UK Fraud Act 2006

By | KEY ARTICLES
UK-Fraud-Act-2006

UK Fraud Act 2006

Published on 10th December 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
597

The Fraud 2006 Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes – fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on indictment.

The Fraud Act 2006

text

Fraud Act 2006

Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Fraud Act 2006....

Fraud Act 2006

EDS is not convincing as a parent who actually cares, moreover he is merely going through the motions which mean nothing in reality.

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

A Real Pain in the Neck √

By | KEY ARTICLES
a-real-pain-in-the-neck-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

A Real Pain in the Neck √

First published (LinkedIn) on 18th June 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
1043

After the Staged Road Traffic Accident which occurred on 22 October 2015, (within 24hrs of Joseph de Saram obtaining irrefutable evidence of cellular interception), he was suffering from serious injuries to his cervical spine. On 17 December 2015, Edward de Saram turned up and dragged Joseph de Saram by his neck deliberately causing further damage as part of EDS’s psychiatric fraud. However as can be heard EDS had planned the specific crime five days in advance with two UK Citizens – classic psychopathy fitting Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (“FDIA”) – and a perfect example of political psychiatry.

The Staged Road Traffic Accident on 22 October 2015 resulted in significant damage to my cervical vertebrae and/or intervertebral discs, causing some to dislocate and compress my spinal cord.

Please read the following article in detail for the background:-

No Ordinary Accident

20170512 UPDATED Video and text - please read the full article. 20161022 UPDATE Today is the First Anniversary of the Staged Accident. It was ...

The injury was quite painful but because I had had a Sudden Cardiac Arrest (“SCA”)and a Transient Ischaemic Attack (“TIA”), and had a substance similar to Rohypnol in my blood at the time (which caused Anterograde Amnesia), I had little idea about the severity of that which had actually happened at the time. It was only later when I saw the MRI and then weeks later when my memory returned that I fully understood that which had occurred.

20151026_213632 JDSLK Asiri Surgical Hospital MRI Lateral Deviation of Cervical Spine

The intervertebral discs in the cervical spine between C4-C5, and particularly between C5-C6 were dislocated and damaged part of my spinal cord – note how the spinal cord is blurred and indistinct at that level, though distinct at around C7.

20151026_000000 JDSLK Asiri Surgical Hospital MRI Dislocations Im4 C4-C5-C6

The intervertebral discs in the cervical spine between C4-C5, and particularly between C5-C6 were dislocated and damaged part of my spinal cord – note how the spinal cord is blurred and indistinct at that level, though distinct at around C7.

This is an Acute Spinal Cord Injury, and it was thankfully simply a contusion not a transection.

Normal sagittal-cervical

Joseph de Saram Injury at C4-C5 and C5-C6

20151026_000000 JDSLK Asiri Surgical Hospital MRI Dislocations Im6 C4-C5-C6-C7-C8

The intervertebral discs in the cervical spine between C4-C5, and particularly between C5-C6 were dislocated and damaged part of my spinal cord – note how the spinal cord is blurred and indistinct at that level, though distinct at around C7.

This is an Acute Spinal Cord Injury, and it was thankfully simply a contusion not a transection.

Normal sagittal-cervical

Joseph de Saram Injury at C4-C5, C5-C6, C6-C7, C7-C8

Signs of a Serious Spinal Contusion

Because of the nature of the nervous system, any interference can constitute a serious spinal contusion. Learn the facts to watch out for.

Types of Spinal Cord Injuries | SpinalCord.com

Find out the most common types of spinal cord injuries and how they impact the function of the body.

The injury did however cause breathing issues as well as significant muscular weakness in my arms and shoulders – this rather conveniently facilitated more thefts by parties in my house, as well as maltreatment, which my forensic evidence confirms.

By way of information I had wanted to be Neurosurgeon and enjoyed Anatomy and Neuroanatomy at University College London Medical School where I studied Medicine, and it has always been an interest of mine. Ironically this serious injury is linked to the various frauds against me perpetrated by UK-associated parties such as Edward de Saram (“EDS”) and AU-associated parties such as the Melbourne Fraudsters.

Levels of Injury

Vertebrae are grouped into sections. The higher the injury on the spinal cord, the more dysfunction can occur. I have italicised the injuries I suffered:-

High-Cervical Nerves (C1 – C4)

  • Most severe of the spinal cord injury levels
  • Paralysis in arms, hands, trunk and legs – my arms were like jelly and I had lost upper body strength
  • Patient may not be able to breathe on his or her own, cough, or control bowel or bladder movements – I had difficulty breathing and this issue worsened my heart problems
  • Ability to speak is sometimes impaired or reduced – my speech was slurred and I was having trouble speaking. Until the MRI I actually thought it was just a TIA

Low-Cervical Nerves (C5 – C8)

  • Corresponding nerves control arms and hands.
  • A person with this level of injury may be able to breathe on their own and speak normally.

C5 injury

  • Person can raise his or her arms and bend elbows – I was able to do this
  • Likely to have some or total paralysis of wrists, hands, trunk and legs – My arms were like jelly and my shoulders were very weak. I had very little upper body strength and could not type properly
  • Can speak and use diaphragm, but breathing will be weakened – I had this symptom and struggled to breath deeply

Dr Sunil Perera – Consultant Neurosurgeon

EDS and Praxy de Saram (“PDS”) accompanied me and were present at the meeting, to see Dr Perera who is one of the top neurosurgeons in Sri Lanka. I have no issues with seeing legitimate doctors, contrary to the lies of fraudsters. Another example of a doctor is Dr Stanley Amarasekara who I was seeing regularly for my Coronary Artery Ectasia at the time.

The words ‘severe neck pain’ and ’caused by a whiplash injury’ are clearly legible, and appear on the Medical Note.

[Actually his finding is entirely inconsistent with the ‘whiplash injury’ that I described, and has resulted from someone deliberately pulling my body backwards violently in order to break my neck and cause transection of the spinal cord.]

Dr Perera also stated that I needed to wear a neck brace whenever possible, but particularly so when there was any risk whatsoever, of injury to the neck. He specifically stated that the first two months after injury are crucial and not to engage in anything hazardous WHATSOEVER.

EDS and PDS took heed and purchased a more reliable neck brace after the appointment because they knew of the dangers associated with a weak one.

He asked me to come back to see him on 20 December 2015 so that he could assess whether traction of neurosurgery would need to occur. 20 December 2015 was NOT the date by which the injury would be healed.

Accordingly as can be seen the medical covered the dates of 05 November 2015 to 20 December 2015.

[EDS RAN HIS PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD, INCLUDING GARBBING MY NECK, ON 17 DECEMBER 2015. HE KNEW THAT THE INJURY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AT THAT POINT AND CERTAINLY NOT HEALED, BUT PROCEEDED ANYWAY.]

Malice Aforethought

“Malice Aforethought – n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others.”

