Now it is Gomin Dayasiri in the fray with his “ Devalued Dignitaries”.

Gomin Dayasiri recites another praise poem, “ Devalued Dignitaries”,  different from that of the other supposed to be leading Lawyer S.L.Gunasekara.  Gomin is devastated by the fall of his dignitaries.   

He cannot avoid taking the trodden path of mentioning JR quoting what he can do  with the powers as the first executive President of Sri Lanka.  What a poor attempt Gomin to compare JR to the “Present Incumbent” who you say “..meekly tried to shunt the impeachment on an Opposition plea and pleads for an independent panel to seek advice on a conclusion foregone..”  What a fake you are with your convoluted writing to express your opinion  as if it  is  a fact. 

The President Mahinda Rajapakse was not meek in speaking about  the appointment of a panel when the incorrigible Hultsdorf black coats with their palms perhaps “well palmed” by invisible  Santa Clauses coming from the west  dressed as NGOs  continued  their mad fiasco breaking coconuts, shouting slogans and going on manifestation,  without taking a moment to read  the Charges against the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayaka to ask themselves whether there is after all some truth in the charges and  whether or not even a judge  may  not resist  falling  for a few million dollars? 

If the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayaka had nothing to hide, being a lawyer she could have  appeared before the PSC on her own to face the charges against her.  In this particular case she had taken a retinue of lawyers, who could not even read through the documents to find a valuable argument to show that she is not guilty of the Charges. 

There was something  exceedingly “fishy”  in her walking  away from the PSC Session with out making a statement  to clear her of the charges against her.  She is not a “Goddess” sent from another  planet to think that it was beneath her “dignity” to appear before  a PSC composed of Members of Parliament to plead her innocence against the Charges on the Impeachment Motion.  It may be  that there was no dignity to be devalued in the ungainly conduct  of the “ dignitaries”   Gomin Dayasiri is bemoaning.    Gomin Dayasiri may have an axe to grind  when he portrays the President: “Looking sheepishly slippery instead of being majestically regal, a baffled President gives a bewildering impression: could be a ploy to quell opposition than to swap positions. A good case badly presented.”

When the President proposed the appointment of an Independent Panel  it was to quell  the unseemly  conduct of the Hultsdorf Black Coats  making asses of themselves acting as if they had never heard of an Impeachment Motion. The Presidents had to  consider offshoots of the attempts of the Black  coats  becoming pawns in the hands of the self centred politicians  preparing to discredit the government and invite the foreign interferers to intervene with a view to further destabilise Sri Lanka  with more anti-Sri Lanka Resolutions at the next UNHRC in Geneva.

Talking of dignitaries;  it is strange that it is  they who are  all out to discredit Sri Lanka and sell Sri Lanka, saved by a determined Patriotic leader, to the anti Sri Lanka foreign regime changers working along with the pro-terrorist Tamil   diaspora.  It was first the University Professors who went on a  strike for three months, well paid for their efforts by these self same invisible Santa Clauses.  Bala Tampoe  also made a donation of  Rs. 500,000.  Where did he get that money from ?   Now it is the dignitaries of Hultsdorf, braying from every corner hoisting perhaps a “fraudulent” Chief Justice, without knowing whether she is or is not guilty of the charges against her.

Gomin Dayasiri does not seem to question the comportment of the Chief Justice vis à vis the   PSC, from the beginning of the Inquiry into the Impeachment Motion by the PSC. more occupied being critical of the President.

Gomin Dayasiri strangely follow the manifesting Hulftdorf black coats in  stating , “ A rush to reach judgment erased the notion of a fair trial and impacted the value addition to Supremacy of Parliament. Justice- delayed or hurried- is justice damned. Lack of due process could originate multiple attacks across seas. With cryptic comments on NGOs, who are acting foot loose looking for a regime change? ”

They are flippant about  a rush to go through the inquiry into the charges in the  Impeachment Motion.  Sri Lanka cannot possibly give up  its own Sovereign democratic rights  for “fear” of  “multiple attacks across seas.”

But an Impeachment Motion against a Chief Justice cannot be continued for a long period of time as the Chief Justice charged  under an Impeachment Motion  is not “interdicted” (unless behaving with dignity she steps down on her own), and the Impeachment procedure cannot therefore be dragged on while the Chief Justice continues to hear cases.  The PSC had however given her extended time to prepare her case.

If the charges in the Impeachment Motion were frivolous she could have waded through the documents and submitted her defence in a short time.  But it was not the case,  she preferred to flee the PSC like a vulgar criminal evading prosecution.

It is unbelievable the extent to which Gomin goes to ridicule the President in his sarcastic demonstration  of convoluted writing:

 “Present incumbent meekly tried to shunt the impeachment on an Opposition plea and pleads for an independent panel to seek advice on a conclusion foregone. Looking sheepishly slippery instead of being majestically regal, a baffled President gives a bewildering impression: could be a ploy to quell opposition than to swap positions. A good case badly presented.”
Or, “Is there apprehension, an irked Supreme Court may fix him with the blessings of the Election Commissioner on the eve of an election – 17^th Amendment worked anti-clockwise?  That’s a tricky doosra.” or again  “Overpowering Presidency is stricken by parliamentary antics. Who is the conductor twirling the baton in this orchestrated political symphony engaged in a command performance?”

But Gomin says, “ If sovereignty is with the People after the parliamentary debate on impeachment, President should refer it to the People to decide the issue at a Referendum. A process to expensive, eh! Otherwise who did what where and why…it goes on endlessly. Finality is needed to end this fiasco.”

Does the Article 107 speak about a referendum  Mr. Leading Lawyer ? The articles calls for  an inquiry by the PSC and then a debate on the report  of the PSC in the Parliament, the result of which would be submitted to the President.   He-the President,  may go along with the decision of the Parliament or take his own independent decision, for which a report by an Independent Panel may help him as the issue had caused such a brouhaha amoung the Hultsdorf Black Coats and the foreign interfering elements who knows nothing about the  “issue in question” but  vociferous hearing about it from a third or fourth party.

