you: ‘Positions are most important because they help us invest in the ‘common’ family rather than through individuals – some of whom we may like more than others. Using my Air Lanka training – I would say that Multilateral agreements are far more global and promote global commonness than bilateral agreements. The current move by the Australian Government to invest in a ‘regional processing center’ to manage asylum seekers is an acknowledgement that they are not able to effectively use global systems. I discovered this through my own legal actions using our Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which includes the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. Through the Due Processes that I followed, I discovered that majority of our judges were not conscious of this global standard at all and hence hastily applied the general rules that they already knew – irrespective of whether it was appropriate or not. Thus the base model itself is flawed. As I said to a Colombo Tamil this morning, when things go wrong they blame god – even though the system was not structured by god. God’s system is Nature / Truth. The account in Appendix 2 confirms what happens in Australia, to believers driven by Truth at the National level. But we still canonized Mother Mary MacKillop. ‘
20) Do you identify with my reference to Australians canonizing Mother Mary Mackillop – as a Saint
21) Yet – they have declared that I am a mentally ill person – due to my faith in Hindu Saints?
22) Do you identify with my statement in the above letter “To blame the highest position of a nation, you need to have matured ‘beyond administration’ – the official structure of humans. Have you ever found fault with the head of a nation through Due Processes? If yes, then you do have the authority to find fault with the highest position of the nation of Sri Lanka. Otherwise you have to start using Due Processes which at the current time are UN systems for you or you have to work through Sri Lankans who have lawful authority to the protection of Due Process.“
23) Do you recall that in 1997, just before leaving, Colombo for Chennai in India, I spoke to the Second Secretary – Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka, to communicate to her that you were an important member of my family and that it was a need for us to not lose any more members of our family to the war? Do you recall knowledge of this?
24) Do you recall that soon after, you were asked by the Australian High Commission to produce confirmation of the relationship with my husband Mr. Subramainiam Paramasivam through production of his birth Certificate. Do you recall ringing up our daughter Uma at our Sydney home – at 906/56, Carr St; Coogee – to ask for copy of this document?
25) Do you recall that we later advised you that our daughter had informed us when we called her from India and that we had directed her to the files that contained the Birth Certificate – a copy of which Uma duly forwarded to you for the purposes of confirmation of family connection to the Australian High Commission
26) Would you confirm to this court that Mr. Subramainiam Tharmalingam - the 8th Defendant in this matter and my husband and the late Mr. Subramainiam Yoganathan are all brothers of your mother Mrs. Sakthidevy Mahadevan – the Sixth Defendant in this matter.
27) As per our cultural hierarchy /order – would you say that Mrs. Anandaletchumy Tharmalingam – the wife of the 8th Defendant in this matter has equal or higher status than I
28) As per Legal Order / Hierarchy – would you say that Mrs. Anandaletchumy Tharmalingam – the wife of the 8th Defendant in this matter has equal or higher status than I the wife of Mr. Subramainiam Paramasivam
29) At your workplace, do you perform higher level work than your seniors? If yes, then do you expect status and/or money reward for such work?
30) Would you confirm that as per cultural order, I did higher level work for you than (a)Mrs. Anandaletchumy Tharmalingam ; (b)Mr. Tharmaratnam Sabanathan ;
31) Would you confirm that as per legal order all of us are Equal?
32) Do you oblige Mr. Tharmaratnam Sabanathan more than you oblige me?
33) Would you therefore agree that your demonstrated respect for Mr. Tharmaratnam Sabanathan is higher than your demonstrated respect for me.
34) Does this have any legal validity?
35) Would you confirm that the first Defendant in this matter Mrs. Saraswathy Sabanathan and your mother are sisters?
36) Between my husband Mr. Subramainiam Paramasivam and Mrs. Saraswathy Sabanathan, whom do you oblige more? Would you therefore agree that your demonstrated respect for Mrs. Saraswathy Sabanathan is higher than your demonstrated respect for my husband ?.
37) In terms of Immigration issues, who would you say earned the highest status within the family - on merit basis ?
38) What has been your contribution to upholding this status?
39) Do you have any knowledge at all about refugees arriving in Australia by boats and that many of them come at the risk of losing their lives?
40) As per your assessment as independent applicants – are they less deserving than you to live in Australia due to war related risks in Sri Lanka?
41) Do you agree that your higher deservedness is due to our legal relationship as family ?
42) In paragraph 4.84, I state ‘I affirm my belief that Australians of Vaddukoddai origin as part of the electorate that gave birth to the declaration of Separate State for Tamils, which I believe in turn gave birth to the Tamil Tigers (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam / LTTE) have a greater responsibility to live as per the values of their sponsors, until they are able to claim with belief that they are Australians with the natural powers to influence the Australian social justice system, through everyday life.’ Would you confirm to this court – that you are of Vaddukoddai origin.
43) After you became Australian citizen, would you say that as per our legal status - you and I are Equal Australians, unless known otherwise through merit basis?
44) In Immigration Administration and Legal matters would you say I am of higher status than yourself?
45) Would you confirm that – around 2005 – you approached my husband and I, asking us to speak to Mr. Balasundaram – whose second daughter you wanted to marry?
46) Would you confirm that you informed us that you had already spoken to Mr. & Mrs. Sabanathan and your parents about this and that they had given ‘in principle’ support for your marriage. You wanted us to speak to Mr. Balasunaram – so that the marriage could take place without further delay
47) Do you recall knowledge of me speaking to your father first and then to Mr. & Mrs. Balasundaram to find out their terms of marriage
48) Do you accept that this was an arranged marriage and not a marriage of your choice alone?