The Depraved State of Mind - Malice Aforethought

The mens rea for the offence of murder is ‘malice aforethought’. Malice Aforethought – n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others....

20151212 234006 35 Edward de Saram Newton Ranasinghe C3 C4 Spinal cord

EDS – “[Joe] has, third and fourth cervical vertebra are pressing on the spinal cord.”

HANR – “Yes.”

EDS – If we drag him and take him, and he resists then he will become paralysed.

HANR – “Yes.”

EDS – “So we have to be extremely careful how we deal with it.”

[THIS IS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION, BOTH EDS AND HANR ARE UK CITIZENS, BOTH ARE AWARE OF THE TYPE AND SEVERITY OF MY NECK INJURY AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN SHOULD THEY PROCEED. BUT BOTH ARE MERRILY UNCONCERNED THE LIFE OF THE INTENDED VICTIM AND ARE PROCEEDING IN ANY EVENT. THIS CALL IS ACTUALLY FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE 17 DECEMBER 2015 EVENT. 

THE NORMAL RESPONSE OF A VICTIM WHO IS BEING ATTACKED IS TO RESIST, AND AS SUCH PARALYSIS WAS INEVITABLE IF I RESISTED. THIS CONVERSATION EASILY EXCEEDS THE CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED FOR ‘GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM WITH INTENT’.

EDS IS A UK CITIZEN, NORMALLY RESIDENT IN THE UK. HANR IS A UK CITIZEN NORMALLY RESIDENT IN THE UK. HANR WAS INVOLVED IN MANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE MEDICALS BY WHICH EDS PRESENTED FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE VIA AFFIDAVIT IN UK MATTER HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION (7983 OF 2000) AROUND AUGUST 2001 ONWARDS.]

20151213 092705 04 Edward de Saram Gaya Pathikirikorale Manhandling Danger Neck Injury

EDS – “The problem is manhandling [Joe] has a neck injury so I have to be very cautious…”

GNP – “Oh yes, oh yes, definitely, definitely.”

EDS – “Careful.”

[EDS FIRST USES THE WORD ‘CAUTIOUS’ RATHER THAN CAREFUL BECAUSE EDS IS TRYING (AND FAILING) TO EVADE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY. THE CAUTION IS ACTUALLY ‘THE FEAR OF GETTING CAUGHT’ NOT THE FEAR OF CAUSING SERIOUS PERMANENT INJURIES TO JOE.

HOWEVER THIS IS YET ANOTHER CALL IN WHICH EDS KNOWS THAT THAT WHICH IS HE PROPOSING IS INHERENTLY LIFE-THREATENING FOR ME, BUT IS PROCEEDING WITH SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION IN ANY EVENT.

GNP IS A UK CITIZEN, WHO REGULARLY FREQUENTS THE UK FOR KIDNEY TREATMENT. GNP WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE ON 17 DECEMBER 2015. WHEN I ASKED HIM TO QUOTE THE ‘LAW OR STATUTE THAT FACILITATED EDS’ ACTION’ GNP RESPONDED WITH WORDS TO THE EFFECT OF ‘ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR? i WILL NEVER SPEAK TO YOU AGAIN.”

EDS HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT HE WENT TO SCHOOL WITH GNP (ST ALOYSIUS COLLEGE, GAULLE), GNP WAS A FAST BOWLER IN THE CRICKET TEAM, AND EDS HAS KNOWN GNP FOR FIFTY YEARS. IT IS THEREFORE UNSURPRISING THAT ‘CLOSE PEOPLE’ ARE THE ONES CONNECTED TO THE CRIMES, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE FACT.]

20151213 093635 09 Edward de Saram Niranjan Kalapahana C3-C4 Spinal Cord Headlock Paralysed

EDS – “[Joe] has a neck injury.”

NXK – “Yes, yes.”

EDS – “Arising from an accident here.”

NXK – “Yes.”

EDS – He has a neck injury, vertebral, vertebral 3 and 4 are pressing on the spinal cord.

NXK – “Yes, yes.”

EDS – If you put [Joe] in a headlock, then he can be paralysed, so we need to know in advance.”

NXK – “Yes.”

The above phrase ‘put Joe in a headlock, then he can be paralysed’ is interesting from another perspective as well. I refer to the following article “Psychological Projection in Attempted Murder.

“Always remember before you charge on against ‘so called Spies’ when you travel, a restraint, neck lock by them will have you completely paralysed from neck downwards. I was alarmed by the way you were conducting yourself when you travelled whatever the reasoning you could get assaulted.”

[FIRST AND FOREMOST SRI LANKA IS A CORRUPT COUNTRY AND NO ‘SPIES’ HAVE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES. IF THEY HAD DONE THEN I WOULD HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT APPROACH.

SECONDLY I AM NOT SURE WHY EDS IS TALKING ABOUT ‘SPIES’ – WHAT EXACTLY DOES HE KNOW? IF HE MEANS MILITARY INTELLIGENCE THAN I HAD ALREADY KNEW THAT AND WAS CRUSHING THEM:-

Psychological Projection in Attempted Murder

The above video shows a letter that Edward de Saram ("EDS") wrote in November 2015, and for some reason hid in the kitchen without giving to me. He placed it in a packet of soup or something so that Chamaree Silva could find it - I do not cook and Silva was the one who was cooking in the kitched. I am really not sure what type of parent does this type of thing (ie incite violence against me). Margaret Cunniffe does this as well,

THIRDLY EDS DID NOT LIKE THE WAY I WAS FILMING THE BLACK BABOONS HARASSING ME (CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION) – THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. BUT EDS HAS DOCUMENTED THIS AND CONFIRMING THE DISTANCING BETWEEN HE AND I – ANOTHER SIGNAL TO THE GROUPTHINK. BUT OBVIOUSLY IF I AM FILMING THEM THEN THEY DO EXIST AND IT IS NOT A HALLUCINATION.

Body-Worn Surveillance Equipment Doesn't Come in Children's Sizes

An interesting aspect of surveillance operations in Asian countries such as Sri Lanka, is that the generally smaller body frame of the general population results in body-worn equipment fitting improperly compared to their western counterparts.

Equipment manufacturers tend to produce sophisticated equipment in limited sizes, due to their cost and the popular size centres around agents of 5ft 8ins.

AND FINALLY EDS IS PROJECTING PERFECTLY, EDS’ OWN INTENT TO (A) ASSAULT ME AND (B) CAUSE PARALYSIS FROM THE NECK DOWN – EDS IS IN FACT THE ONE BEHIND THE GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM WITH INTENT 🙂

Unless I have missed something (and I tend not to) was it simply not easier for EDS to just f^#k off and stop his ridiculous fraud before I got killed or paralysed?