It is only in Article 120 read along with Article 83 the Constitution mentions  a referendum. Not in Artcle 107.

“ Furrowed eyebrows will be raised- if judges are seen in huddle frequently with lawyers. A suspicion of bias arises when such black coats appear in court before them or enlist their causes for adjudication? Judges must never be excessively obliged to lawyers since it unconsciously disturbs the appearance of judicial equilibrium in court. Need of a lawyer for service is irrelevant, if judicial paws are kept clean with detergent. Judges are entitled to be aggrieved parties if injustice is caused.” Says Gomin Dayasiri. 

That is the very reason why it is incorrect for the CJ under impeachment investigation, to carry on as  if nothing had happened, she should have temporarily suspended her legal activities as the CJ until the Impeaching proceeding have come to a final end.  That may have perhaps allowed the President to take a decision more favourable to her.     

Then  from what Gomin Dayasiri says below one wanders whether he  strutters with  his complex satire  seeking  vengeance for having been overlooked by the President for  “political largeness” crowning him as the Chief Justice.

“Those vaulting over the bar through political largeness without being filtered through the judicial process sometimes lack judicial wisdom gained through wide experience. Naturally, they are not toilet-trained from a tender age.”      

Then refering to the impeachment proceedings of   Neville Samarakone, Gomin Dayasiri says “ outstanding lawyer with immense experience vaulted to the prime position of Chief Justice on a political appointment in later life, advised by smart slick legal minds, fought his impeachment battle on his private turf with his lawyers in resplendent quiet dignity. He kept a distance away from his former brotherhood- the legal fraternity – that offered wholesome support. None  faulted him, as he did not choose to play to a gallery. Presumptions were unanimously in his favor because he acquired by conduct- the repute of a respected judge. There was no divided Bar.”

That is a wise piece of advise only if the CJ - Shirani Bandaranayake,  could  follow that pattern.

Gomin Dayasiri says, “  Though devilishly possessed of sovereignty not even a request can be made for a referendum. No calls are taken on sovereignty on any count. Yet, sovereignty is said to be exclusively with the people:  On paper, yes. Cannot be taken away from the people being ‘inalienable’. The pocket is bare with nothing to steal? A tasteless constitutional mouthwash gargled down the throats of an unsuspecting nation.”

The Parliament represent the people doesn’t it ?  It is composed of the elected representatives of the people, and they play their role on behalf of the people.   The majority mass of the people are satisfied with the democratic procedures with which they have been ruled for many decades now.  It is only the “educated dignitaries” that do not respect those democratic procedures.”

Any Government, as much as a Society or an Institution needs rules and regulations for it to function.   So does a Government or a Domocracy.   The Constitution of Sri Lanka is our Constitution. It  is the Constitution of the people with  what ever its faults has  been accepted as “the manual”  in the conduct of the affairs of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. In the procedure for  the Impeachment Motion against the CJ the Constitution has been meticulously followed. 

No one can interpret the Constitution as one wants, nor can it be amended,  make addition or removals by any one  except the  Parliament with the required majority.  The Judiciary cannot assume that which is not explicitly excluded in the Constitution could be interpreted as included.  As the Appellate Court of Sri Lanka had stated that it  has the right to subject to scrutiny the  decision  of the PSC, as “  neither the   Article 107 of the Constitution nor the Standing Orders  excluded  judicial scrutiny of the decision of a PSC.”

Therefore, why raise objections for the appointment of a PSC to inquire into the Charges in the Impeachment Motion, and the presentation of its report to the Parliament.  It is for the CJ and the Hulftdorf Black Coats and the Leading lawyers to await patiently the debate in the Parliament and the final decision by the President.

Finally Gomin Dayasiri Says, “  Come clean – sovereignty means sweet nothing- shows a zero decimal. People have no power including the power to prevent dignitaries from losing their dignity…a myth that has became a misnomer”

It is for the “ dignitaries “ to make  sovereignty  mean “sweet something”.  If it is these dignitaries that raise their voices to be heard “beyond seas” to make sweet nothing of “ sovereignty”, then it would be   those from beyond seas who will intervene to make nothing of  the existing sovereignty,  which the blind “dignitaries” do not see . 

It is not others that  devalue dignitaries, but it is themselves that devalue their dignities.

Supreme Court and Appellate Court Judges attempt to distort the Constitution of Sri Lanka for a Dictatorship of the Judiciary

Andrew Johnson's Impeachment

A good Lawyer is not one who has  qualified  passing Examinations. One may know the law as he may have read them in books or heard from lecturers.  A good lawyers is one who can think beyond the law  and understand the application of it correctly in relation to a demand and to see that good justice is dispensed.  A Judge goes beyond that definition, which requires experience to dispense correct judgment not being evasive and taking shortcuts to justice. A Judge does not make a mockery of justice overlooking the violation of the laws  that bind the officials and citizens to justice, and give the plaintiff  a lecture on morality overlooking the substance  of the redress  the  law  provides to him.

“The expense makes law firms, particularly big ones, acquire the capability to engage in discovery of this kind in every case, leading to a costly structure that has to be fed with, of course, the expense of more discovery in more cases. Lawyers get comfortable doing what they know best. There is another reason, too. It happens because many lawyers believe that learning ends when they graduate from college and law school. It seems to be easier for them to fight cases on procedural grounds, which are as familiar as an old pair of shoes. Learning something new is unpleasant for such people; they shy away from educating themselves about new technology or new facts. They are afraid. Besides, they can spend more of their client’s money and time quarrelling over documents…………. » Joseph N. Hosteny intellectual property litigation attorney with the Chicago law firm of Niro, Scavone,Haller & Niro.

http://www.hosteny.com/archive/Hosteny%2010-02.pdf

Recently in a Fundamental Rights action  in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka a case which was filed  for the violation of  the Article 109 of the Constitution, which was evident, the Judge  Shirani  Thilakawardhane decided not to proceed with the case according to the law  on the evidence of facts, but took the short cut to give the plaintiff a lecture on toleration and how to live  in harmony with other Communities.  The plaintiff was asked to withdraw the case.  That was plain injustice meted out by an immature judge who did not read the law to even understand the reason for the  FR case which demanded  judicial intervention for justice.