49) Would you confirm that as per the discussions, Mr. Balasundaram promised to give as dowry the house next door to where he was living?
50) Would you confirm that we later found out that that house had legal encumbrances which he did not reveal to us?
51) Has your wife received that promised dowry yet?
52) Is dowry part of the Customary Laws of Tamils of Northern Sri Lanka - called Thesawalamai
53) As per this cultural system, was your responsibility as a son to your parents, different to the responsibility of your wife to her parents? Would you say that as per our cultural system which is confirmed and regulated by the principles underpinning the law of Thesawalamai – dowry is given to daughters and that sons inherit wealth after death of parents and that sons have first responsibility to take care of their parents?
54) As per Common Law in Australia as well as in Sri Lanka – would you agree that there is common responsibility without grading? Hence that you did not have a responsibility to accept dowry as per Common Law?
55) Would you confirm that when your daughter was born I was the only relative to be present in hospital to support you and your wife?
56) Would you confirm that your parents in law had applied for visitors visa to be with their daughter – but that their application was rejected?
57) Refer to Annexure 9 – Would you confirm that I represented you and your wife at the tribunal and gave the undertaking that your father in law would return to Sri Lanka at the end of the approved period?
58) Would you confirm that he did not return but instead you and your wife applied for refugee status for him?
59) Would you confirm to this court that his wife and your sister in law subsequently joined them as referred to in paragraphs 4.96 to 4.99 of my Affidavit dated 17 May 2012:
Note : Below are the relevant paragraphs in the Affidavit :
4.96.1 I confirm that when I visited Northern Sri Lanka in January 2010, for a conference at the University of Jaffna – as part of the post-war development work in war affected areas of Sri Lanka, I had the following interaction with the mother in law of the 4th Defendant - Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram:
(i) Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram said that she had applied for migration to Australia and that she had included her daughter – the sister in law of the 4th Defendant, who was already living in the UK – (to our knowledge as a student) in her application to migrate to Australia.
(ii) I asked Mrs. Balasundaram why she and her husband could not live in Sri Lanka where they, according to my observations were living fairly comfortably and Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram said that she was doing it for the sake of her daughter who was living in the UK at that time.
(iii) I pointed out that they were cheating the system and were letting down me – the person who gave the assurance to the Australian Government that her husband would return after his visit and Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram said words to the effect ‘you are too strict’. I stated that their actions were totally against the cultural structures of our Tamil Ancestors according to which their son who was also as per my knowledge in the UK had the responsibility to take care of his parents and unmarried sister and not our nephew (4th Defendant) whose higher education, higher status and higher income , were, according to our belief, largely due to my husband and I and our work and sharing on the basis of family belief.
(iv) I pointed out that it was in breach of our Customary Laws for parents to depend on daughters after marriage. I said I had emphasized this with her husband during my previous visits to Jaffna. I pointed out also that they had not given the dowry as promised by them to their daughter who was dependent on our nephew (4th Defendant) who as per our directions based on family tradition, was taking care of his parents (Section 1.2 of Annexure 8). I pointed out that her son in law’s (4th Defendant’s) mother was given dowry and that that has been the tradition in my husband’s family as well as our community and that it is in accordance with Thesawalamai - the Customary Law of Northern Sri Lanka.
(v) I pointed out that the (Australian Government Migration Review Tribunal) Officer who heard the appeal in support of her husband’s visitor’s visa application had expressed serious concern about the ability of the 4th Defendant to maintain her husband over long period of time. I stated that I read this to be based on the expectation that as Australians the 4th Defendant and his wife would maintain certain standard of living which would be seriously eroded if three new adults were added to that family. I said this would reduce our own status within the Community.
(vi) I pointed out to Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram that it would be inappropriate for these reasons to live in the same house as the 4th Defendant and his family and Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram said that she had laid down the condition to the 4th Defendant that she would come to Australia only when he found her a separate place of residence for her to live in.
(vii) I pointed out to Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram, that the 4th Defendant’s wife was not working and that the 4th Defendant’s income would not be enough to cover two homes and Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram said words to the effect ‘we have been promised Housing Commission accommodation’. (viii) Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram said that according to the 4th Defendant, I had discouraged her daughter (4th Defendant’s wife) from giving out her Resume for work purposes to a Tiger (LTTE who were listed as Terrorists by some Governments) supporter whilst I was myself attending the conference organized by Dr. Noel Nadesan who was anti-Tiger (LTTE). I said that I was there not for political reasons but to participate in a University Conference organized by Dr. Noel Nadesan (an Australian).
4.97 I confirm that our subsequent inquiry revealed that migrants of about the age of Mrs. Indrani Balasundaram, and parents of young migrants living in Blacktown area, were being allocated comfortable Housing Commission accommodation and concluded that the 4th Defendant and his wife were abusing the Australian Welfare system and were for this reason seeking to separate from us – away from our authority, towards which they joined forces with the 1st & 2nd Defendants in demoting our status.
4.98 I confirm that when I returned to Sydney after the conference mentioned in 4.58 above, my husband and I sought to meet with the 4th Defendant and his wife Mrs. Shangeetha Sritharan to discuss the above but that only the 4th Defendant met with us Annexure 10.
4.99 I affirm that my husband and I felt seriously hurt about the message we saw through the above indicators - of cheating the welfare system. I affirm that we saw our sponsorship as part of that welfare system of status sharing and hence abusing that we believed would lead to abusing the government of the wider system. We believed that this was due also to the effects of the defamatory statements and actions by the senior Defendants which seem to have been willingly followed by the other Defendants.
Post a Comment