Actually the primary fraud was SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, and the primary objective was GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM WITH INTENT, and IRREGULAR RENDITION, so probably not 🙂

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Psychiatric Diagnoses Only Exist in the Mind of the Psychiatrist – the Rosenhan Experiment √

By | KEY ARTICLES
psychiatric-diagnoses-only-exist-in-the-mind-of-the-psychiatrist-the-rosenhan-experiment-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Psychiatric Diagnoses Only Exist in the Mind of the Psychiatrist - the Rosenhan Experiment √

First published (LinkedIn) on 14th January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
668

The ‘Rosenhan experiment’ is a well known experiment examining the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. It was published in 1975 by David Rosenhan in a paper entitled ‘On being sane in insane places’. The study consisted of two parts. The first involved ‘pseudopatients’ – who, as part of the study, briefly reported auditory hallucinations in order to gain admission to psychiatric hospitals across the United States. After admission, the pseudopatients no longer reported hallucinations and behaved as they ‘normally’ would…

Despite this many were confined as inpatients for substantial periods of time and all were discharged with the diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. 

For the second part of the experiment staff at a teaching hospital, whose staff had learned of Rosenhan’s above results, were informed that one or more pseudopatients would attempt to be admitted to their hospital over an ensuing three month period.

Many patients were subsequently identified as likely pseudopatients but in fact no pseudopatient had been sent. 

‘On being sane…’ also examines, though the experience of the pseudopatients, the patient experience of psychiatric inpatient wards. This part of the paper is discussed often only in passing.

Rosenhan’s conclusion was stark:

A psychiatric diagnosis is more a function of the situation in which the observer finds a patient and reveals little about a patient themselves.

“It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals“

[MEANING THAT IF THE PSYCHIATRIST IS SPEAKING TO ME IN A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY, IT SOMEHOW CONFIRMS THAT I HAVE BEEN LABELLED CORRECTLY AND THEY MERELY ALIGN THEIR DIAGNOSIS WITH THAT OF THE LABEL.]

Despite being over forty years old the Rosenhan experiment remains well known and is often cited. Accounts of the experiment are widespread on the internet, but critiques are rarer and many people accept the study’s conclusions at face value. 

This was an audacious experiment and the subsequent paper had an extremely good title, but was Rosenhan justified in his conclusion? Anthony Clare, amongst others, wrote that Rosenhan was ‘theorising in the absence of sufficient data’.

[A GREATER AMOUNT OF DATA WOULD PROBABLY NOT CHANGE THE CONCLUSION]

But if Rosenhan was correct then his experiment remains extremely important; as if diagnoses are in ‘the mind of the observer’ and do not reflect a quality inherent a patient, they are of little use. 

[I DO NOT LIKE SHITLANKANStm AND THEY DO NOT LIKE ME. HOWEVER PUT ME INTO A SITUATION IN WHICH A SHITLANKANtm CAN EFFECT POWER AND CONTROL OVER ME, THEN THEY WILL SAY WHATEVER THEY LIKE BECAUSE THEY ENJOY THE NARCISSISTIC SUPPLY AND GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE OF THEIR GROUPTHINK.]

If you wish to read the original paper it can be found here. Spitzer’s 1975 critique is available here (for a fee). Davis’s critique here. Clare’s ‘Psychiatry in dissent’ is available in preview here.

Circumstances of Diagnosis and the Detecting of Sanity

I refer to this excellent article, and I have referred to certain paragraphs:-

The Rosenhan experiment examined

The ‘Rosenhan experiment’ is a well known experiment examining the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. It was published in 1975 by David Rosenhan in a paper entitled ‘On being sane in insane places’ The study consisted of two parts. The first involved...

In the experiment eight pseudopatients presented at psychiatric hospitals complaining of hearing a voice. Asked what the voices said, they replied that the voices were often unclear, but as far as they could tell, said “empty,” “hollow,” and “thud.” Beyond alleging this symptom, and falsifying their names and vocations, no other falsehoods were told. Upon admission to the ward the pseudopatients are reported to have ceased to claim symptoms and behaved as they ‘normally’ would. 

Length of hospitalization was an average of 19 days during which time no pseudopatients were identified as fraudulent. All pseudopatients except one (diagnosed with bipolar disorder) were discharged with a diagnosis of ‘schizophrenia in remission’.

In light of this Rosenhan regards there to have been ‘uniform failure to recognise sanity’

Rosenhan refused to identify the hospitals used on the grounds of his concern for confidentiality. This is laudable in some respects, but it makes it impossible for anyone at the hospitals in question to corroborate or refute this account of how the pseudopatients acted or were perceived. 

It is a difficulty that Rosenhan seeks to answer whether patients can be identified as ‘sane’ or ‘insane’, whilst psychiatrists, whose practice he wishes to scrutinize

do not make such distinctions in their practice but instead aim to identify and treat what they view as psychiatric disorders.

This objection aside, and working within this terminology, in his 1975 critique Spitzer identifies three possible meanings for ‘detecting of sanity’. 

Recognition, when he is first seen, that the pseudopatient is feigning insanity as he attempts to gain admission to the hospital. This would be detecting sanity in a sane person simulating insanity.

[THE SHITLANKANtm PSYCHIATRIST FAILED TO EXPLORE THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF EDWARD DE SARAM AND/OR THE PARTIES CLAIMING I HAD A MENTAL PROBLEM.]

Recognition, after having observed him acting normally during his hospitalization, that the pseudopatient was initially feigning insanity. This would be detecting that the currently sane person never was insane.

[THE SHITLANKANtm PSYCHIATRISTS REFUSED TO CONSIDER THAT THE SYMPTOMS THAT WERE MERRILY FALSIFIED AND/OR INDUCED BY EDWARD DE SARAM, HAD SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR VALIDITY AND/OR VERACITY.]

Recognition, during hospitalization, that the pseudopatient, though initially appearing to be ‘insane’ was no longer showing signs of psychiatric disturbance.

[THE SHITLANKANtm PSYCHIATRISTS COULD CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE WERE NO PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS, BUT [DELIBERATELY] FAILED TO CHANGE THEIR ERRONEOUS VIEW POINT. THIS BEHAVIOUR ACTUALLY FITS THE DSM-5 DEFINITION OF A DELUSION:-

“Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.”

“the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.”

Only the first two involve identifying a pseudopatient as a fraud and Spitzer feels that it is these that Rosenhan implies are all that are relevant to the central research question. He disagrees, writing that when the third definition of detecting of sanity is considered Rosenhan’s conclusions cannot be sustained. 

This assertion hinges on Rosenhan’s report that all the pseudopatients were diagnosed as being ‘in remission’, that is recognised as being, currently, without signs of mental disorder or ‘sane’. By this view the data as reported by Rosenhan contradicts Rosenhan’s own conclusion. Spitzer also writes that ‘schizophrenia in remission’ was a diagnosis rarely used by psychiatrists at the time of the experiment, and as such this indicates that the diagnoses given were a function of the patients’ behaviours and not simply of the environment in which they were made. 