A lawyer when he takes a case should be all out to serve his client, and a judge should give a judgement not evaluating the evidence from his point view but  on  ascertaining the whole case and looking at  the case broadly from every possible angles of the law.

“My respect is reserved for lawyers who discover and try cases on the facts”.        ( Joseph N. Hosteny intellectual property litigation attorney)

A lawyer cannot defend  even the Chief Justice without being independent.  It is only when a lawyer is independent he will be able see clearly  whether the cause he is fighting is justified.  None of these Hultsdorf Black Coats know exactly what the CJ Shirani Bandaranaike’s intentions was when she opened 20 Bank accounts and kept them  with zero balances at the end of the month. 

Nor could  have these  Black Coats understood on reading the Charge Sheet against the CJ whether  she was guilty or, not of the Charges, as Learned Counsel for the Chief Justice  had  said “ The Charges contained  factual matters which required reference to various documents and Bank Statements it…..was humanly impossible to comply within  the said time limit.”.

The Black Coats of Hultsdorf  are half learned fools trying to make an issue of a Charges Against the Chief Justice which are  still under investigation despite the report of the PSC. They jump  to defend the CJ without knowing whether she  is guilty or not of the Charges.

Having an independent view with regard to a legal problem is a quality of a good Lawyer, which our Hultsdorf Black Coats unfortunately lack.

“A good lawyer has to maintain independence and a reasonable degree of impartiality. Do speak up for your client, but don’t become the client’s mouthpiece. When I watch the nightly news and see a defendant’s lawyer protesting his client’s innocence in the lobby of the Dirksen federal court building, or at the state criminal court at 26th and California, I sometimes wonder how those attorneys have so much personal knowledge of what their clients did or did not do that they can vouch for them so confidently……….If you do not preserve your independence, you will not be able to advise your client, because you will be indistinguishable from him or her. You must be able to be objective, and to tell your client the bad, as well as the good, news about the case.”

(Joseph N. Hosteny intellectual property litigation attorney)

Do these Hultsdorf Black Coats take the trouble, to read the law ? Reading  what some of them have written it is clear that  they have not even  read and understood the Constitution of Sri Lanka.  If they had they would not make asses of themselves criticising  an Impeachment Motion carried out successfully in terms  of the Constitution, which is a great honour to Sri Lanka.

“ Laziness in reading the law is another hallmark of the bad lawyer, or at least the slothful one. We were taught in law school to read the case, and perceive the facts that controlled the court’s decision about the law.

But many lawyers these days are not readers. ,They believe in the quantity, not the quality, of their citations. The only thing they read are the head notes, which I would eliminate from published decisions if I could.”

(Joseph N. Hosteny intellectual property litigation attorney)

The  most ridiculous decision  the Appellate court of Sri Lanka has done  is to  challenge the PSC appointed to hear the Impeachment Motion against the Chief Justice. It should make the Judiciary of Sri Lanka the laughing stock of the legal fraternity of the world. But as at the moment Sri Lanka is the centre of attack by the West for the elimination of the terrorists dear to them, this  scandalous decision of the Sri Lanka Appellate court  may still find “fans”.

Many writes against the  Impeachment  Motion moved by  117 Parliamentarians , when it can in no way be called a violation of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.  Each anti Impeachment writer to media  quotes Articles  of the Constitution in support of their arguments .  But  none of the Articles  cited by them are relevant to the Impeachment. No where in the constitution one could find that the Supreme  Court or the Appellate Courts of Sri Lanka could take decisions  against any acts of the Parliament other than to interpret the Bills  passed by the Legislature or interpret the Constitution  to the  lower courts  on their decisions affecting the Constitution.

Professor Nalin de Silva  had recently written an  article “The Logic of the Impeachment” ( not published in the Island but Published in Lankaweb), in simple straight forward English  explaining the three pillars of Democracy, the  Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary and the Impeachment Motion by the Legislature. No one had so far written any thing more clear.   Even the honourable International Judge Weeramantry had failed to explain the Impeachment issue more acceptably. 

There is a difference between the Parliamentary Standing Orders and the Constitution. The Standing Orders are the procedural rules pertaining to the Parliament.  It  is the normal procedure of the Parliament to follow them  and the Judiciary has no right  to interfere with those rules.  Nor has the Judiciary any right to decide for the Legislature how it should act in terms of the Articles of the Constitution.  All those Hultsdorf Black Coats including the Judges of the Appellate  Court of Sri Lanka have acted in contempt of the Parliament  in criticising in public the Impeachment Motion it had put in motion in terms of the Article 107

of the Constitution.

It is interesting to find out the relevance of the Articles in the Constitution referred to by the SC and various anti impeachment writers on  the Impeachment Motion against the Chief Justice.

The petition to the SC by the Chief Justice against the appointment of the PSC refers to article 125 under which the SC recommends to the PSC to defer the inquiry to be held against CJ.  Here the Article 125 states:

125. (1) The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, and accordingly, whenever any such question arises in the course of any proceeding in any other court or tribunal or other institution empowered by law to administer justice or to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination. The Supreme Court may direct that further proceedings be stayed pending the determination of such question.