Should a psychiatrist be able to able to detect that a patient is a fraud? That is, should a psychiatrist be able to detect that, after observing a patient acting normally, that they were initially feigning insanity?

[THE SHITLANKANtm PSYCHIATRISTS SIMPLY IGNORED THE FACTS BECAUSE THE WHOLE PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD WAS TO DISCREDIT ME AND DESTROY EVIDENCE OF CELLULAR INTERCEPTION AND OTHER EVIDETIARY MATERIAL.]

Rosenhan reports that this possibility was considered by the pseudopatients’ fellow patients but by no clinical staff:

 

“It was quite common for the patients to “detect” the pseudopatient’s sanity. During the first three hospitalizations, when accurate counts were kept, 35 of a total of 118 patients on the admissions ward voiced their suspicions, some vigorously. “You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist, or a professor (referring to the continual note-taking). You’re checking up on the hospital.” …. The fact that the patients often recognized normality when staff did not raises important questions.

 

Rosenhan reports that the psychiatrists did not spend much time with the pseudopatients. Other patients of course had ample time to formulate their own theories. Whilst the medical staff’s lack of engagement with the pseudopatients is regrettable, it does point towards poor clinical skills rather than an indictment of psychiatric classification. Clare again:

 

“Rosenhan and those many critics of psychiatry who have greeted his paper with enthusiasm seem in fact to be saying that, since the doctors did not appear to have the faintest idea as to what constitutes the operational concept of ‘schizophrenia’ and yet applied it with haste to people showing virtually no signs or symptoms whatsoever, the whole diagnostic approach should be scrapped!”

 

Rosenhan later wrote that he considered the patients apparent insight over that of the psychiatrists as due to the ‘experimenter effect’ or ‘expectation bias’. 

The professionals expected to see a patient with a mental illness, so they looked for reasons to believe it, and eventually they convinced themselves that the pseudopatients were actually suffering from schizophrenia.

[THE SHITLANKANtm PSYCHIATRISTS WERE SO DELUDED BY THE CONVINCING LIES OF EDWARD DE SARAM AND OTHERS, THAT THEY BOUGHT INTO THE ‘STORY’ AND CONTINUED TO APPLY IT WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHANGE THEIR ASSESSMENT WHEN EXAMINING ME DIRECTLY, DESPITE IS BEING PATENTLY OBVIOUS.]

People do sometimes simulate mental illness for their own ends and this is a genuine diagnostic problem.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy MSbP

In MSbP, an individual — usually a parent or caregiver— causes or fabricates symptoms in a child. The adult deliberately misleads others (particularly...

It is a situation not unique to psychiatry and how easily a disorder psychiatric or otherwise can be feigned tells us little about the worth of the psychiatric classification system. Kety has something to say on this. 

“If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behavior of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labeled and treated me as having a bleeding peptic ulcer, I doubt that I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition”

[THE PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD IS DEMONSTRATED BECAUSE NO ERROR COULD HAVE BEEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE GIVEN MY RESPONSES AND BEHAVIOUR IN THE PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY. ALL THAT HAPPENED WAS THIRD PARTIES [MELBOURNE FRAUDSTERS INCLUDED] WITH AN AGENDA FABRICATED THEIR DESIRED POSITION AND GOT PSYCHIATRISTS TO ‘MAKE IT OFFICIAL’.]

Clare makes a similar point using the example that the signs and symptoms of diabetes exist independently of whether they are correctly elicited or not. 

Rosenhan does consider in his paper that that a mental illness is a life sentence:

 

“A broken leg is something one recovers from, but mental illness allegedly endures forever”

 

If a disorder was known to be always chronic and unremitting, it would illogical not to question the original diagnosis if the patient was later found to be asymptomatic and it is at this that Rosenhan is presumably driving.

If the pseudopatients ‘recovered’ from an incurable illness whilst under the gaze of their psychiatrists and this did not alter the diagnosis then this would be an example, just as Rosenhan says, of the hospital environment influencing diagnostic decision making.
 

[EXACTLY – THE SHITLANKANStm MERELY USED FRAUDULENT MEDICAL REPORTS THAT EDWARD DE SARAM HAD FABRICATED FOR A DTI MATTER FROM 2001 ONWARDS AND IGNORED THE COPIOUS INFORMATION IN THE PRESENT COMING FROM ME DIRECTLY. IN FACT THEY MERELY USED THOSE AS A ‘ROADMAP TO TORTURE’.]

Conditions on the ward

Rosenhan’s description of the depersonalising effect of a long stay on the wards is also powerful. Despite their commitment to the experiment in which they are taking part, their wish to resist the powerlessness they experience leads several of them to jeopardise the study.

 

The patient is deprived of many of his legal rights by dint of his psychiatric commitment. He is shorn of credibility by virtue of his psychiatric label. His freedom of movement is restricted. He cannot initiate contact with the staff, but may only respond to such overtures as they make. Personal privacy is minimal. Patient quarters and possessions can be entered and examined by any staff member, for whatever reason. His personal history and anguish is available to any staff member (often including the “grey lady” and “candy striper” volunteer) who chooses to read his folder, regardless of their therapeutic relationship to him. His personal hygiene and waste evacuation are often monitored. The water closets have no doors.”

 

Attendants were reported to deliver verbal and occasional physical abuse to patients, something that can in no way be justified. 

[I WAS CONTINUALLY SPOKEN TO IN AN EXTREMELY CONDESCENDING MANNER.]

Validity of diagnosis

There are two issues here. Where the psychiatrists who met his pseudopatients wrong to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia within the DSM II diagnostic framework? And are psychiatric diagnoses of use or should they be replaced by an alternative?

The ease with which the pseudopatients gained admission on the basis of what are reported to be mild symptoms was remarked upon by Anthony Clare in Psychiatry in Dissent.

 

It is a matter of some interest that a solitary complaint of a hallucinatory voice in the absence of any other unusual experience or personal discomfort should actually persuade certain American hospitals to open their doors. Such is the current demand for a psychiatric bed within the National Health Service and the prevailing emphasis on treating patients outside hospitals and in the community that the average admitting doctor in Britain is likely to find himself under strict instructions to avoid admitting any patient who can see, speak, and do all of these things without bothering himself or others to an significant extent. On suspects that, in Britain, Professor Rosenhan might well be advised to go home like a good man, get a decent night’s rest and come back again in the morning.”

 

And many people have been critical of the way the pseudopatients were diagnosed with schizophrenia on the basis of hallucinations – a single symptom and not even essential for the diagnosis. Anthony Clare again:

 

“…the doctors did not appear to have the faintest idea as to what constitutes the operational concept of ‘schizophrenia’ and yet applied it with haste to people showing virtually no signs or symptoms whatsoever…

 

The poor diagnostic skills and apparent lack of curiosity of the psychiatrists that the pseudopatients met is not an indictment of the classification per se, rather its application.

Amongst others Richard Bentall has made a career out of pointing out that psychiatric diagnosis is neither particularly valid nor reliable.

In contrast to psychiatric disorders, the diagnosing of physical medical conditions is often portrayed as being solid and dependable

Conclusion

Rosenhan concludes:

 

“It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals. The hospital itself imposes a special environment in which the meaning of behavior can easily be misunderstood. The consequences to patients hospitalized in such an environment – the powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation, mortification, and self-labeling – seem undoubtedly counter-therapeutic.”

 

Relevance

I will be referring to this article “Psychiatric Diagnoses Only Exist in the Mind of the Psychiatrist – the Rosenhan Experiment” during forthcoming articles in relation to forensic analysis of the statements that I made in the Psychiatric Facility to confirm the underlying basis of the Psychiatric Fraud was Cellular Interception and Spoliation of Evidence.

Irrefutable Identification of Cellular Interception via Pure Forensic Analysis

The video above is by Annie Machon, an ex-Intelligence Officer who worked for MI5. Annie is one of the few of us left who actually have Brains &...
irrefutable-identification-of-cellular-interception-via-pure-forensic-analysis-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin-featured

and Irregular Rendition

Pseudo-Lethal Injections Ahead of Rendition

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...

to facilitate Theft and Destruction of Evidence

Destruction of Evidence and Perversion of the Course of Justice

20171006 UPDATE - FORENSIC EVIDENCE CONFIRMING THIRD PARTIES Notwithstanding the FACT that parties had OBVIOUSLY entered my house, and had stolen...

by UK-originated parties

The LK RTA Fraud was Engineered for the UK CHIS Fraud

I refer to this article about Raymond Michael Callingham of Beeley Hawley & Co (Covert Human Intelligence Source – “CHIS”) and his HMRC Form fraud:-...

UK IP 193.129.103.99 - A One in 3.7 Billion Fraud

IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE, THE USER OF IP ADDRESS 193.129.103.99 APPEARS TO BE GOWLING WLG, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE KNOWN AS 'WRAGGE LAWRENCE & GRAHAM'...
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

The Depraved State of Mind – Malice Aforethought

By | KEY ARTICLES
the-depraved-state-of-mind-malice-aforethought-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

The Depraved State of Mind - Malice Aforethought (±x)

Published on 24th September 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
642

Enter more text here

The mens rea for the offence of murder is ‘malice aforethought’.

Malice Aforethought – n.

1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder.

2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others.

The mens rea for the offence of murder is ‘malice aforethought’. This is relatively straightforward but can be misleading. The word ‘malice’ may suggest to some that the prosecution needs to establish some ulterior motive or reason for the killing but this is not the case.

In simple terms it means the:-

“intention to kill or cause really serious harm”

It might be surprising to learn that an individual need not have intended to cause the death of the victim but he or she may still be convicted of murder, but this has been a long standing part of E&W law.

In Cunningham 1982, the House of Lords was unanimous in its opinion that the

intention to cause grievous bodily harm constitutes enough blameworthiness to amount to malice aforethought.

Regina v Cunningham: HL 8 Jul 1981

(A) A defendant may be convicted of murder if it is established either (1) that he had an intent to kill or (2) that he had an intent to cause really serious bodily injury

(B) Intention is a state of mind which can never be proved as a fact. It can only be inferred from other facts which are proved.

Lord Edmund-Davies said:

‘the outcome of intentionally inflicting serious harm can be so unpredictable that anyone prepared to act so wickedly has little ground for complaint if, where death results, he is convicted and punished as severely as one who intended to kill.’ 

Try Hard - Inchoate Offences

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Attempted criminal liability is governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which was based on the recommendations of the...

REGINA V WOOLLIN: HL 2 APR 1998

Regina v Woollin: HL 2 Apr 1998

The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child. 

(C) On a murder charge, where the short direction on intent was insufficient, the judge should direct on basis that death or serious bodily harm would have to almost certainly arise from the act complained of, and that the defendant appreciated this.

(D) A person may still intend to do something even though he does not desire it.

(E) Intention is not to be restricted to consequences that are wanted or desired, but includes consequences which a defendant might not want to ensue, but which the jury find (a) are the virtually certain result of the defendant’s actions (barring some unforeseen intervention); and (b) are consequences which the defendant appreciated were virtually certain to occur.

REGINA V HYAM: HL 1974

Regina v Hyam: HL 1974

The defendant had burnt down the house of her rival in love, thereby killing her children. The judge directed the jury to convict the defendant of murder if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause death or serious bodily harm. The jury convicted her of murder. 

(F) The House considered what state of mind, apart from the case where a defendant acts with the purpose of killing or causing serious injury, may be sufficient to constitute the necessary intention for murder.

(G) The House differed in their reasons for upholding the conviction. One adopted the ‘highly probable’ test; another thought a test of probability was sufficient; and a third thought it was sufficient if the defendant realised there was ‘a serious risk.’
 

REGINA V POWELL (ANTHONY) AND ANOTHER; REGINA V ENGLISH: HL 30 OCT 1997

Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English: HL 30 Oct 1997

When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point of view of the secondary party is sufficient. The question certified was ‘Is it sufficient to found a conviction for murder for a secondary party to a killing to have realised that the primary party might kill with intent to do so or must the secondary party have held such intention himself?’ 

(H) A secondary party to a criminal enterprise may be criminally liable for a greater criminal offence committed by the primary offender of a type which the former foresaw but did not necessarily intend.

(I) It is sufficient to found a conviction for murder for a secondary party to have realised that in the course of the joint enterprise the primary party might kill with intent to do so or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Lord Steyn said: ‘Experience has shown that joint criminal Enterprises only too often escalate into commission of greater offences. In order to deal with this important social problem, the accessory principle is needed and cannot be abolished or relaxed.’

RAHMAN AND OTHERS, REGINA V: HL 2 JUL 2008

Rahman and Others, Regina v: HL 2 Jul 2008

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury 

The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. None had themselves inflicted any violence, but were convicted as part of a joint enterprise. They said they had not known that the principal carried a knife. They said that the evidence showed that the knife wound had been intended to kill, but that it was only shown that they had anticipated a serious injury falling short of that murder. The judge had not directed the jury that the defendants had to be shown to have been party to the intention inferred. 

(J) The law must necessarily include mechanisms for convicting those who take part in a criminal activity without themselves carrying out the central acts, and ‘Given the fluid, fast-moving course of events in incidents such as that which culminated in the killing of the deceased, incidents which are unhappily not rare, it must often be very hard for jurors to make a reliable assessment of what a particular defendant foresaw as likely or possible acts on the part of his associates.