This article states the right of the SC to interpret the Constitution “only  where such question arises in the course of proceeding in another court or tribunal or institution empowered to  administer justice or such function”.  No where is it stated   in the Article 125 that the SC has a legal right to   interpret  the Articles of the  Constitution to the Parliament or to the PSC appointed by the Parliament under the Parliamentary Standing Orders.   It is a wrong interpretation of the SC to  cite the Article  125 of the Constitution to interfere on appointment of the  PSC by the Parliament, which is  its proper responsibility .

Then Eran Wickramaratne UNP MP  in an article “Govt Creating Constitutional Crisis by Violating Supreme Court Determination” states:

“The refuge of the citizen is in the fact that Article 120 of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any Bill or any provision thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution. By violating the determination of the Supreme Court the Government is creating a Constitutional Crisis.COURTESY:FINANCIAL TIMES.”

The Article 120 of the Constitution cited in the above excerpt is :

120. The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question as to whether any Bill or any provision thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution:

This Article has to be read along with the sub items (a) to  (d)

In the case of item (a) (c) and (d) it is stated that the only question which the Supreme Court may determine is whether such Bill requires approval by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83; In the case of Item (b) it is about amendments to the Constitution where the SC is excluded from exercising any jurisdiction.

Hence it is very clear that SC has no Jurisdiction what so ever over actions of the Parliament under Article 120 of the Constitution, except with regard to a bill requiring approval by the people in a referendum.

Then in an article, “ Issuing notices on Speaker et al, a legal obligation – Court of Appeal:CJ’s writ Application against PSC findings “, by Chitra Weerarathne, it is reported:

“………..The judgement explained that the PSC appointed by the Speaker had exercised powers of a judicial nature in finding that the charges 1, 4, and 5 were proved against the Chief Justice. Whether the PSC had the power and authority to act in the manner it had acted or whether it had exceeded its power or had failed to act judicially in arriving at its finding are matters subject to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution. ”

The Article 14 is reproduced below.  Does it mention any where about Judicial review of the Speaker’s  function in the appointment of the PSC ?

Freedom of Speech, assembly, association, movement, &c.

14. (1) Every citizen is entitled to -

(a) the freedom of speech and expression including publication;

(b) the freedom of peaceful assembly;

(c) the freedom of association;

(d) the freedom to form and join a trade union;

(e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching;

(f) the freedom by himself or in association with others to enjoy and promote his own culture and to use his own language;

(g) the freedom to engage by himself or in association with others in any lawful occupation, profession, trade, business or enterprise;

(h)  the freedom of movement and of choosing his residence within Sri Lanka; and

(i) the freedom to return to Sri Lanka.

(2) A person who, not being a citizen of any other country, has been permanently and legally resident in Sri Lanka immediately prior to the commencement of the Constitution and continues to be so resident shall be entitled, for a period of ten years from the commencement of the Constitution, to the rights declared and recognized by paragraph (1) of this Article.

“The Court of Appeal on 21 December,2012 observed that it has the jurisdiction to hear the writ petition filed by Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake challenging the findings of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) and as such issued notices on the Speaker and PSC members returnable on January 3, 2013.

The Appeal Court also observed that the Speaker and the PSC members should advise themselves not to act in derogation of the rights of the CJ and that any act disregarding the ongoing case and moves to alter the status quo may lead to a chaotic situation in the country.”

The  Impeachment Motion has been  brought under  the article 107 of the Constitution.

Appointment and removal of Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

There are 5 sub items under this Article. And no where has it been mentioned that a decision of the PSC is subject to scrutiny  by the Supreme Court. 

The  Court of Appeal order on the writ application of the CJ   mentions that neither the   Article 107 of the Constitution nor the Standing Orders  excluded  judicial scrutiny of the decision of a PSC.  It is therefore it seems that the Appellate Court  had sat to decide on matters pertaining to the Legislature knowing well that it is above the Judiciary as it represent the people.

The fact that a judicial scrutiny is not mentioned in the Article 107 does not mean that the Supreme Court could interpret it to say that not mentioning  a judicial  scrutiny is not excluding a judicial scrutiny.  That puts the Legislature to be  subject to and under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary.  This is  an attempt to amend the existing Constitution by the Supreme Court or an attempt to rewrite A new Constitution inserting what has not been said but understood by the anti- Impeachment Judges of the Supreme Court.

The whole attempt of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court of Sri Lanka on the Impeachment Motion is an attempt to confuse and bring discredit to Sri Lanka.  No where in the world had there been an attempt on the part of the Judgers and lawyers to usurp the power of the Legislature and the Executive and set up a Judicial Dictatorship by  holding up the function of the Judiciary and blocking administrative functions.

There is no legal obligation for the Speaker or  the Members of the PSC to  honour the summons of the Appellate  Court or the Supreme Court as the summons issued by them are illegal and a violation of the Judicial Powers under the Constitution.

America’s History of Political Crimes and Regime Change, which President Barack Obama should Change to bring peace to the world.

                                           

Can any one understand why American State Department is so engrossed in Sri Lanka’s elimination of terrorists and how the end of terrorism  was brought about  more than three years ago, when  today in America every aspect of life seems to be  degenerating ? 

In an Elementary School in Connecticut 26 persons,  of them  20 children between the ages of 5 to 6 years were massacred by Adam Lanza  a 20 year old youth with a personality disorder who killed his mother before massacring the Children. How many more of such youth are there in America , what remedies should be taken to avoid a recurrence of  such disasters, and what could be the causes that led to such abominable mental disorder  amoung the American youth ?  

These are the matters that should concern the President of America and his Government more than how the end of terrorism came about in Sri Lanka or how Sri Lanka deals with  reconciliation of Communities.  Leave that to Sri Lanka they are better equipped to handle it as the Communities are  more or less of the same culture and had been living  together for generations.

Are the cause of mental disorder amoung the American  Children  related  to the way the American Government conducts its foreign policies ?  It is well worth studying.

 The President and  his  State Departmen carry out their wars without least consideration for the  deaths  of  civilians, children , men and women.  President Obama supports the drone attacks which his Administration does not want to talk about: “the use of unmanned aircraft to target and kill suspected terrorists—is classified information.”

(http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/obama-talks-drone-strikes)

Islamabad (CNN) -- On March 17, 2011 a drone attack killed at least 40 members of a Wazir tribal Jirga, which was resolving a land ownership dispute among sub-tribes in Waziristan, a mountainous region in northwest Pakistan, according to local media reports.

The report claimed the Jirga was not the intended target and the predator was chasing a car before finally executing five people without any trial or due process near the Jirga. While this predator was hovering in the area, sophisticated cameras allegedly picked up images of a bigger gathering. Without appearing to have any intelligence or knowledge of its target, it fired four more missiles at the congregation. (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/opinion/pakistan-drone-attacks-akbar/index.html)

Isn’t  Adam Lanza’s criminal act of massacring the children in an elementary school in Connecticut  symbolic of  America’s aggressive foreign policy ?  America does in a big way  in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Pakistan  what Adam Lanza  with his personality disorder did in  his “ small way according to   the mental image of what his elders the  American soldiers do in these distant places outside America.

America destroys every thing in the interest of the Security of America. America uses guns and bombs,  not words and dialogue in settling problems “ it creates” with other Sovereign States.  It threatens wide spread bombardments and drone attacks  Nations that violate human rights -as understood by America.  But America is least concerned that these countries such as Sri Lanka, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba are doing their best  to develop their countries in their own way, develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes , or control rebels and terrorists  to find peace and  security for their own people.

There had been many more Adam Lanzas  in America.  This is not the first time that youths with mental disorders like Adam Lanza went on  rampage shooting children, teachers or innocent people. There are nine such reported cases of  massacres.  Each time there was such tragedy America begins a debate on Gun Control, which is soon forgotten to be reignite when they are forced into another.  Is the gun culture the sole course of these psychological disturbance amoung  the youths such as these or are there other factors leading these youths to behave irrationally ?

Unfortunately this is  about America  that passes Resolutions against Sri Lanka which eliminated terrorism in  all legitimacy.   Sri Lanka finished off with terrorism three years ago but America and the International Community are still trying to take revenge from Sri Lanka for what it did after suffering under terrorism for thirty years. They pass resolutions against Sri Lanka in Human Rights Council, threatens to take the Sri Lanka Armed Forces before a Tribunal for war crimes, some even accuse Sri Lanka for Genocide.   Incites Ban ki Moon of UN to appoint panels to investigate Sri Lanka.

Louise Fre’chette of Canada, who Chairs the panel of the Senior  Advisory Group ( the Peace Keeping Panel) of the UNO,  insults one of  Sri Lanka’s great  heroes Major General Shavendra Silva (despite the fact that she cannot hold a candle to him.) , who risked his life directing his soldiers in the midst of the shooting terrorist in  the military operation for the  elimination of terrorism , by undemocratically refusing to be heard at  the Panel to which he was elected by the Member States.

America seems to be  cursed transmitting its  own “ gun culture” to a psychologically affected generation of youths because of its deplorable attitude towards  countries like Sri Lanka which rid itself of the terrorism and is making a considerable effort to bring the Communities together in its own way despite being   constantly hampered by the unconcerned, International Community,  using  Channel UK 4 to make false documentaries,   and using   the UN HRC led by a Tamil woman,  bought over  and paid for by the pro-terrorist Tamil Diaspora, and the killing of innocents children men and women in  Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan , Libya and Pakistan.

The repercussions coming back to originators of ill will towards others  cannot be laughed off as nonsense. Because “ ill will” is a mental state a tremendous power of energy that can back fire.  When the “ ill will” is coming from a Nation, it is a collective energy that can strike back with greater effect.  That is why it is believable that what America suffers from today is that great “ ill will “ with  which it has been carrying out a vengeance towards Sri Lanka  hampering its development and stopping the people of Sri Lanka  from enjoying a hard earned peace, and American wars in other countries that still see innocent beings killed to provide security to America.

President Barack Obama should at least now, at the beginning of his second term of Presidency reconsider his foreign policy as carried out by his Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Hillary Clinton  The world had great expectation from Barack Obama when he was elected the 64^th President of USA,  most of them having learnt about his goodness through his writings.

If words written by Barack Obama in his books  and spoken in captivating oratory could be translated into action  there is no doubt the world would have  been  a peaceful place to live .  But since  Barack Obama became the President of USA,  the man has got separated from his words and become  no more than another  Nixon, a Reagan ,  a Clinton or a Bush.

That is because in USA there is a government within a Government and no effort of the President Barack Obama would be able to  draw the chariot of  USA Government away from the hacked out path of aggressivity,  authoritative domination over developing Nations, war, bombardment, arming rebels against Governments,  maintaining torture camps, torturing of prisoners, passing resolutions  against nations  who are peaceful and non aggressive, listening to anti-regime lobbies such as the anti Sri Lanka pro-terrorists Tamil Diaspora, and sanctions against countries and trade embargoes.

President Barrack Obama who  got elected as the President of America calling for change has turned out to be  not different from  previous Presidents of USA.  His foreign policies have not changed , and they are still the same   “issues” on which America plans its foreign policy.  Then the “issues” were oil, and communism which were  fundamental for its intervention with the  CIA for regime change.  Evidence of these  most shocking “criminal “ activities of America  against  democratically elected political leaders of sovereign states  are numerous.

The American CIA organized the ouster of the President of Guatamala Jacob Arbenz in 1950.  America wanted him out  because it  did not agree with Arbenz’s  inaugural speech in which he promised to convert Guatemala from "a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state." 

Arbenz’s crime in the eye of America was,  his being a dedicated  patriot, who wanted to  develop his country and give his people  a better standard of living. He declared that he intended to reduce dependency on foreign markets and dampen the influence of foreign corporations over Guatemalan politics. He also stated that he would modernize Guatemala's infrastructure and do so without the aid of foreign capital.  And his land reforms affected the American United Fruit Company. He went into exile after the CIA initiated  ouster and died in Mexico.

Then it was the turn of Salvador Allende elected President of Chile.   Allende’s Socialist policies angered America and Nixon  ordered CIA and its State Department  to put pressure on Allende’s government. The result was the  Chilean Army attack of the Moneda Palace where Allende committed suicide instead of being captured. It was  because America did not want  a Socialist Government  in Chile.

 Democratically elected  Mohammad Mosaddeq Prime Minister of Iran was similarly overthrown  in a coup d’etat orchestrated by CIA in 1950. It was because of the project of Nationalization of British Anglo Iranian Oil Company which  had developed the  oil fields in the Persian Gulf.  He died when he was still  under house arrest. 

Patrice Lumumba

Then again American CIA intervened in  Congo against Patrice Lumumba.  Lumumba was the first legally elected Prime Minister of Congo after its Independence from Belgium  in 1960. He was ousted in a coup assisted by USA and executed by a firing squad. It was the American President Eisenhower who had told  Allen Dulles the Chief of CIA to have Lumumba “eliminated.”  CIA funded for  his capture and execution.

In 1983 United States Marines landed in Grenada ousted Hudson Austin who had formed a Revolutionary Military Government in Grenada . America occupied Grenada  changed its  Communists  Revolutionary government and restored a Constitutional Government. ( see Wikipedia for the respective countries)

The American history of  Regime Change Continues for  oil fields or Communist connections. 

After the terrorist attacks of the 11 September,2001, President Bush began his witch hunt for Al Qaida terrorists.  He implicated Iraq  for terrorist connections and when the UN Security Council was still debating Iraq’s involvement  In March 2003, George Bush with false documents prepared by the Prime Minister Tony  Blair of UK declared war on Iraq on the ground that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.  But there were none.

Three years after devastating Iraq and killing number of Iraqi Civilians Saddam Hussein was Executed by hanging on 30 December 2006.  Large numbers of American Soldiers died, and many were  maimed.  And the American war in Iraq continues having spread to Afghanistan.  The Iraq war would  bring in oil wealth, while Afghanistan’s mineral wealth awaits to be exploited by the American Companies.

The American people tired of the  considerable number of their children dying in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wanted the American soldiers  brought back.  In the 2008 Presidential Elections Barrack Obama gave the people  of America new hope of an end to the wars and promised to bring back the American Soldiers.  His election as the President of USA was to fulfil that desire.

The Secretaries he appoints to carry out his policies do not think like him, but they have made him think like them. Hillary Clinton  the State Secretary during the last term of his office was unable to settle any issues.  Instead of  ending wars and bringing back  the American Soldiers as he promised, he only increased the theatres of war and sent more soldiers to fight new wars or paid  NATO to drop more bombs.  America did not make new friends, but kept the old, but made new enemies.

He follows plans of wars prepared by others , but has no plans of his own for peace in the world.   Because he plans every thing for America, without thinking of  an American led  plan of  peace for the world .

As Previous Presidents with  the CIA manoeuvred  to their credit the deaths of  many foreign National leaders, President Obama has the deaths of  Osama Bin Laden and Colonel Gaddafi to his credit.  He may be hoping to have more in his present term of office.  There is already the President of Iran and the President of North Korea lined up without forgetting his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s  manoeuvres against  Sri Lanka. 

Recently like President George Bush threatened Iraq  and warned against  Chemical  war, President Barack Obama too  threatened Al Assad against chemical war:
“ US President Barack Obama issued a warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday not to use chemical weapons against Syrian opposition forces, saying there would be consequences if he were to do so.
He did not say how the United States might respond, but White House spokesman Jay Carney said earlier that "contingency planning" was under way when asked whether the use of military force was an option. ( http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=294498)

For his new term of Office he had Susan.E.Rice another  Iron woman  in view to carry out his foreign policy in the State Department, but fortunately for the world  she had withdrawn her candidacy.  Apart from the wars  of America, America also has another weapon it uses to bring the developing Nations under its thumb.  It is the Trade embargos that had been going on  against Cuba since 1960 and codified into Law  in 1992 , to remain as long as the Cuban Government  continues to refuse to move towards  “democratization and greater respect for human rights.”

After the second world war the wise men of the West said no more war and thought out a way of settling disputes amoung friends through discussion and dialog.  In order to realise that

Great idea of a world without war, they thought  of a world forum where All Sovereign States of the world  could meet as equals and settle political dissensions between Nations in dialogue. The result was the United Nation .

But to-day UN is merely an Organisation follows the dictates of America and the West.  It is only China and Russia that keeps a semblance of what UN was intended to be when it was established by its forefathers, after the World Wars.

Now America and the International Community interfere into the internal affairs of Sovereign States  of developing Nations , not with the previous “issues” of Communism and  oil wells, but with a cry for  Human rights, Accountability, and Democratization.

America has not still understood  that aggressivity begets aggressivity, but friendly  dialog and discussion could do more to establish good relations and stop differences with other Nations.  Even with North Korea and Iran,  America should stop its  aggressivity, deplorable trade embargos  and sanctions etc. which are themselves  violation of human rights, and  are not effective  means for nations to change.  But America cannot think otherwise than being aggressive and using threat.

America can learn from China and Russia instead of trying to develop its foreign policy to  counter their influence   amoung the developing countries of the World.   America has never come forward to  help financially the  developing countries  without  attaching  conditions to their aid programs.   America had never been generous, having only America’s own benefits and political security  interest  derived from these poor Nations without any concern for their development and progress.

America is a Great Nation and President  Barack Obama is a good man .  But unfortunately  President Barack Obama is unable to extricate himself  from the tangled  spider web set up by some of the war mongering Presidents who passed acts to please one “lobby” or another.  The President Barack Obama should make null and void some of the Congressional Acts such as  the , “..Act of Congress passed in 1990 then refurbished in 1994 that forbids giving money to any UN body that grants membership to Palestine, and the Cuban Democracy Act etc.” which are hackneyed, undemocratic and violate human rights.

President Barack Obama should then step out of the conventional idea of American leadership role, and  shape America into a generous nation friendly and peaceful, ready to discuss and solve problems rather than resort to aggressive words of war and threat.  He should move to reorganize the UNO to make it a real independent Forum where Nations meet as equals to discuss and solve their problems in an atmosphere of peace and cordiality.

S.L.Gunasekara joins the anti Impeachment Bandwagon.

Al Jazeera reported: “The country's highest court holds exclusive jurisdiction on interpreting the constitution. Should the Court rule that the PSC process violates the constitution, the entire impeachment process will be rendered null and void – but if parliament insists on its supremacy – a constitutional crisis is inevitable.

But concern is building. Today members of civil society, representatives of the clergy, senior opposition figures took to Colombo's streets to protest the impeachment.”

The NGOs and the International Community are expecting a show down.  They are worried that it is not happening the way it happened in Libya, Cairo, Tunisia and Syria.  The undercover Agents  of the CID, NATO (and perhaps RAW ) and all the rest of them that have experience with the NATO’s Arab Spring, must be “doing overtime”  waiting gleefully to jump into the scene to reduce to rubble  all that the Government of Sri Lanka had painfully built during the last three or four years to take the country forward to progress, peace and happiness.

A leading Sri Lanka Lawyer S.L.Gunasekara too has jumped into the anti-Impeachment band wagon and is being introduced by probably  a NGO- Mike Andree of the Island, to whom the BASL had provided a copy of S.L.Gunasekara’s letter.  No wonder the Sri Lanka Media seem to have been bought over by the Western anti Sri Lanka big wigs.

Gunasekara’s entry into the fray is heartening for  the “regime change” elements as he had originally opposed the appointment of  Shirani Bandaranayaka as the Chief Justice. He is now all out to support the CJ and bring the government to a halt without allowing the Government to appoint another Chief Justice to head the Judiciary. I have a hunch that Gunasekara’s turn over is possibly because he knows who is likely to be the next  CJ. His demands are extraordinary.

This is what he suggest: "My suggestion is that the Bar Association adopts a resolution and/or makes a public pronouncement that it requests all its members to refrain from accepting appointment as Chief Justice in the event of the incumbent Chief Justice being impeached. Similarly ………. all others who are not members of the Bar Association also to decline to accept that post if it was offered to any of them; and also that the Bar Association should call upon all its members and others to boycott and boycott completely, both socially and professionally, any person whoever it may be who accepts appointment as Chief Justice in the event of the Impeachment of the incumbent Chief Justice being effected. Such boycott should in my considered view go to the extent of refusing sit with such new Chief Justice (if any) on the Bench of the Supreme Court [if a Judge], or to appear before such new Chief Justice (if any) as the case may be.”

His vengeance seems to be extreme.  What has the Rajapakse Government denied to him?  But in order to avoid the possibility of  such a question he says at the beginning of his letter to the BASL to   mollify the effect of his  above suggestion :

“At the same time I was and continue to be a supporter of the present Government, not because I have any illusions about it’s claims to perfection or competence etc. but for the simple reason that I cannot see a credible alternative thereto or any persons/set of persons who is/are in any way suited to take over the reins of power from Mahinda Rajapakse and his government.”  Gunasekara  had said that to another person some time ago  who sought his advise on a Fundamental Rights Action he wanted to file.  Gunasekara had told him in addition to what he had said in his letter to BASL, that it is useless filing a FA case as the  supreme court judges cannot be trusted to take an independent decision.  There he may be correct  as it is known  that most of the Supreme Court Judges in Sri Lanka are Muslims and Tamils.

In a recent FA case a judge of the Supreme Court (who it seems is a Muslim with a Sinhala name ) had  refused to  entertain a Fundamental Rights case despite it being on the breach of provisions under an Article in  the Constitution . But had instead  given the plaintiff a rapping for being  narrow minded, and  unable to  live in a multiethnic country without hurting others. 

That is not how justice should be met in a  Supreme Court.  Such a Supreme Court Judge is fit only to be  a Mediator or an Ombudsman.  If this manner of judicial decisions were to continue the citizens will have no access to legal remedies against those miscreants who are belligerent separatists, determined to  discourage reconciliation and divide  Sri Lanka .

However, coming back to S.L.Gunasekara’s strange proposal to the BASL, one cannot  help wondering why this strange suggestion. It  may  be that if no one is  prepared to accept the appointment  of Chief Justice the field may be open to some one who thinks the President Mahinda Rajapakse  cannot be replaced by any one else in the near future ! That appears to be a  logical assumption  in view of the fact that the suggestion has been made by none other than a  leading luminary of the legal profession.  It is rarely that one comes across a lawyer who would stand on principles. They  are like  flags hoisted on poles. They flutter which ever way the wind blows.

Mr. Gunasekara says he is much concerned with the Resolution for the Impeachment of the Chief Justice. His concern is not with  the CJ personally,  but he says he is very strongly of the view that she must have a fair trial and given a fair opportunity of defending herself.

Then he says “As things stand, I have no doubt that she will get neither because now the whole `impeachment process’ has become a political exercise with some despicable clowns who, to our Country’s sorrow and shame, are MPs sinking so unbelievably low as to sign an `impeachment resolution’ that contained no charges leaving it to the `managers’ of the `drama’ to insert what charges they like!!! “  Those are very strong word , unfair and crude to come from “a leading lawyer” of Sri Lanka.

“ The  lawyers are expected not only to know the  law, but also to know where to find the law .”  That was what late Lord Russell once said to the Law students of the Honourable Lincoln’s Inn on  their  passing out as Barristers at Law.  Therefore, if Mr. Gunasekara had spent some time looking for the law, he would not have made the above statement

Impeachment is not an exercise of  the Judiciary but of the Legislature therefore it is  of course a political exercise rather than a legal exercise.  The “ despicable clowns to our countries  sorrow and shame  are MPs”  is the language in which our leading Lawyer S.L.Gunasekara  defines the MPs.  These 117 MPs who signed the Impeachment Motion on whom  Mr. Gunasekara spewed so much of venom are persons elected by the people of Sri Lanka to represent them in the Parliament.

Therefore in insulting the MPs Mr. Gunasekara also insults the  very people  who elected them.  It is immaterial whether a man comes from high society,  from a noble profession such as that of  a lawyer, or from a mud hut in a village, once he is elected  by the people to represent them in the Parliament he has to be respected without condemning him for his origin.  That is what  the Leading Lawyer Mr. S.L.Gunasekara did in making that “dishonourable” statement to please perhaps the NGO who requested him to give his opinion on the Impeachment.

In a Dhammapada verse  it is said that,  “ a man is not a Brahman by birth  but from his acts alone is he  a Brahman.

Impeachment Mr. S.L.Gunasekara is described as “ analogous to an indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.” (Wikipedia).  That is a typical Impeachment in America which we closely follow. In that sense an Impeachment proceeding in Sri Lanka  the Parliamentary Special Committee  performs what is analogous to a regular court proceeding and the  debate  of the report of the PSC in the Parliament is analogous to a trial before judge and jury in regular court.

Very strangely again Mr.S.L.Gunasekara says that the Impeachment motion did not contain charges, “…leaving it to the `managers’ of the `drama’ to insert what charges they like!!! ”     (  he means by Managers the PSC) . No Gunasekara ,   it was the PSC that received the evidence.  It was they  who examined the relevant Bank Statements, documents and evidence etc; to ascertain facts about the financial transaction, and found certain irregularities. 

S.L.Gunasekara says that he sees the Impeachment as  “….one giant step taken by the present government to control the judiciary and/or bring it under its heel and/or destroy its independence….” 

Impeachment  is not a means to control the Judiciary, because “Impeachment” is only a word used to describe the  procedure adopted to  indict “a Chief Justice” who had committed an offence  or the President.  It is not  necessary to explain it in detail to the Leading Lawyer of Sri Lanka as he know the ramification of the law.

Lawyers are known to deliberately  confuse and  baffle a  plaintiff or an  accused as the case may be in cross examining  them.  Similarly Mr. S.L.Gunasekary  complicates  the simple Impeachment Motion  by bringing in the Parliamentary Standing Orders.  He states while speaking of the Parliamentary standing orders that , “ it is relevant any law providing for the procedure of trying a judge of a Superior Court on a resolution for his/her Impeachment

would be subject to judicial review prior to enactment.” 

But an Impeachment Motion  does not fall under the Parliamentary Standing orders, nor it is necessary for the Legislature to obtain the sanction of the  Judiciary, or obtain a judicial review  of it. Gunasekara is merely complicating the issue. 

The Impeachment Motion was under the provision of the  Article  107.2 of the  Constitution of Sri Lanka.  His argument is therefore irrelevant.  The Supreme Court  issued instruction to the Speaker to postpone the  hearing of the Impeachment  Motion.  But the Supreme Court has no right to intervene to stop the Legislature from carrying out an exercise within its ambit.  On this, the  arguments presented in the Impeachment of the Chief Justice of Philippines Renato Corona  appears relevant:

“Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as well as the Senate’s constitutional mandate, as a body, to have “sole power to try all impeachments.” Several impeached judges sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds, but the courts refused to become involved due to the Constitution’s granting of impeachment and removal power solely to the legislative branch, making it a political question.” ‘(wikipedia)

The Chief Justice  Shirani Bandaranayaka  was not denied her fundamental right of defence on the charges in the Impeachment motion.  But it was she who walked away without offering any defence.  The PSC could conduct an Impeachment in the absence of the defendant. 

The PSC was properly Constituted ( even if the four opposition members had  withdrawn later) and she had been given a charge Sheet under the Impeachment Motion.  Therefore the Impeachment Motion was democratic ,constitutional and  within the rule of law. Denying that is a deliberate attempt to  show to the  anti Government foreign elements that the Impeachment exercise was a “mockery” and an interference into the Judiciary.

What these anti impeachment lawyers are doing is to play into the hands of the anti Sri Lanka West. It was reported in the website of the Star on line, that “the Diplomats who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity said the impeachment process was without due process or transparency. This gives the effect that the executive can do anything in the supreme court using its parliamentary two-thirds majority. We don't have any problem with removing the chief justice. But we are concerned on the process." (one diplomat from a European country said.)

Join the manifesting Bandwagon Mr. Gunasekara, the International Community wants “rebels” against the elected government, as it was in Bengazi in Lybia and now in Syria.  Unfortunately for them  the rural peasant masses in Sri Lanka will not go to a “Tahir Square”  or even to the Lypton Circus for  mass manifestation  as it happens in  Egypt, for the like of  an Arab Spring, therefore the Lawyers, Professors of FUTA, and Lal Kantha’s Trade Unions  could replace them,  in a “Black Coats- flat caps - Lal Kantha Lanka Spring.”  

NATO will send arms and military instructors to topple the government for  regime change.  Ranil Wickramasinghe, Tissa Attanayake and Mangala Samraweera are already asking for Commonwealth Intervention.  They are keen to topple the government not because of the Impeachment  of the CJ, but they see in it a chance to come back into power.

While you are at it Mr.S.L.Gunasekara you may as well moot the idea of a Provisional Government to make it ease for the NATO to intervene. Barack Obama is already organising such Provisional Governments in terms of his new Foreign Policy of Regime Change.