(K) It would be even harder, and would border on speculation, to judge what a particular defendant foresaw as the intention with which his associates might perform such acts. It is safer to focus on the defendant’s foresight of what an associate might do, an issue to which knowledge of the associate’s possession of an obviously lethal weapon such as a gun or a knife would usually be very relevant. ‘ and

(L) ‘In the prosecution of a principal offender for murder, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove or the jury to consider whether the defendant intended on the one hand to kill or on the other to cause really serious injury. That is legally irrelevant to guilt. The rationale of that principle plainly is that if a person unlawfully assaults another with intent to cause him really serious injury, and death results, he should be held criminally responsible for that fatality, even though he did not intend it.

(M) If he had not embarked on a course of deliberate violence, the fatality would not have occurred. This rationale may lack logical purity, but it is underpinned by a quality of earthy realism. To rule that an undisclosed and unforeseen intention to kill on the part of the primary offender may take a killing outside the scope of a common purpose to cause really serious injury, calling for a distinction irrelevant in the case of the primary offender, is in my view to subvert the rationale which underlies our law of murder. ‘

(N) Lord Brown said: ‘If the principal (the killer) was at all times intent on killing the victim and the secondary party was not, then it is simply unrealistic to talk in terms of their sharing a common purpose. But that matters nothing. Once the wider principle was recognised (or established), as it was in Chan Wing-Siu and Hyde, namely that criminal liability is imposed on anyone assisting or encouraging the principal in his wrongdoing who realises that the principal may commit a more serious crime than the secondary party himself ever intended or wanted or agreed to, then the whole concept of common purpose became superfluous. ‘ and 

(O) ‘The qualification to the Hyde direction established by English concerns simply the secondary party’s foresight of possible acts by the principal constituting more serious offences than the secondary party himself was intending, acts to which he never agreed and which from his standpoint were entirely unwanted and unintended. But an act is an act and either its possibility is foreseen or it is not.

(P) I see no possible reason or justification for further complicating this already problematic area of the law by requiring juries to consider and decide whether the principal’s intent when killing the victim was the full intent to kill or the usual lesser intent to cause GBH.

(Q) Whichever it was, the act was the act of killing and the only question arising pursuant to the English qualification is whether the possibility of killing in that way (rather than in some fundamentally different way) was foreseen by the accessory-whether the act which caused the death was, as Sir Robin Cooke had put it in Chan Wing Siu, ‘of a type’ foreseen by the secondary party.’

REGINA V MOLONEY: HL 1985

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. 

Held: The appeal was allowed and a conviction for manslaughter substituted. 

(R) Lord Bridge of Harwich discussed the case of Hyam: ‘But looking on their facts at the decided cases where a crime of specific intent was under consideration, including Hyam . . they suggest to me that the probability of the consequence taken to have been foreseen must be little short of overwhelming before it will suffice to establish the necessary intent.’

(S) In the rare cases in which it might be necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of consequences it would be sufficient to ask two questions:

(T) ‘First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant’s voluntary act?

(U) Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence.’ 

Relevance of the Foregoing

I am in the process of writing two new article referencing Forensic Evidence in relation to ‘Attempted Murder v Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent’, and need this article ‘The Depraved State of Mind – Malice Aforethought‘ to refer to.

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Try Hard Inchoate Offences

By | KEY ARTICLES
try-hard-inchoate-offences-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Try Hard - Inchoate Offences (±x)

Published on 24th September 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
888

Enter more text here

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Attempted criminal liability is governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which was based on the recommendations of the Law Commission Report (1980 No 102) and to address in part the House of Lords decision in Haughton v. Smith [1975] AC 476. Section 1(1A) provides that to be guilty of attempt, the offender must “with intent” do “an act which is more than merely preparatory” to committing the intended offence, even if this (s.1(2)) becomes impossible.

Section 1(4) limits the application of attempts to offences that can only be tried “as an indictable offence” thereby excluding summary only offences.

Nevertheless, in R. v. Nelson [2013] EWCA Crim 30, the Court of Appeal ruled that whilst common assault which includes battery (see Lynsey [1995] 2 Cr App R 667) are summary offences (s.39 CJA 1988). If s.40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies (linked summary to indictable offence), then attempted battery becomes an offence that is triable as an indictable offence, (in the instance case, s.47 assault).

Specific Case Law

TOSTI, R v [1997] CA

[Inchoate Offences – attempts – must be more than preparatory]

(G) DD attempted to burgle a barn. Around midnight, they were disturbed examining the padlock on the barn door, but ran off when they realised they were being watched. Their cars were parked in a lay-by nearby, and hidden in a hedge between the cars and the barn was an oxy-acetylene cutting set.

(H) Held: The jury had been entitled to find that their acts were more than merely preparatory.

* * GUILTY * *

Relevance

On 17 December 2015, Edward de Saram (“EDS”) brought a number of people (“thugs”) to my house. I did not know any of the thugs and it was clear that they had been brought for a specific purpose. I did not give them permission to enter my property and EDS abused my rights as usual, by allowing unknown parties to enter the perimeter.

The ‘thugs’ are equivalent to the ‘oxy-acetylene’ cutting set as they would have facilitated physical entry to my house. Their presence at the scene of the crime, meant that the crime proper had already commenced.

BOYLE AND BOYLE (1987) CA

[Attempts – must be more than merely preparatory]

(A) D damaged the door of a house with a view to entering the premises as a trespasser and with intent to steal therein (attempted burglary).

(B) Held: D intended to enter the house and steal and so commit the offence of burglary. In breaking down the door D did more than a merely preparatory act.

(C) The court was entitled to look back at previous cases to discover the tests that were applied before.

* * GUILTY * *

Relevance

As can be heard EDS stated “[if you don’t come down]… we’ll break open the door and drag you out!”. This is CLASSIC COERCION – there was no lawful basis that forced me to allow unknown parties with no legal basis, to enter my house.

The door was then smashed and further crimes were committed such as theft of exculpatory evidence as well as grievous bodily harm was inflicted mercilessly on me.

JONES, R v (1990) CA

[Attempts – more than preparatory – embarking on the full crime]

(D) D attempted to murder V. First he bought a shotgun, sawed off the end of the barrel and test fired it. Later he climbed into the back of V’s car and told him to drive to a secluded place. D removed the shotgun from his bag and pointed it at V. The safety catch of the gun was on. V grabbed the gun and threw it out of the window and made good his escaped.

(E) Held:

(F) D must come close to committing the full offence, but there may be some acts left to perform before the substantive offence is committed. D had still had to remove the gun’s safety catch, put his finger on the trigger and pull it, but he had performed sufficient acts that were more than “merely preparatory”.

* * GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER * *

Relevance

From early December 2015, EDS was involved in Crime Scene Construction as well as poisoning me with anti-psychotic drugs that were contraindicated because of my heart issues.

After EDS and PDS returned mid-December 2015 my health suddenly deteriorated unexplainably. It was clear from the duration of my erection that I had been poisoned with anti-pscyhotic medication that would have foreseeably killed me in the immediate present. The crime was therefore underway already.

However the obtaining of anti-psychotic medication Aripiprazole (Abilify) by EDS is akin to the ‘purchasing of the shotgun’ in the example above.

Evidence of the ‘existence of the poison’ ‘at the intended ‘scene of the crime’ is confirmed here. The translation is as follows:-

“Newton, today we went to see some doctor, who gave some kind of medicine, Abilify, then I gave it to Joe who said he would consider it and take it. [The doctor] was the Director of Ungoda [Psychiatric Facility] – that’s it for now, I’m going to sleep – don’t call me. Bye”

I had agreed to consider it after checking the contraindications, but it was clear that EDS could not wait and was already administering it unlawfully.

WALKER AND HAYLES (1990)

[Attempts – ‘With intent’ includes ‘oblique or indirect intent’]

(I) D1 and D2 engaged in a fight during which V was injured when he was thrown over a third floor balcony.

(J) Held: The mental element for attempted murder, could be inferred from evidence that D foresaw death as a virtually certain or highly probable consequence of his actions. This was the principle in Nedrick.

* * GUILTY * *

Relevance

Both the (i) administering of anti-psychotic medication to me AND (ii) the battery and torture when I had pre-existing neck injuries (at the very least dragging me), would have caused death.

Additionally when the physical assault was progress EDS prevented me from obtaining my neck-brace as well as prevented me from getting water as my blood pressure was dangerously low as well. These are further specific actions by EDS which confirm his malice aforethought and depraved state of mind.

EDS foresaw death as a virtually certain or highly probable consequence of his actions.

WHITE, R v (1910)

[Impossibility due to incapacity]

(K) D tried to kill his mother by poisoning her but did not use enough poison to successfully cause her death.

(L) Held:

(M) Bray I: “… the completion or attempted completion of a series of acts intended by a man to result in a killing is an attempt to murder even though this completed act would not, unless followed by other acts, result in killing.”

** GUILTY * *

Relevance

As mentioned above, EDS was already administering poison, which would have foreseeably resulted in my death.

Summary

As can be seen there were multiple occurrences of events which demonstrate malice aforethought for attempted murder.

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Extrajudicial Psychiatric Detention

By | KEY ARTICLES
extrajudicial-psychiatric-detention-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Extrajudicial Psychiatric Detention (±x)

Published on 21st September 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
918

Enter more text here

Extrajudicial detention covers a wide range of situations in which the physical freedom of an individual is constrained or abridged by authority outside what is generally considered an open and legitimate trial process. As well as detention proper, this may also include extrajudicial capital punishment.

Definition of extrajudicial

  1. a : not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings – an extrajudicial investigation
  2. b : delivered without legal authority – the judge’s extrajudicial statements
  3. c : done in contravention of due process of law an extrajudicial execution

Governments and nongovernmental organizations have a range of criteria for detention; see Related Articles for specifics. They usually have different rules for citizens and noncitizens on their own territory. On home soil, they may use national security, police, medical and a variety of other criteria. Some will apprehend citizens or noncitizens outside their territory, either bringing them back or sending them to third countries under extraordinary rendition.

There is no strict rule that states this must be a governmental or quasi-governmental activity, rather than, for example, a neighborhood detaining a drug dealer, but the principle in the Convention against Torture is that torture, in the context of international law, is governmental.

Extrajudicial does not equate to illegal, as customary international law has long provided for specific circumstances in which a trial process may not be practical or applicable, including such offenses considered hostis humani generis such as piracy in international waters. The laws of land warfare have accepted as legal, but not civilian judicial, secret and summary handling of “spies” by military law, using a term of art referring to a participant in conflict who conceals his status. 

Political Psychiatry

However this article is NOT about me, although

the modus operandi and signature themes are IDENTICAL

it relates to Frederic Laroche and was published on 18 July 2017 by Ramola D at

https://everydayconcerned.net/category/fraud-in-psychiatry/

Signature Themes

I think it is fairly obvious – Psychotronic Weapons (DEWs), fake accidents, bogus injury claims by a woman, unlawful imprisonment, insurance company as the main driver, drugs which cause paralysis, military theme, ‘restricted patient’, paranoid schizophrenia, harassment started in 1998, lack of belief by third parties, apparent inability to distinguish between real and imaginary, reframing of narrative [to become false], political activism, suspect in a crime, lawyers do not want to assist, information is not disclosed to the victim but everyone else seems to know about it, psychiatrists and police choosing to ignore forensic evidence, apparent ‘fixed delusions’, drugs such as risperidone, quetiapine, loxapine, aripiprazole, olanzapine, victim apparently reads things on the internet and then incorporates them into this experiences, blatant poisoning, electronic surveillance, multiple parties with a hidden agenda…

Watch this compilation of excerpts, and you will know what I am talking about. I am still writing this article…

20170718 Frederic Laroche 01 Intro

20170718 Frederic Laroche 02 Declaration

20170718 Frederic Laroche 03 Suppression of Evidence

20170718 Frederic Laroche 04 Fake Evidence Unhelpful Lawyer

20170718 Frederic Laroche 05 Refusal to Believe

20170718 Frederic Laroche 06 False Narrative re Woman

20170718 Frederic Laroche 07 Heavy Involvement of Insurance Company

20170718 Frederic Laroche 08 A Dangerous Person Who Can't Be Trusted

20170718 Frederic Laroche 09 Multiple Parties Investigation

20170718 Frederic Laroche 10 Restricted Patient

20170718 Frederic Laroche 11 Trauma

20170718 Frederic Laroche 12 Restricted Patient 2

20170718 Frederic Laroche 13 Psychiatrist's Incorrect Analysis

20170718 Frederic Laroche 14 Nice Room

20170718 Frederic Laroche 15 Fixed Delusion Technique

20170718 Frederic Laroche 16 Drug Induced Paralysis

20170718 Frederic Laroche 17 Act Normal Even After Poisoning

20170718 Frederic Laroche 18 Drugs Lesser of Two Evils

20170718 Frederic Laroche 19 Long Stay Psychiatric Conditioning

20170718 Frederic Laroche 20 External Influence Delusion

20170718 Frederic Laroche 21 More Drugs

20170718 Frederic Laroche 22 Forced Medication

20170718 Frederic Laroche 23 Psychiatrists Playing God Medieval Torture

20170718 Frederic Laroche 24 Inability Get Legal Representation

20170718 Frederic Laroche 25 Conclusion of Interview 01

The following text was written by Ramola D:-

“Is France, like the United States of America, like Switzerland, like Belgium, like Germany, like Poland, like Canada, like Australia, like New Zealand, and numerous other countries of Europe, North America, Asia, and other continents, now practicing totalitarian State repression KGB and Cheka-style with the use of political psychiatry?

It would appear so, if Frederic Laroche‘s experience is anything to go by. A talented and experienced software engineer with a background in teaching high school science, Frederic Laroche has worked for several years as a human rights activist on the behalf of French residents who have in recent years fallen prey to the same kinds of programs running wild in all the no-longer-democratic or now-only-superficially democratic countries mentioned above—organized stalking, covert assault with directed-energy weapons or DEWs (also called psychotronic, electronic, non-lethal, or microwave weapons), and non-consensual enrollment in neuro-experimentation programs—trademark evidence of covert extrajudicial surveillance and experimentation by globally-operative Intelligence agencies working hand in glove with national Security agencies, military units, and local police and governments.

These are manifestations of the global surveillance state run apparently by Bilderberger central bankers & technocrats, secret-society cultists, Freemasons, Satanists, Paperclip Nazis, Zionists, operatives from the Vatican/City of London/Washington, DC as a global shadow operation ensconced inside the governments of countries, which the Mainstream Media mouthpieces for the CIA and MI5/MI6 and Mossad in the US and UK and Europe have proved openly now they will not dare to report.

But will indeed bolster and conceal apparently with distortions, lies, omissions, and elisions in reportage; the New York Times, for instance, distinguished itself with such faulty and flagrantly deceptive reportage in recent times, as also did the oddly Satanically-named outfit, The Daily Beast, both seeking to discredit the reporting victims and witnesses of 21st-Century covert assault with EMF Spectrum/Neuro-weapons and organized stalkinga group inclusive of highly-educated and accomplished researchers, whistleblowers, and activists.

Such media deception relies on the offices of that old State tool, Psychiatry, and perhaps we should not marvel at the fact that one government propaganda tool relies on the concealing bulwark of another—indeed, one historically used to support Terror operations run by governments and Secret Services such as the Cheka (Secret Police) in the Soviet Union and the Stasi in East Germany.

Railroaded by French Intelligence and State Psychiatry

In April 2017, Frederic Laroche sent informative letters to French government members covering the realities of extrajudicial targeting with EMF/Neuro -weapons in France. He enclosed supportive information from Dr. Katherine Horton, ex-CERN physicist and founder of the Joint Investigation Team, an international team of experts exploring the wrongful use of DEWs and military neurotech on civilians worldwide.

Shortly after, in May 2017, he was wrongfully detained by local police in Grenoble, France on the basis of a trumped-up charge of assault of a pedestrian with his automobile, after what appears to have been an entrapment operation run on him on May 2, 2017 by actors working for the French Intelligence services.

He was then remanded by order of the town Mayor, judge, and Prefet (the Police Commissioner) to a local psychiatric institution where he was forcibly dosed with very high quantities of an anti-psychotic, which caused him to experience intensive back, spine, and neck paralysis, inability to breathe, and near-comatose blankness of mind.

Because he demanded that this drug be stopped, the dosage was reduced; the attending physician informed him “We cannot give you nothing.” His continued stay at this facility was curtailed only on the assessment of the attending psychiatrist, who has “let him go” on the condition that he return every month until September for a mega-dose of another anti-psychotic, intended to sustain his physiology for the period of a whole month at a time.

This drug, he reports, muddies his concentration and focus, blanks his initiative, degrades his cognitive processes, dampens his mood, and renders him inactive. The reason for this drug? To quell his “delusions,” according to the either-ignorant or -complicit psychiatrist, who wishes, apparently, to convince Frederic that electromagnetic weapons and French Intelligence chicanery do not exist—an unfortunate delusion she perhaps is trapped in, that is, if she is not overtly colluding with French Intelligence herself.

This story, part of which Frederic introduced the world to recently on the Techno Crime Fighters Forum Episode 16, was detailed in greater depth in this conversation (link below) on my inaugural edition of Ramola D Reports, a podcast series I envision as running in tandem with my ongoing print reportage here on The Everyday Concerned Citizen, and with ongoing Real Talk True Media and Techno Crime Fighter Forum podcasts.

To hear the full story highlighting the drugs prescribed and the entire entrapment operation, and to understand how Psychiatry is being used here as a tool for political repression, please listen and share widely.

Neuro-Mapped and Neuro-Experimented on at Hewlett-Packard: From DEW Assaults to Assassination Attempts

In Part 2 of his narrative (linked below), Frederic details the history of his targeting and surveillance, starting at his parents’ home in suburban Grenoble in 1998 when he noticed he was being followed, and then being hit with strange abdominal and other pains which seemed to coincide consistently with the at-home presence of a neighbor.

Putting his scientific background, logical thinking and sleuthing skills to good use, he embarked on a process of careful observation and inquiry which revealed to him the nature of the stalking, surveillance, and eventual neuro-experimentation he realized he was being subjected to as he worked in different jobs in Grenoble and across France, being hit with DEWs everywhere he went.

In an open work-floor space at Hewlett-Packard, he learned (from various sources, including a manager, in addition to his own eyewitness and personal encounters) that the strange group of newcomers in the adjoining rows who seemed intent on his every word, phrase, emotion, and action comprised French and American Intelligence agents engaged in neuro-mapping, and that their primary subject was himself.

On Bastille Day one year, watching the city fireworks, he overheard one of his stalkers say to another “He will leave with this memory of the fireworks.” Later that night, he suffered an electromagnetic beam attack to his brain, which felt, he said, like brain-death; forced to wake out of medicated slumber, he learned that moving his head and body helped him to escape the beam, in what he records now as a distinct assassination attempt.

In an unexpectedly dramatic conversation which follows his subsequent departure to Istanbul, Turkey, and a tragically repeated experience there of stalking and DEW assault at a camp ground, culminating in a despairing attempt to take his own life–as a logical response, he says, to the endless, unstoppable stalking and DEW/Neuro assaults he was being subjected to all over France and even across borders–Frederic details how he was actually stopped in this attempt and assisted back to recovery by his very stalkers, to whom, apparently, his life and continued availability for DEW assault and neuro-experimentation meant something.

Please stay tuned for Part 3, which will follow Frederic to India as he tried once more to escape the deathly DEW assaults and nonstop stalking and surveillance unleashed on him, and Part 4, as he returned to France and engaged in public education and human rights activism in attempts to alert the world of the ongoing specter of global surveillance, neuro-experimentation, and mass mind control currently unleashed to varying degrees on all of us.

If you have advice or information that may be of use to Frederic Laroche in this time, please leave a comment below or email me, I will pass on the information. Please help support Frederic’s medical expenses with a donation. Visit Frederic’s French website, http://NotreTortureEstReelle.com, or his partially translated-to-English website, http://OurTortureIsReal.com for more information.

As readers may be aware, these experiences of directed-energy weapons and neurotechnology assault are not isolated to France or a single French civilian but being reported worldwide by citizens in almost every country of the world, and are being documented and reported on an ongoing basis at this news/media site and blog, as also by many other activists worldwide.

A joint Memorandum to Trump sent earlier this year detailed how domestic programs of torture are being run in the United States and globally under cover of “Surveillance.” An international call to G20 leaders from Poland’s Stopzet and several international human rights groups just a few weeks ago sought a ban on psychotronic weapons.”

Interesting isn’t it?

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP