Psychological Projection in Attempted Murder

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
psychological-projection-in-attempted-murder-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Psychological Projection in Attempted Murder (¬Īx)

Published on 8th October 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

I would like to start with an analysis of the forensic evidence first.

Inciting the Violence

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, and it must be some Pathological Narcissistic trait ūüôā

Screenshots

As can be seen I have obtained some screenshots from the letter:-

I will highlight some of the specific phrases, which confirm EDS’ psychological projection, EDS’ grotesquely stupid assessments and other ‘keyphrases’ in which he wants to ‘plant the seed’ for others.

“Adrian – works hard, appears to be dedicated and loyal to you, and works hard and diligently. Appears to be trustworthy.”

* * I AM NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD ‘APPEARS’, AS ADRIAN WAS LOYAL AND TRUSTWORTHY UNTIL EDS’ VISIT AND ADRIAN’S RETURN FLIGHT FROM SINGAPORE WHEN SOMEONE OBVIOUSLY SAT NEXT TO HIM ON THE PLANE AND FLASHED A BADGE ūüôā – I KNEW AT THE TIME BUT I GAVE THEM ALL DISINFORMATION * *

“Perera – loyal trustworthy honest and genuinely likes you and us and will protect you.”

* * THE PART THAT EDS CANNOT GRASP IS THAT EDS ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETELY WRONG. FOR SOME REASON EDS BRIBED PERERA AND THEN PERERA USED THAT MONEY TO BUY THIRD PARTIES TO HARM ME. EDS GOT INVOLVED IN A MASSIVE MESS AND THEN DECIDED TO BECOME ITS RINGLEADER. AS SUCH EDS IS WANTING ME TO WHOLLY RELY UPON SOMEONE UNDER HIS CONTROL * *

Always on His Mind - Fraud By Omission

Background As part of the 12/17 Fraud Edward de Saram ("EDS") went around making disparaging remarks to all and sundry in order to fabricate a...

“Chamaree – she likes to talk engage in activities other than admin work, she likes to talk about her experiences and goes quiet when what she said is not correct.”

* * THIS DESCRIPTION IS ACTUALLY EDS DESCRIBING HIMSELF. IT WAS IN FACT HE THAT WENT AROUND LYING ABOUT ME AND MAKING DISPARAGING REMARKS * *

“You don’t need a housekeeper. Perera is there to do all the work and run errands.”

* * WELL PERERA DID NOTHING AROUND THE HOUSE AFTER EDS HAD BRIBED HIM, AND STARTED POISONING SHIHARA THE OWL CAT AND I * *

“Chamaree likes to delegate and sit and do nothing, or spend time cooking.”

* * IT IS IN FACT EDS THAT LIKES TO ORDER PEOPLE AROUND AND WHO REQUIRES MINIONS TO DO HIS BIDDING BUT EDS DOES CONFIRM HOW THE DELIVERY METHOD OF SILVA’S POISONING THROUGH THE FOOD SHE WAS MAKING FOR ME * *

“Let me tell you that I do believe from the explanation Adrian gave me but need to look for solid reason if I am going to talk to people. I just cannot say my son said and expect people to blindly take action.”

* * MOST PARENTS IN THE WESTERN CULTURE WOULD LISTEN TO THAT WHICH I HAD TO SAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT I AM ALSO A FORENSIC EXPERT, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ‘SIMPLY DENY EVERYTHING JOE SAYS’ HAS ALREADY STARTED.

IN ANY EVENT ADRIAN TOLD ME THAT EDS WAS CONTINUALLY TRYING TO DEBUNK HIM. THIS THEME IS NOW ECHOED BY LAWYERS WHO THINK I AM IMAGINING THINGS AND EVERYONE HOLDS ME TO A MUCH HIGHER BURDERN OF PROOF – NOT A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE AS CAN BE SEEN FROM LINKEDIN ARTICLES ALONE ūüôā

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE SENTENCES DEMONSTRATE AN ATTACK ON MY CREDIBILITY – THE CALLS EDS AND PDS HAVE MADE TO THIRD PARTIES ARE SHOCKING AND UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL, DEMONSTRATING MALICE AFORETHOUGHT IN ADDITION. * *

“This is not the way things are done in Sri Lanka and if you are in S/L you need to confirm to its ways culture”

* * I HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE IN SRI LANKA AND ONLY LEFT SINGAPORE IN 2013 BECAUSE EDS CAUSED ME TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK. HOWEVER IT IS CLEAR THAT EDS IS PLANTING THE SEED OF ‘JOE HAS ISSUES’ AND THE ‘GROUPTHINK IS ALWAYS RIGHT’

HOWEVER IT IS IN FACT EDS THAT IS POLARISING PEOPLE AGAINST ME. * *

“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?

THIRDLY HE DID NOT LIKE THE WAY I WAS FILMING THE BLACK BABOONS HARASSING ME – THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. BUT EDS HAS DOCUMENTED THIS AND CONFIRMING THE DISTANCING BETWEEN HE AND I – ANOTHER SIGNAL TO THE GROUPTHINK.

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 ATTEMPTED MURDER:-

REFER TO THIS ARTICLE AND LISTEN TO EDS’ OWN WORDS:-

A Real Pain in the Neck v3

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

20151212 234006 Edward de Saram and Newton Ranasinghe

EDS – “[Joe] has an existing serious injury where his 3rd and 4th Cervical Vertebrae are pressing on the spinal cord, so if we drag him and go and he resists¬†he will become paralysed…. so we have to be extremely careful how we deal with it.

AND THE SAME EDS ASSAULTED ME TOO:-

18 December 2015 Рthe day after confirming serious damage to my left eye

18 December 2015 – Even the red-eye compensation of the Galaxy Tab S struggled with the left eye injuries

01 May 2017 – damage is observable in both eyes over 500 days later, particularly the left one where I am losing vision. I have great difficulty seeing with eye either after 6pm and my computer screen work is a struggle at all times because I can’t focus. I have lost my original depth perception and am very sad about what has happened. To make it worse EDS and PDS keep lying about what they did…

I was tortured and Shihara the Owl Cat was kicked as well…

This is the place EDS dumped me after the beating where I was left on my own – broken fingers, face bruised, blood all over the place, and yet I had to keep things together for my sake, otherwise I would give the clowns some reason to keep me unlawfully incarcerated.

01 May 2017 – damage is observable in both eyes over 500 days later, particularly the left one where I am losing vision. I have great difficulty seeing with eye either after 6pm and my computer screen work is a struggle at all times because I can’t focus. I have lost my original depth perception and am very sad about what has happened. To make it worse EDS and PDS keep lying about what they did…

“Wrong taxi coming it is up to the person who ordered it to check.”

* * ONCE AGAIN IS SHIFTING THE BLAME ONTO ME OR MY COLLEAGUES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE WRONG TAXI COMING IS IN FACT THE ISSUE. ALL THESE TECHNIQUES ARE USED TO SIGNAL TO THIRD PARTIES THAT ‘JOE DESERVED WHAT HE GOT’. * *

“Chamaree by asking you (as informed by her) to switch of phones, internet etc, is trying to cut you off from the outside world, and any friends she will poison your mind isolating you. When you are really in need of help they won’t be there as she would have got you to fall out with them.”

* * CLASSIC PROJECTION – THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT EDS HIMSELF HAS DONE, BY EDS GOING AROUND TELLING PEOPLE THAT I HAVE A MENTAL PROBLEM – THERE IS IRREFUTABLE FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF HIS ANTICS, AND HIS OWN VOICE HAS NAILED HIM. * *

“She is trying to dictate in the guise of threats etc and frighten you and make you dependent on her.”

* * PERFECT PROJECTION – EDS IS THE ONE WHO HAS DONE THIS NOT CHAMAREE, BY ALIENATING ME AND BRIBING THIRD PARTIES

Harassment Surveillance - Psychological Torture

I have published this series of Articles so that Linkies can see the true extent of Harassment Surveillance in today's world, as well as the degree

THIS ISOLATION TACTIC IS A SIGNATURE THEME OF GANGSTALKING * *

“Watch out Adrian and Perera she will try to..”

* * ACTUALLY EDS IS THE ONE WHO DESTROYED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ADRIAN AND PERERA * *

“Remember the area you are living in her territory. When she cannot have a way then she can get you kidnapped and ask for ransom as she I believe mentioned about giving gold etc to you.”

* * IT WAS ONCE AGAIN EDS WHO HAD THE CRIMINAL INTENT TO FORCIBLY REMOVE ME FROM MY HOUSE AGAINST MY WILL [AGGRAVATED KIDNAP] WHICH IS DOCUMENTED IN HIS OWN CALLS WITH NXR:-

Abduction Ahead of Rendition

"I have a very particular set of skills, skills I've acquired over a very long career, skills that make me a nightmare for people..." Background As is...

EDS IS PLANTING THE SEED, ONCE AGAIN, AND THAT THIS IS WHAT EDS INTENDS ON DOING, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF ‘SPIES’ AND EDS TRYING TO BE THE BIG MAN AND ‘DELIVER ME UP’ * *

“Please be careful. We all love you and don’t want you to learn the hard ware and the hard way will be too late.”

* * EDS AND HIS VEILED THREATS FOOL NO-ONE. HIS USE OF ‘PLEASE BE CAREFUL’ IS A PRECURSOR TO ‘JOE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED BECAUSE HE WAS NO CAREFUL – OR HE DID NOT FOLLOW ADVICE. ALL THIS IS LAUGHABLE BY APPLYING LINGUISTIC TEXT ANALYSIS AND OTHERS TO WHAT HE HAS SAID AND HOW HE HAS SAID IT. * *

“Take the medicines yourself not anything given by anybody.”

* * AND AS EDS’ LAST HURRAH HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION IS TELLING ME THAT HE HAS THE INTENT OF POISONING WHEN HE RETURNS.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID HIMSELF. * *

Die Hard - My Erection Saved My Life

Whilst my adversaries call me a dick, I do 'rise to the occasion' during investigations so perhaps there is an element of truth - ha ha! As I wrote in

20170924 094723

Self-explanatory – EDS has lied again in the description of the symptoms and deliberately omitted the fact that EDS was under a medical malpractice investigation and but managed to ‘tick all the boxes’ and get some medication which he then poisoned me with.

What has happened is he has ‘fabricated symptoms of schizophrenia’, and then obtained medication which will induce the symptoms, and then poisoned me with those drugs, and then incapacitated me, dumped me in a psychiatric facility and then got others to join his bandwagon – a sad fraud from start to finish and attempted murder can be demonstrated by his criminal antics at every step of the way, and the false exculpatory statements made afterwards to evade criminal culpability

Now the Psychology

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. [1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting.

According to some research, the projection of one’s unconscious qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life. [2]

Historical precursors

A prominent precursor in the formulation of the projection principle was¬†Giambattista Vico.[3][4]¬†In 1841,¬†Ludwig Feuerbach¬†was the first¬†enlightenment¬†thinker to employ this concept as the basis for a systematic critique of religion.[5][6][7]¬†The Babylon Talmud (500 AD) notes the human tendency toward projection and warns against it: “Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have.”[8]

Psychoanalytic developments

Projection (German:¬†Projektion) was conceptualised by¬†Sigmund Freud¬†in his letters to¬†Wilhelm Fliess,[9]¬†and further refined by¬†Karl Abraham¬†and¬†Anna Freud. Freud considered that, in projection, thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one’s own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else.[10]What the ego repudiates is¬†split off¬†and placed in another.[11]

Freud would later come to believe that projection did not take place arbitrarily, but rather seized on and exaggerated an element that already existed on a small scale in the other person.[12] (The related defence of projective identification differs from projection in that there the other person is expected to become identified with the impulse or desire projected outside,[13] so that the self maintains a connection with what is projected, in contrast to the total repudiation of projection proper.)[14]

Melanie Klein¬†saw the projection of good parts of the self as leading potentially to over-idealisation¬†of the object.[15]¬†Equally, it may be one’s conscience that is projected, in an attempt to escape its control: a more benign version of this allows one to come to terms with outside authority.[16]

Theoretical examples

Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of personal or political crisis[17] but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic[18] in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[19]

Carl Jung¬†considered that the unacceptable parts of the personality represented by the¬†Shadow¬†archetype were particularly likely to give rise to projection, both small-scale and on a national/international basis.[20]¬†Marie-Louise Von Franz¬†extended her view of projection, stating that “wherever known reality stops, where we touch the unknown, there we project an¬†archetypal¬†image”.[21]

Psychological projection is one of the medical explanations of bewitchment used to explain the behavior of the afflicted children at Salem in 1692. The historian John Demos asserts that the symptoms of bewitchment experienced by the afflicted girls were due to the girls undergoing psychological projection of repressed aggression.[22]

Practical examples

  • Victim blaming:¬†The victim of someone else’s accident or bad luck may be offered criticism, the theory being that the victim may be at fault for having attracted the other person’s hostility.[23]
  • Projection of marital guilt:¬†Thoughts of¬†infidelity¬†to a partner may be¬†unconsciously¬†projected in self-defence on to the partner in question, so that the¬†guilt¬†attached to the thoughts can be repudiated or turned to¬†blame¬†instead, in a process linked to¬†denial.[24]
  • Bullying:¬†A¬†bully¬†may project his/her own feelings of¬†vulnerability¬†onto the target(s) of the bullying activity. Despite the fact that a bully’s typically denigrating activities are aimed at the bully’s targets, the true source of such negativity is ultimately almost always found in the bully’s own sense of personal¬†insecurity¬†and/or vulnerability.[25]¬†Such aggressive projections of displaced negative emotions can occur anywhere from the micro-level of¬†interpersonal relationships, all the way up through to the macro-level of international politics, or even international armed conflict.[20]
  • Projection of general guilt:¬†Projection of a severe conscience[26]¬†is another form of defense, one which may be linked to the making of¬†false accusations, personal or political.[20]
  • Projection of hope:¬†Also, in a more positive light, a patient may sometimes project his or her feelings of¬†hope¬†onto the therapist.[27]

A defence mechanism is an unconscious psychological mechanism that reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful stimuli.[1] Sigmund Freud was one of the first proponents of this construct.[2]

Defence mechanisms may result in healthy or unhealthy consequences depending on the circumstances and frequency with which the mechanism is used.[3]¬†In¬†psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms (German:¬†Abwehrmechanismen) are psychological strategies brought into play by the¬†unconscious mind[4]¬†to¬†manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses and to maintain one’s¬†self-schema.[5].

These processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality may include the following:¬†repression, or the burying of a painful feeling or thought from one’s awareness even though it may resurface in a symbolic form;[3]¬†identification, incorporating an object or thought into oneself;[6]¬†and¬†rationalization, the justification of one’s behaviour and motivations by substituting “good” acceptable reasons for the actual motivations.[3][7]¬†In psychoanalytic theory, repression is considered as the basis for other defence mechanisms.[3]

Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. Among the purposes of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety or social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[8]

One resource used to evaluate these mechanisms is the Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ-40).[9][10]

False Accusations

The false accusations were commenced by Margaret Cunniffe and then Chamaree Silva subsequently, all about some apparent ‘psychological problems’ – it is all one sad fraud and even some dopey UK lawyers have ended up getting involved with this FALSE NARRATIVE’

But this concept is actually a part of these types of operations, as Frederic Laroche found out:-

When there is insufficient supporting evidence to determine whether an accusation is true or false, it is described as “unsubstantiated” or “unfounded”. Accusations that are determined to be false based on corroborating evidence can be divided into three categories:[1]

  • An allegation that is completely false in that the events that were alleged did not occur;
  • An allegation that describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent.
  • An allegation that is partially true and partially false, in that it mixes descriptions of events that actually happened with other events that did not occur.

A false allegation can occur as the result of¬†intentional lying¬†on the part of the accuser;[2][3]¬†or unintentionally, due to a¬†confabulation, either arising spontaneously due to¬†mental illness[2]¬†or resulting from deliberate or accidental suggestive questioning, or faulty interviewing techniques.[4]¬†Researchers Poole and Lindsay suggested in 1997 applying separate labels to the two concepts, proposing the term “false allegations” be used specifically when the accuser is aware they are lying, and “false suspicions” for the wider range of false accusations in which suggestive questioning may have been involved.[5]

When a person is suspected of a wrongdoing for which they are in fact responsible, “false accusation may be used to divert attention from one’s own guilt”.[3]¬†False accusation may also arise in part from the conduct of the accused, particularly where the accused engages in behaviors consistent with having committed the suspected wrongdoing, either unconsciously or for purposes of appearing guilty.[3]

Additionally, once a false accusation has been made ‚Äď particularly an emotionally laden one ‚Äď normal human emotional responses to being falsely accused (such as fear, anger, or denial of the accusation) may be misinterpreted as evidence of guilt.

So thanks to the foregoing garbage is how I have been labelled, in a similar way to Frederic Laroche:-

Conclusion

As can be seen there is a massive psychological basis to the antics of my adversaries – they thought they could break me with drug-induced psychosis, unlawful imprisonment, theft of evidentiary materials, defences and counterclaims, but

THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY AND LEFT A MASSIVE AUDIT TRAIL WHICH LEAD RIGHT UP TO THEIR FRONT DOOR.

And me recovering forensic evidence on a daily basis will utterly smash any case brought against me ūüôā

The reason is my early identification of these issues, as well as specific training in how to deal with these scenarios – these are operational strategies that are invariably undisclosed to most people.

Given the overall objective is to damage me and my business financially, I wanted to highlight these types of attacks so that Linkies can correctly identify them, should they find themselves unavoidably immersed in a similar situation.

The case continues…

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

Bonnies and Clydes

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
bonnies-and-clydes-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Bonnies and Clydesm (¬Īx)

Published on 20th July 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
500

Enter more text here

Murder, He Spoke

Almost a year ago I referred to the BBC's article entitled "How MI5's scientists work to identify future terrorists" dated 12 December 2016. Some of ...

I refer to this article:-

which was about MI5’s Behavioural Science Unit (“BSU”). As stated many terrorist-type attacks are carried out by ‘couples’ – known as Dyads. They are virtually impossible to break because of their co-dependency which underpins their survival.

The strength of the dyad is dependent on both parties knowing the EXACT POSITION AT ALL TIMES, to ‘get their stories straight’. Common Knowledge is therefore an identifying feature and a signature theme.

Always Two There Are

Within the dyad there is a leader and a follower, although when the activities are carried out those roles may switch as the ‘cowardice of the leader under pressure’ creates an opportunity for the apprentice to be mouthy and/or take the lead – ie “to shine’.

THE FOLLOWER ALSO BECOMES AN EVANGELIST WHEN REQUIRED

[insert evidence]

and there is an element of Stockholm Syndrome concurrently.

The follower derives a buzz from the ‘sudden granting of authority’ and can be then manipulated easily. Usually the follower exploits the ‘poor self-esteem’ and a docile personality of the follower.

When convinced that the ‘success of the operation is dependent on them’, and pseudo-courage is created in their minds, the follower feels validated by the [false] statements.

Sweet-Mean Cycles

Often at the conspiracy stage

Serious Crimes and Assistance

Background to this Article I am in the process of writing two new articles referencing Forensic Evidence in relation to 'Attempted Murder v Grievous ...

and/or at the early stages once the ‘crime proper’ is underway

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 ...

the leader will demean the follower to demonstrate control:-

This could take the form of the leader being uncommunicative with the follower, such as ‘refusing to take calls’ or ‘appearing busy’:-

or with the leader scheduling calls (‘you may speak to me only when I am ready to speak to you’):-

or the leader talking over or interjecting when the follower is speaking (‘you may speak only when I am not commanding you’):-

Given the fact that the leader cannot lose the follower, the control becomes aggression only near the final act of the crime. When there is markedly more aggression then the ‘grand finale’ is very near…

Sweet-Mean Cycle

A type of ‘sweet-mean’ cycle then arises, in which the follower (who has previously been exalted to a high position as a ‘co-strategist’ for example) strives for the elation that that he/she previously enjoyed.

When the leader manipulates the follower in this manner, the follower fails to realise that the follower will never be able to perform a future act that will be guaranteed to achieve the same satisfaction that occurred before.

Accordingly the follower will be always following, craving for the sweet part of the cycle, which will actually never materialise. They follow on the off-chance that ‘one glorious day they may be exalted once more’ ūüôā

Skin in the Game

In one sense a dyad is not really two people, entering into a common purpose/joint enterprise as equals – if it were truly that then they would be far more potent. They are more akin to ‘two peas in a pod and one of them is larger’. The dominant one will use the weaker one until the weaker one is thrown under the bus – as a scapegoat.

It is very easy to do – the ‘public’ actions of the crime would be undertaken by the follower so upon its discovery it is the follower who has made the calls. Since both the leader and follower know the identical plan, the follower has 100% of the plan.

However the leader has a further hidden agenda, which is either the real plan or an exit strategy. As such the follower is merely a pawn and once involved the follower’s exit strategy is wholly dependent on the leader providing him/her with one.

When the follower is caught, they would not squeal, because they suffer from the delusion that the leader will ‘protect them’ so blindly cover for the leader. This process would go on indefinitely until the actual arrest of the follower, whilst the entire time the leader would have been negotiating transactional immunity to cover his arse…

Relevance

I am writing a new article about ‘Forensic Investigation in Criminal Matters’ and will be referring to this article ‘Bonnies and Clydes’ to explain why my investigation of the 12/17 Fraud was conducted in a data-centric manner, and why I decided to ‘investigate the lies’ and spend over 13,000 hours recovering data, rather than ‘move forward [in ignorance]’ as the perpetrators instructed me to do…

the case continues – more evidence uploading…

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 Sound of Murder – So Long Farewell

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
the-sound-of-murder-so-long-farewell-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

The Sound of Murder - So Long Farewell (¬Īx)

Published on 29th 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
484

Enter more text here

Background

I had been the victim of aggravated kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned on 17 December 2015. All the while Praxy de Saram (“PDS”) had been telling me that she would speak to Dr Horadugoda and get me out.

[insert evidence]

Unfortunately they were only buying time for an Unlawful Sectioning via Fabricated Medical Reports – classic Psychiatric Fraud!

[insert evidence]

Contraindications and Adverse Reactions

All the drugs being prescribed for me, or scheduled to be prescribed for me would have killed me – is it that simple:-

[insert evidence]

I knew what was going on because I studied and passed Pharmacology at University College London Medical School in the early 1990s.

EDS Nokia N8 Call Recordings Excerpts

Here are the call recordings extracted from the Nokia N8 from Edward de Saram (“EDS”), of his conversations with Newton Ranasinghe (“NXR”) a UK doctor of Sri Lankan breeding, from just one day 19 December 2015:-

Excerpt 01

EDS – “Hello

RXR – “Ranjit, how is [hospital situation]?

EDS – “[Joe] is trying to come home… then, so we are going to see the cardiologist, just to see if there are any contraindications to having antipsychotics and ECT.

ANTIPSYCHOTICS? DO YOU MEAN THIS CLASS OF MEDICATION?

Psychotropic Drugs Cause Sudden Cardiac Arrest

In October 1991 I entered University College London Medical School to study Medicine:- I have to say I was clowning around most of the time dating...

* * ALL PART OF THE MURDER – ANTIPSYCHOTICS OR ECT WILL KILL ME.

SHIFTING THE BLAME ONTO THE CARDIOLOGIST WHEN IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED FACT THAT ANTI-PSYCHOTICS AND ECT WILL RESULT IN DEATH DEMONSTRATES CLASSIC MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

NOTE THE REDUCTION IN VOLUME OF EDS’ VOICE – IT IS ONE OF HIS TRAITS IN WHICH HE AUDIBLY CONFIRMS THAT THAT WHICH HE IS DOING IS WRONG AND HE KNOWS IT – CRIMINAL INTENT DEMONSTRATED. * *

Excerpt 02

EDS – “And then

NXR – “Where is [Joe] now?

EDS – “He’s in the hospital.

NXR – “Yeah, yeah… and the sectioning, and is it secure, is there anyone with him?

EDS – “In this hospital they cannot section, only in Ungoda they can section.

* * BOTH EDS AND PDS HAVE BEEN CONTINUALLY SWEARING BLIND THAT I WAS NOT GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED, THAT I WAS NOT GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED TO UNGODA, THAT I WAS NOT GOING TO BE SECTIONED – MORE FRAUD ON THEIR PART! * *

Excerpt 03

NXR – “Yeah.

EDS – “[unclear]

NXR – “Is attendance [unclear], are you going to take him?

EDS – “Can you listen to my conversation, then you can understand.

NXR – “Yeah okay.

EDS – “If not if you go to ask, then I will… so what Dr Horadugoda was telling me was that he has asked another consultant in Ungoda to see him.

NXR – “Yeah

EDS – “Both of them seem to be thinking that it is paranoid schizophrenia.

NXR – “Yeah

EDS – “[Joe] is phoning Praxy several times saying that he wants to come home, they are not treating him… and then what happened was that after that also… he is wanting a 3-way conversation with Dr Horadugoda.

* * EDS RESORTED TO THIS ‘FRAUD WHISPER’. ALL THAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT EDS HAD MANIPULATED PEOPLE WITH SOME INITIALLY FALSE STATEMENTS (BROUGHT ABOUT BY POISONING ME) AND THEN IS GETTING OTHERS TO ENDORSE THAT FLAWED BELIEF (‘GETTING ONTO THE BANDWAGON’) WITHOUT PROPERLY VERIFYING WHETHER THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS.

WHAT IS A WRONG WITH ME HAVING A 3-WAY CONVERSATION WITH THE PARTIES? THEY ARE ALL LYING TO EACH OTHER AND MANIPULATING THE ENTIRE SITUATION – CLEARLY COMPARING NOTES WILL EXPOSED THEM ALL * *

Excerpt 04

EDS – “Now, Dr Horadugoda said yesterday was, he wanted to get a cardiologist to visit [Joe] and assess him, and SAY that Risperdal etc is NOT contraindicated.

RISPERDAL? DO YOU MEAN THIS DRUG (RISPERIDONE)?

DEADLY - Sudden Cardiac Arrest triggered by Risperidone (Risperdal)

SIDE EFFECTS The following are discussed in more detail in other sections of the labeling: Increased mortality in elderly patients with...

NXR – “Yes.

EDS – “And once that is done, they will fabricate a medical report… In one day, they will go to courts and get a court order that [Joe] has to stay in the hospital.”

* * FRAUD AND ATTEMPTED MURDER – GETTING A CARDIOLOGIST TO VISIT ME AND ‘SAY’ THAT THERE ARE NO CONTRAINDICATIONS WITH RISPERDAL IS BLATANT FRAUD.

THEN USING THE FRAUDULENTLY-OBTAINED COURT ORDER FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING.

OH, SO ALL THIS TIME THERE WAS NO ACTUAL COURT ORDER? ANOTHER FRAUD AND PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE !! * *

NXR – “Yes.

EDS – “Once the court order is obtained, [Joe] has to stay in the hospital and they can give treatment… he can’t refuse… at the moment he is refusing anything… he doesn’t see that there is a problemhe doesn’t want to accept that there is a problem either…

* * ‘ONCE THE COURT ORDER IS OBTAINED’ – HOW SADLY FRAUDULENT!!

REPEATING THE LIES OF ‘HE DOESN’T SEE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM’ AND THAT ‘HE DOESN’T WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM EITHER’ IS MORE OF THE CLASSIC MILITARY INTELLIGENCE LINE THAT THE VICTIM HAS ‘NO INSIGHT’. * *

* * HOWEVER THIS CALL ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATES THAT EDS IS EXHIBITING PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION, IN WHICH WHAT HE IS LABELLING ME WITH IS ACTUALLY WHAT HE HAS.

* * EDS CANNOT GRASP THAT MY SYMPTOMS ARE A RESULT OF HIS POISONING ME, AND THAT HE CANNOT SEE THAT ALL THE MEDICATIONS AND TREATMENT REGIMES WILL RESULT IN MY CERTAIN DEATH. * *

Excerpt 05

EDS – “Getting people to be with us is not the problem, Praxy is here, and Diresh [Peiris]’s people [unclear], Gaya Pathikirikorale will send his driver…

NXR – “Right.

EDS – “So the problem is solved.

NXR – “Right.

EDS – “We know that your people are there in reserve…

* * THE CONSPIRATORIAL NATURE OF THE FRAUD AND ATTEMPTED MURDER IS EVIDENT, WITH ADDITIONAL ACCOMPLICES NAMED. WHY ARE PEOPLE ‘REQUIRED IN RESERVE’?

NXR – “Yeah.

EDS – “But the thing is, if you have a close group of people, otherwise there will be a lot of people coming and going, and it will become a bit difficult isn’t it?

* * WHY ARE A ‘CLOSE GROUP OF PEOPLE’ REQUIRED?

WHY WOULD THERE BE ‘A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING’ WHICH MAKES THINGS DIFFICULT?

OBVIOUSLY THE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE STOLEN PAPERWORK AND STOLEN/WIPED 10TERABYTES OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE, MY DEFENCES AND COUNTERCLAIMS. * *

NXR – “Yeah.

EDS – “To keep tags on people.

* * WHY ARE TAGS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT ON PEOPLE VISITING MY HOME WHEN I AM NOT THERE? * *

NXR – “Yeah.

EDS – “So that is the situation, [Joe] doesn’t think that there is a problem.

* * REPEATING THE LIES THAT ‘JOE HAS NO INSIGHT’ FOOLS NO-ONE BUT THE PERPETRATORS !!

AS SUCH I WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT IN THE FACT THAT AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH & SEIZURE WAS ON THE CARDS!! THAT IN ITSELF DEMONSTRATES ‘JOE HAS INSIGHT’ * *

Excerpt 07

NXR – “So [Joe] is not fighting with Praxy?

* * I DO NO FIGHT UNLESS PEOPLE FIGHT WITH ME WHICH IS WHY I HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS EDS AND PDS.

EDS – “Praxy is now looking after the cat at home.

NXR – “Yeah, Yeah

EDS – “So she is staying at home.

NXR – “Yeah.

EDS – “Even when she goes to the hospital, she goes, we don’t see him, we just go to the ward and come back… he’s in a room.

* * EDS IS EXHIBITING SCHADENFREUDE WHEN HE ENJOYS TELLING NXR ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY GO TO THE HOSPITAL BUT DO NOT VISIT ME – TALK ABOUT A SICK MIND. * *

NXR – “Hmm.

EDS – “[unclear], looking after the cat.

Excerpt 08

NXR – “Yes. Does [Joe] have his own room], he’s able to go to the toilet with problems?

EDS – “At the place? Single room, with airconditioning, television, attached toilet, single room.

NXR – “Yes.

EDS – “His room is almost like our lounge, our one.

* * THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION RELATES TO HUMAN RIGHTS, WHERE THE CAPTOR IS TRYING TO CONFIRM THAT MY LIVING CONDITIONS WERE HOSPITABLE.

THE POINT THAT THEY CONTINUE TO FAIL TO GRASP IS THAT THIS IS EXTRAJUDICIAL PSYCHIATRIC DETAINMENT. PERIOD. SO MY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED ENTIRELY. * *

Excerpt 09

NXR – “So that was in that way…

EDS – “[Joe] has been told by Dr Horadugoda, that if by chance he doesn’t take treatment, he mentioned about the court order, and also he has mentioned, that he will be [sectioned], need to send him to Ungoda under the Mental Health Act, where he won’t be able to take his laptop, computer or anything, and then he will be in a general ward with people, living either side of him.

* * EDS’ LIES ARE ONCE AGAIN EVIDENT AS HE LOWERS HIS VOICE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT I AM BEING UNLAWFULLY SECTIONED. * *

NXR – “Yeah.

EDS – “But he has conveniently forgotten that conversation, and has been telling Praxy that we will have a 3-way conversation with Dr Horadugoda for [Joe] to come home.

* * EDS HAS FABRICATED THE CONVERSATION WITH DR HORADUGODA – I HAVE THE RECORDED CONVERSATION WITH THE LATTER AND SOMETHING DIFFERENT WAS DISCUSSED!! * *

NXR – “Yes.

Excerpt 10

EDS – “Sigh.

* * EDS SIGHS IN SELF-VICTIMISATION. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVERJOYED IN THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF HIS SPECTACULAR FRAUD.

NXR- “[unclear], are you staying there a day?

EDS – “I’m coming tonight.

NXR – “You’re coming tonight.

EDS – “I was going to come on Friday, Friday morning, but I didn’t go on Friday morning but I am coming on Sunday morning. I have to be with Tania too, she can’t wait on her own, so it means…

NXR – “At least you have a contract with the appropriate authorities, that is a blessing, up until now you couldn’t do anything… did you give Upali [Peiris] a call, to thank him… because at some point in time you might want his help?

EDS – “Yeah, yeah I will.

NXR – “Before you come… before you come tell him what happened…and then so he is happy for it at least, in the meantime [unclear].

EDS – “Okay, okay then?

NXR – “If there is anything let me know.

EDS – “Thanks bye.

I HAD NO FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND WAS ABOUT TO BE TRANSFERRED TO UNGODA TO BE EXTRA-JUDICIALLY KILLED.

THE FACT THAT EDS WAS SCHEDULED TO LEAVE ON FRIDAY 18 DECEMBER 2015 CONFIRMS HIS RUSH TO POISON ME WITH ABILIFY FROM 14 DECEMBER 2015 ONWARDS!! WE NOW KNOW THE URGENCY ūüôā

UNFORTUNATELY FOR ALL THOSE FOOLS, I DID NOT HAVE A MENTAL PROBLEM AND A FEW DAYS LATER I MANAGED TO ENGINEER MY ESCAPE FROM THE PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY DESPITE BEING INCARCERATED WITHIN THE SAME. * *

Further Evidence

This is sadly the tip of the iceberg

falsifying the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia by poisoning, because I had actually discovered unlawful surveillance and/or the existence of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (“MLAT”) request is just ridiculous.

EDS intending to use those falsified medicals to carry out an Extrajudicial Killing is nothing short of heinous.

As can be seen I am unfazed by the trauma and am now focussed on bringing these people to justice, in the UK obviously.

THIS IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS OF BEING A HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND ALSO A CRYPTOGRAPHIC EXPERT WHO EXCELS AT FORENSICS ūüôā

The case continues…

Also in this Series

Government Health Warning

Pure Forensics One of the 'purely forensic' features of the 12/17 Fraud was the covert electronic surveillance and cellular jamming. The evidence is...

Murder, He Spoke

Almost a year ago I referred to the BBC's article entitled "How MI5's scientists work to identify future terrorists" dated 12 December 2016. Some of...

Bonnies and Clydes

I refer to this article:- which was about MI5's Behavioural Science Unit ("BSU"). As stated many terrorist-type attacks are carried out by a 'couples'...
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 backup

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
a-real-pain-in-the-neck-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Chamaree Silva Duping Delight

Published 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
915

Enter more text here

The injury was quite painful but because I had had a Heart Attack and a Transient Ischaemic Attack and had a substance like Rohypnol in my blood at the time, I had little idea about the severity of that which had actually happened until I saw the MRI and then weeks later when my memory returned.

20151026 MRI 01

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

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 murder so probably not ūüôā

20151201 Chamaree Silva Duping Delight over Grabbing JDS’ Neck

Chamaree Silva is a NASTY NECK GRABBER:-

Around the beginning of November 2015 EDS and PDS were leaving Sri Lanka. Silva escorted them out of the house as I was upstairs. The next thing I heard was Silva banging on the front door loudly. When I opened it she barged me out of the way and then went to her room and started packing her belongings.

Silva told me that EDS has threatened her saying that if she put any more thoughts into my head that he would kill her. I have no idea whether it was true or not because many Sri Lankans are two-faced and extremely good with matters of a theatrical nature.

When I was trying to find out what had happened from her, Silva pushed me violently and grabbed me in a neck lock and managed to break the olecranon process of my left arm.

Surgical Therapy

Olecranon fractures can be complex injuries presenting the treating physician with a wide array of surgical and non-surgical options. A successful functional outcome after olecranon fractures correlates directly with accuracy of anatomic joint...

Unfortunately, I did not have muscular strength in my upper body (because of the neck injury) and Silva has very broad well developed musculature in her shoulders.

As strength was not available for me, I said to her ‚ÄėIf you do that again then I will f*** Adi and get many men to come and f*** him too‚Äô ‚Äď it was a psychological attack and caused Silva to immediately release her grip on me.

I then managed to wrestle her and pinned her against the wall. I think I said something along the lines of ‚ÄėI can break your arm in one go as well, even though I could not because of the C4-C5, C5-C6 neck injury ūüôā

As such my apparent ‘threatening’ of Silva and was in fact self-defence despite the Melbourne Fraudsters merrily using this as ‘evidence’ that I have a problem, describing the incident and replacing the word Silva with Cunniffe in another perjurious affidavit / Lawyer’s Construct in the judicial proceedings of the Supreme Court of Victoria,..

Duping Delight

Duping delight is a term coined by Dr. Paul Eckman.¬†He says, ‚Äúduping delight is the pleasure a person gets over having someone else in their control and being able to manipulate them‚ÄĚ.

The psychopath does feel powerful when she lies. The lies are her source of power to manipulate another person’s reality. I propose however, that the delight a psychopath feels is from playing the game because her boredom is temporarily relieved. The game always involves lies and deception in the pursuit of some objective and it focuses her like a predator focused on its prey. This focus gives her pleasure. It’s the thrill of the chase that makes her feel alive.

Dr. Eckman‚Äôs research centered on face and body language.¬†It‚Äôs my understanding that his description of ‚Äúduper‚Äôs delight‚ÄĚ was related to his observation of a fleeting smile, a ‚Äúmicro-expression‚Ä̬†that appeared on some liar‚Äôs faces as they were attempting to manipulate another with lies.¬†To Dr. Eckman, this expression seemed inappropriate for the situation.

We‚Äôve all known people who laugh when they‚Äôre nervous.¬†Perhaps the laughing is ‚Äúbypassed anxiety‚ÄĚ similar to the ‚Äúbypassed shame‚ÄĚ of narcissism.¬†The psychopath‚Äôs game, when the stakes are raised, might induce her to smile or laugh to relieve the unacknowledged stress.

It’s possible that these micro-expressions may be a fleeting, bypassed nervous reaction in the psychopath as the game ramps up. That would fit with their tendency to bypass emotions.

On the other hand, Silva goes from raging mad and abusive to suddenly bursting out laughing and grinning from ear to ear because she believed she had deceived everyone – not me obviously.¬†It was one of the most demonic expressions I had ever seen ūüôā

Whilst I merely refer to ‘a case in Australia’ Silva responds with the name of Margaret Cunniffe who is one of the Melbourne Fraudsters of course! They are involved with the Psychiatric Facility Fraud as well as the Data Exfiltration too:-

More confirmation of the Melbourne Fraudsters and even Ray Callingham and his HMRC Antics:-

Forensic evidence makes all this far too easy, and as usual IT IS ACTUALLY I THAT IS RIGHT!

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

Father Figure

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
Father Figure

Father Figure (¬Īx)

Published on 12 May 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
484

Enter more text here

Daddy Uncool

The “12/17 Fraud” perpetrated by Edward Marcion Ranjit de Saram (EDS on 17 December 2015) a UK Citizen (by Naturalisation) and various UK-associated parties, is the single most destructive event of my entire life.

I say ‘is‘ rather than ‘has been‘ because its sequelae and losses flowing directly from it is still ongoing. Despite my intellect, 500 days on I am struggling to ‘pick up the pieces’.

Virtually every aspect of the events of mid-2015 onwards exceed the burden of proof required for criminal fraud and EDS in particular demonstrated continual disregard for laws everywhere as well as abuse of my Fundamental Human Rights.

And when the physical injuries are inflicted upon me, those take time to heal and delay my progress continually in judicial proceedings. Despite the obviously external factors I am then blamed as usual…

Actually the earlier event was the theft of data by JV Lasantha Priyadarshana and his associates the Melbourne Fraudsters in December 2014, another event also linked to EDS on 13 December 2014 because EDS turned up to Sri Lanka and made a nuisance of himself then as well. And the incitement of violence against me by those and associated foreign parties which I also identified early, is how the situation began.

And then if we consider that which I was even doing in Sri Lanka in the first place when Shihara the Owl Cat and I had been having a great time in Singapore from 2010, it was the heart attack caused by EDS on 18 May 2013 that overwhelmed me after a data loss and shoulder dislocation a few months prior, that forced me to move around June 2013.

Papa Don't Preach, about Surveillance

My extremely early identification of issues in terms of overt/covert/harassment surveillance, psychotronic weapons, cellular interception and gps jamming (which I communicated to various parties) was conveniently forgotten about and/or deliberately misinterpreted by EDS et al.

Apparently I am Paranoid ūüôā

EDS and PDS came after my Staged Road Traffic Accident. I have no idea why neither of them have ever visited me in the Coronary Care Unit of Asiri Surgical Hospital despite me being there numerous times after heart attacks.

EDS’ behaviour was incredibly irritating in the way that he continually tried to debunk that which Adrian Cumine (“the Cat”) and I were saying, despite Adrian’s WireShark logs as well as Cell Map data.

I knew that something was up and I dreaded what would happen next. In fact when the pair of them were leaving EDS allegedly threatened Chamaree Silva and for some reason she turned on me and grabbed me by the neck – that is another episode which is relevant to the fraud and is also relevant to the Melbourne Fraudsters because the exact incident with Silva ended up in Margaret Cunniffe’s Defence in the Supreme Court Matter in Melbourne!! Another one of the many McDonald Slater & Lay Constructs…

"I am Your Father", Unfortunately for Joe‚Äč

I am really not sure what Luke Skywalker was complaining about – I wish I had a dad like Darth Vader because he’s really kind. He only cut Luke’s arm off with his light sabre whereas I had my neck smashed along with my face, was kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned, and my evidentiary material for defences and counterclaims were stolen. And don’t forget Shihara the Owl Droid was poisoned twice and EDS caused the Heart Attack on 18 May 2013!

Honour Based Violence

However as I have mentioned in the following article, Asians who have been brought up in Asia have a tendency to suffer from serious psychological deficiencies. Asians who have had their formative years in the US or UK do not seem to have this problem.

For first generation Asians either born in the UK or having migrated it is literally a living hell because their parents’ formative years have been in Asia.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

The UK Fraud Act 2006

As I am well past the point of no return, counsel is being instructed in relation to a Private Prosecution in relation to Fraud and a whole host of other nonsense over the 45yrs that I have had the misfortune to know him.

The Offences

Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4. 

  • Fraud by false representation (Section 2);¬†
  • Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and¬†
  • Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).

In each case: 

  • the defendant’s conduct must be dishonest;¬†
  • his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.¬†
  • No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.¬†
  • The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant: 

  • made a false representation¬†

EDS INFORMED ASSOCIATES OF HIS AND MINE THAT I HAD A PSCYHOLOGICAL PROBLEM, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE POLICE AS WELL AS MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND LAWYERS WHO WOULD THEN INVOLVE THEMSELVES AGAINST ME.

  • dishonestly¬†

I DID NOT HAVE A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM YET THE LAWYER’S CONSTRUCT WAS THAT I WAS SO EDS PROPAGATED THAT.

  • knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading¬†

EDS CONFIRMING ABOUT THE ‘LAWS OF THE LAND’ AND DESCRIBING SYMPTOMS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA WHICH HE HAD FABRICATED HIMSELF BY INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH NEWTON RANASINGHE CONFIRM THE TRUE POSITION.

The defendant: 

  • made a false representation¬†

EDS INFORMED ASSOCIATES OF HIS AND MINE THAT I HAD A PSCYHOLOGICAL PROBLEM, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE POLICE AS WELL AS MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND LAWYERS WHO WOULD THEN INVOLVE THEMSELVES AGAINST ME.

  • dishonestly¬†

I DID NOT HAVE A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM YET THE LAWYER’S CONSTRUCT WAS THAT I WAS SO EDS PROPAGATED THAT.

  • knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading¬†

EDS CONFIRMING ABOUT THE ‘LAWS OF THE LAND’ AND DESCRIBING SYMPTOMS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA WHICH HE HAD FABRICATED HIMSELF BY INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH NEWTON RANASINGHE CONFIRM THE TRUE POSITION.

Per Legem Terrae

The phrase 'per legem terrae', equivalent to 'by the laws of the land', refers to 'the law in force in a country or region'. 1215 AD In the year 1215,...

 

  • with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

EDS REQUIRED VALIDATION FROM THIRD PARTIES AND TO PREVENT ME FROM SUING HIM, WHICH IS HIS GAIN. THE LOSS THAT WAS INFLICTED ON ME WAS PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES AS WELL AS PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS REQUIRED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE PRIMARY MOTIVE WAS TO OBTAIN LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP OF ME VIA HIS FRAUD. THIS IS RERFERRED TO IN THE NEWTON RANASINGHE CONVERSATION.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)

The defendant: 

  • failed to disclose information to another person¬†

EDS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN INFORMED THAT WHICH HE WAS PROPOSING WAS UNLAWFUL, AND WAS TANTAMOUNT TO AGGRAVATED KIDNAP AND UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT. EDS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INTENTIONS TO ME WHEN GAINING ACCESS TO MY PROPERTY. EDS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE SYMPTOMS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA WERE FABRICATED BY HIM USING IIED. EDS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT I HAVE NEVER SUFFERED FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA AND IT WAS SIMPLY ANOTHER OF THIS FRAUDS IN RELATION TO THE UK DTI AND ILMET (IN LIQUIDATION)

  • when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information

EDS HAD A LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE WHEN MAKING STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE AS WELL AS MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO HE WAS LINING UP TO TREAT ME.

  • dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

EDS INTENDED DISHONESTLY TO MISLEAD ALL PARTIES SO THAT HIS SICK AGENDA COULD BE EFFECT, ENABLING HIM TO EVADE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY FOR VARIOUS FRAUDS – THIS IS HIS GAIN. THE LOSS WAS SUSTAINED BY ME OF COURSE AND RHODIUM ENTITIES GLOBALLY.

Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4)

The defendant: 

  • occupies a position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person¬†

EDS’S EARLIER FRAUD FACILITATED HIS LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP OVER ME, MY ASSETS AND RHODIUM’S ASSETS. HE FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED FOR HIMSELF A FIDUCIARY ROLE.

This is actually contained in the audio from 12 December 2015 between EDS and Newton Ranasinghe

NR – “Yes, but they will be supported by the police, yeah we don’t know, this is what we have to know… because he is the one that is ultimately reponsible for those people in the country.. he will write it down and tell you… but if you are not there who can give that support in terms of guardianship, you’ll need to sign in advance and give him.

  • abused that position¬†

EDS FACILITATED THE MASSIVE REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY’S SECURITY POISE, FACILITATED THE THEFT OF EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS, CAUSED MASSIVE FINANCIAL LOSSES, PERVERTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY PREVENTING ME FROM CONTINUING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PRIMARILY BY THE THEFT AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE AS WELL AS QUESTION MY MENTAL CAPACITY WHICH WOULD RESTRICT MY ABILITY TO OBTAIN LEGAL COUNSEL.

  • dishonestly¬†

EDS KNEW THAT I WAS NOT PSYCHOLOGICALLY DEFICIENT, AND HIS AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING OF ME AND UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT FACILITATED THE ROLE OF LEGAL GUARDIAN.

  • intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss

EDS NEEDED ME OUT OF THE PROPERTY TO INFLICT FURTHER FRAUDS, AND HIS BEHAVIOUR REFERENCED BY VIDEO AND AUDIO EVIDENCE CONFIRMS ‘HIS DEPRAVITY OF MIND’.

The abuse may consist of an omission rather than an act.

Like the other two Section 1 offences, Section 4 is entirely offender focused. It is complete once the Defendant carries out the act that is the abuse of his position. It is immaterial whether or not he is successful in his enterprise and whether or not any gain or loss is actually made.

As with all the Section 1 offences, though there need be no consequences to the offending, the existence and extent of those consequences will be very material to sentence, compensation and confiscation. It will still therefore be necessary to gather that evidence. In many instances it is the fact of the gain or loss that will prove the Defendant’s dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt.

Possession of articles for use in fraud (Section 6)

The defendant: 

  • had possession or control of;
  • an article;
  • for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.

EDS GRABBED THE KEYS OF MY PROPERTY AND HANDED THEM TO AN UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT A WORD BEING SPOKEN. ADDITIONALLY BECAUSE OF EDS SMASHING DOWN THE FRONT DOOR, THE LOCKS WOULD NOW HAVE NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. THE ARTICLES ARE IN FACT ‘KEYS’. ADDITIONALLY EDS FACILITATED THE USE OF ‘PASSWORDS’ WHICH WERE ON PIECES OF A4 AROUND THE HOUSE. BOTH THE KEYS AND THE PASSWORDS WERE USED TO COMPROMISE BOTH PHYSICAL AND LOGICAL SECURITY. THE FRAUD WAS THE PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND THE UNLAWFUL ACCESS TO MY PROPERTY VIA DEFICIENT WARRANTS OF SEARCH & SEIZURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO BYPASS THE NEED TO LAWFUL SEARCH & SEIZURE WARRANTS BY MY ABSENCE.

The wording draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with an offence. A general intention that he or another will commit fraud (meaning an offence under Sections 1-4 of the Act) will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr App R. 7 (CA) the Court of Appeal said:

“In our view, to establish an offence under Section 25 (1) the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word “any” in Section 25 (1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to provide that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else.”

Section 6 will apply in any case where “Going equipped to cheat” would previously have been charged.

The principal distinction between Section 25 and Section 6 is that Section 6 does not require the defendant to be away from his place of abode.

There is no defence of “reasonable excuse”. Those who are, in particular, properly in possession of or involved in the development of computer software or other items for use to test the security of computer or security systems must rely on their lack of intention that the items or programmes are “for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.” Prosecutors will be alert to such circumstances and the possible abuses.

Making or supplying articles for use in frauds (Section 7)

The defendant: 

  • makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article;

EDS SUPPLIED THE KEYS TO MY PROPERTY TO THE UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL WHICH FACILITATED EASY ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND ITS CONTENTS.

  • for use in the course of or in connection with fraud;

EDS HAD PREVIOUSLY PUT THE KEYS OUTSIDE IN FLOWER POTS AND THE DRIVEWAY, AND NEAR THE GATE FOR KSA PERERA THEREBY FACILITATING THE PLANTING AS WELL AS THEFT OF EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS.

  • knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud (Section 7 (1) (a)) or

EDS’ USE OF THE KEY ENABLED THE ITEMS TO BE STOLEN WITHOUT HAVING TO PHYSICALLY DAMAGE THE PROPERTY.

  • intending it to be used to commit or assist in the commission of fraud (Section 7 (1) (b).

EDS PUTTING THE KEYS IN CERTAIN AREAS OUTSIDE AND DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF KSA PERERA TO THEM CONFIRMS INTENT.

“Knowledge” in Section 7 (1) (a) is a strict¬†mens rea¬†requirement. The House of Lords in¬†Montila¬†[2004] UKHL 50 said:

“A person may have reasonable grounds to suspect that property is one thing (A) when in fact it is something different (B). But that is not so when the question is what a person knows. A person cannot know that something is A when in fact it is B. The proposition that a person knows that something is A is based on the premise that it is true that it is A. The fact that the property is A provides the starting point. Then there is the question whether the person knows that the property is A.”

In practice, the use to which the article can be put is likely to provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s state of mind. For example, articles such as:¬†

  • the kits that are attached to ATM machines to capture card details;¬†
  • forged credit cards or the equipment for making them;¬†
  • lists of credit card numbers;¬†
  • counterfeit goods presented as genuine;
  • do not have an innocent purpose that readily springs to mind.

A person who makes an article specifically for use in fraud, for example, a software programme to create a phishing website or send phishing email, may be ambivalent about whether the person to whom it is supplied actually uses it for fraud. He will fall foul of Section 7 (1) (a) but will not have the necessary intention for Section 7 (1) (b).

The manufacturer of articles that are¬†capable¬†of being used in or in connection with fraud but have other innocent uses will not fall foul of this section unless he¬†intends¬†that it should be used in a dishonest way (Section 7 (1) (b)). The makers of credit card readers are one example. The readers have an innocent purpose they are commonly used by traders who “store up” the details of all the transactions carried out during a day and submit them all together at the end of the day. The card reader merely verifies the validity of the card at the point when it is read and stores all the necessary information about the transaction. The other, dishonest, use is by point of sale staff who use the readers to “skim” credit card details either for use or sale. The dishonest manufacturer who intended a dishonest use would be guilty of Section 7 (1) (b) offence.

Participation by sole trader in fraudulent business (Section 9)

Section 9 makes it an offence for a person knowingly to be a party to the carrying on of a fraudulent business where the business is not carried on by a company. The offence parallels the offence of fraudulent trading in section 458 of the Companies Act 1985.

Non-corporate traders covered by the new offence include sole traders, partnerships, trusts and companies registered overseas.

A defendant may commit an offence under Section 9 (2) (b) in the following ways: 

  • knowingly being party to the carrying on of a company’s business;
  • with intent to defraud creditors of any person; or¬†
  • for any other fraudulent purpose.

EDS WEAKENED THE SECURITY POISE OF MY HOUSE AND ACCESSED MY ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION, WHICH WAS NEEDED BY ME TO REGULARISE THE POSITION WITH VARIOUS CREDITORS AND TO OBTAIN MONIES FROM DEBTORS. IT WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR CREDITORS TO CLAIM THAT I HAD DEFRAUDED THEM BECAUSE AFTER THE THEFT OF THE ACCOUNTING PAPERWORK I DO NOT KNOW THE FINANCIAL POSITION. AS SUCH SHOULD I THEN SETTLE AMOUNTS IT WILL BE I THAT HAS A WORSENED POSITION BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW THE AMOUNTS OF LEGAL SET-OFFS AND COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE CREDITORS. THE FRAUD EDS HAS RUN IS TO CREATE THE APPEARANCE THAT I HAVE DEFRAUDED PEOPLE. I CANNOT CONFIRM THE ASSET OR INCOME POSITION PRESENTLY THANKS TO HIS FRAUD.

The phrase “to defraud creditors of any person” covers the situation where creditors are creditors of the business, but the business is not a legal person. The creditors could be creditors of individuals or of other related companies.

The term “fraudulent purpose” connotes an intention to go “beyond the bounds of what ordinary decent people engaged in business would regard as honest”¬†R v Grantham¬†[1984] 1Q.B. 675; 79 Cr App.R.86.CA; or “involving, according to the current notions of fair trading among commercial men, real moral blame”¬†Re Patrick & Lyon Ltd [1933] Ch. 786, Ch D, per Maugham J. at p.790

Section 9 (3) (c) refers to section 718 (1) of the Companies Act 1985 which exempts certain types of bodies from fraudulent trading. That exemption also applies to section 9. The only exemption likely to concern prosecutors is that in section 718 (2) (b)

“Any body not formed for the purpose of carrying on a business which has for its object the acquisition of gain by the body or its individual members” i.e. a non profit making body cannot be guilty of fraudulent trading, though for example, the individual trustees of a charity can be guilty of offences.

Obtaining services dishonestly (Section 11)

The defendant:

  • obtains for himself or another;
  • services;
  • dishonestly;
  • knowing the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be; and¬†
  • avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part.

This offence replaces obtaining services by deception in Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978 which is repealed by the Act.

The defendant must have the necessary intention at the time that the service is obtained (section 11 (2) (c)).

In many cases, the defendant will also have committed an offence under Section 2 of the Act by making a false representation that payment will be made or made in full. Prosecutors must decide which offence better reflects the criminality involved. The maximum sentence for the Section 11 offence is five years’ imprisonment.

The Elements of the Offences

False representation

Section 2 (2) defines the meaning of “false” and Section 2 (3) defines the meaning of “representation”.

A “representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of the person making the representation or any other person (Section 2 (3)). An example of the latter might be where a defendant claims that a third party intends to carry out a certain course of action perhaps to make a will in someone’s favour. It may be difficult to prove to the necessary standard that the Defendant knew the state of mind of a third party, but easier to prove that he knew what it might be.

A representation may be express or implied (Section 2 (4)). It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation may be expressed.

A representation can be made by omission, for example, by omitting to mention previous convictions or County Court Judgements on an application form.

An offence may be completed when the defendant fails to correct a false impression after a change in circumstances from the original representation (if the representation may be regarded as a continuing series of representations).

A representation can be made to a machine (Section 2 (5)), for example, where a person enters a number into a CHIP and PIN machine or a bank ATM; or gives false credit card details to the voice activated software on a telephone line; or gives false credit card details to a supermarket website to obtain groceries.

Evidence is necessary to prove that the defendant communicated the false representation to a person or to a machine. It is not relevant whether the false representation is believed or has any affect on any other person.

In some cases it will not be necessary to call evidence from a victim, but prosecutors should bear in mind that a victim who is not named on an indictment or in a TIC cannot be compensated.

Untrue or misleading

A representation is defined as “false” if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue.

Dishonestly

The definition in R v Ghosh [1982] 1QB 1053 applies: 

  • was what was done dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?¬†
  • must the defendant have realised that what he/she was doing was, by those standards, dishonest?

The question of dishonesty’ is one for the jury and submissions of no case to answer should not be acceded to based only on the issue of dishonesty.

Gain or loss

“Gain “and “loss” are defined in section 5 of the Act. The definition is essentially the same as in Section 34 of the Theft Act.

Gain and loss extends only to gain and loss in money or other property (Section 5 (2) (a)), whether temporary or permanent (Section 5 (2) (b)) and means any property whether real or personal including things in action and other intangible property (Section 5 (2) (b)).

“Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have (Section 5 (3)).

“Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get as well as a loss by parting with what one has (Section 5 (4)).

The Defendant must intend to make the gain or cause the loss by means of the false representation.

The breadth of conduct to which Section 2 applies is much wider than the old Theft Act deception offences because no gain or loss need actually be made. It is the Defendant’s ultimate intention that matters. If the Defendant gets information by making a false representation, intending ultimately to make a gain or cause a loss within the meaning of Section 5 by doing so, he will have committed a Section 2 offence.

Failure to disclose information

There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to “material” or “relevant “information, nor is there any¬†de minimis¬†provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the¬†actus reus¬†of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. Such cases can be prosecuted under the Act if the public interest requires it, though such cases will be unusual.

It is no defence that the Defendant was ignorant of the existence of the duty, neither is it a defence in itself to claim inadvertence or incompetence. In that respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The defence must rely on an absence of dishonesty and the burden, of course, lies with the prosecutor.

Prosecutors must be acutely aware of the public interest in such cases, bear in mind the relative standing of the parties and pay particular regard to any explanation for the failure given by the Defendant.

A legal duty to disclose information can arise as a result of a contract between two parties or because of the existence of a particular type of professional relationship between them; for example, a solicitor/client relationship. In its report on fraud (No. 276 Cm 5560 2002) the Law Commission made the following comments about the circumstances in which a legal duty might arise:

7.28 … Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant’s failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non- disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it.¬†

Abuse of a position

The “position” required by section 4 is one that may be described as a position of trust. It could include company directors, trustees, business partners or employees. In many cases it will be one where there is a legal ‘fiduciary’ duty; but such a duty is not essential. It is, however, a position that carries something more than a moral obligation.

The Law Commission explained the meaning of “position” as follows:

“The necessary relationship will be present between trustee and beneficiary, director and company, professional person and client, agent and principal, employee and employer, or between partners. It may arise otherwise, for example within a family, or in the context of voluntary work, or in any context where the parties are not at arm’s length. In nearly all cases where it arises, it will be recognised by the civil law as importing fiduciary duties, and any relationship that is so recognised will suffice. We see no reason, however, why the existence of such duties should be essential. This does not, of course, mean that it would be entirely a matter for the fact finders whether the necessary relationship exists. The question whether the particular facts alleged can properly be described as giving rise to that relationship will be an issue capable of being ruled on by the judge and, if the case goes to the jury, of being the subject of directions.”

Examples of the type of conduct that would give rise to a charge under section 4 are: 

  • an employee of a software company who uses his position to clone software products with the intention of selling the products on his own behalf;¬†
  • where a person is employed to care for an elderly or disabled person and has access to that person’s bank account but abuses that position by removing funds for his own personal use. (This may also be theft);
  • an attorney who removes money from the grantor’s accounts for his own use. The Power of Attorney allows him to do so but when excessive this will be capable of being an offence under Section 4;¬†
  • an employee who fails to take up the chance of a crucial contract in order that an associate or rival company can take it up instead;
  • a trustee who dishonestly acts outside the terms of a trust deed in order to produce a gain or loss for himself or others;¬†
  • a director of a company who dishonestly makes use of knowledge gained as a director to make a personal gain;
  • an employee who abuses his position in order to grant contracts or discounts to friends, relatives and associates;¬†
  • a waiter who sells his own bottles of wine passing them off as belonging to the restaurant¬†R v Doukas¬†[1978] 1 All E.R. 1071.;
  • a tradesman who helps an elderly person with odd jobs, gains influence over that person and removes money from their account (This may also be theft but see the guidance on the Public Interest criteria above for the Fraud offences);
  • the person entrusted to purchase lottery tickets on behalf of others again, this will probably be theft as well.

The terms “financial interests” and “abuse” are not defined in the Act and so may be taken to have their ordinary meaning.

Note that the section refers to a person who “occupies a position in which he is expected … “. The person who no longer occupies that position when, for example, he uses information properly gained while “in post” dishonestly, does not commit an offence. He may do so if there is a contractual obligation that extends beyond his departure from the post. He will, however, be guilty of an offence if he took steps to plan his actions while “in post” and put the plan into action after leaving the post or after the relationship ceased.

For example, an employee who transferred sensitive commercial information from his office laptop to his home computer while in employment and used it after that employment had ended will commit the offence. At that stage he will no longer be “occupying a position ” but he was when the offence was committed (transferring the information intending to make a gain or cause a loss) and so can be prosecuted.

In these circumstances prosecutors must be particularly mindful that the criminal law is not invoked by complainants for purely commercial purposes. 

Possession or control

The Act does not offer a definition of “possession or control”.

It is probable that the case law on possession of drugs will apply. The phrase “possession or control” suggests something looser than the absolute “possession” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under that Act “possession” means having physical custody of criminal property.

Section 37(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides that for the purposes of that Act “the things which a person has in his possession shall be taken to include anything subject to his control which is in the custody of another”.

Although the Fraud Act does not contain a similar section, the reference to “control” suggests that items in the possession of others but over which the Defendant retains control would qualify as being in the defendant’s “possession”.

For the law on what constitutes “possession” and “control” in drugs cases refer to Archbold 2010, 27-54 to 27-70.

The law on possession of indecent images will also apply particularly to the possession of software and material stored on computers for use in fraud (covered by virtue of section 8). Prosecutors should bear in mind the judgement of the Court of Appeal in R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560, in which it was held that an image (and, by analogy, a document) will only be considered to be in the possession of the defendant (in the sense of custody or control) if it is accessible to him. In the case of a deleted image, where the Defendant could not retrieve or gain access to it he would no longer have custody or control of it. It follows that it would not be appropriate to say that a person who could not retrieve and image (or document) from a hard disk drive would be in possession of the image by reason of his possession of the hard disk drive itself.

In cases where the prosecution will rely on evidence of material stored on computers, it will be necessary to obtain expert evidence as in cases involving indecent images. 

Article

“Article” has its ordinary meaning subject to Section 8. It is extremely wide covering anything from pen and paper to blank credit cards, credit card numbers and sophisticated computer programmes.

Section 8 provides further definition of the term “article”. For the purposes of Sections 6 and 7 and the provisions listed in Section 8 (2) which include Section 1 (7) (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“prohibited articles” for the purposes of stop and search powers) “article” includes any program or data held in electronic form.

If a successful Section 2 fraudster has succeeded in obtaining information held either as hard copy or in data form from those he has duped, he will also be guilty of a Section 6 offence in relation to that information.

Services

In respect of the definition of services see Archbold 2010, 21-408. The service must be provided on the basis that it will be paid for. The same restrictions will therefore apply to the obtaining of banking services under this section as before they must be chargeable to fall within the ambit of Section 11 (R v Sofroniou [2003] EWCA Crim 3681). If the banking services obtained are free, Section 11 cannot be charged. The same restriction does not apply to Section 2 fraud by making a false representation.

Obtains for himself or another

Section 11 differs from the offences under section 1 in that it requires the actual obtaining of a service (by a dishonest act).

It is not possible to commit the offence by omission alone. This avoids the situation where unscrupulous service providers might feel able to pressure anyone who had been given services they had not requested.

Evidence of spouse/partner (Section 3)

Section 13 is similar to Section 31(1) of the Theft Act 1968. A person is protected from incriminating himself or his spouse or civil partner for the purposes of offences under the Act and related offences, while nonetheless being obliged to co-operate with certain civil proceedings (for example, civil confiscation) relating to property. This section goes beyond Section 31 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 in removing privilege in relation to “related offences” as well as the offence charged. “Related offences” are defined in Section 13 (4) as conspiracy to defraud and any other offence involving any form of fraud or fraudulent conduct or purpose.

I am still writing this, check back later…

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

Per Legem Terrae – Perversion of the Course of Justice via Political Psychiatry

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
Per Legem Terrae - Perversion of the Course of Justice via Political Psychiatry

Per Legem Terrae - Perversion of the Course of Justice via Political Psychiatry (¬Īx)

Published on 6th May 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
625

Enter more text here

20171026 UPDATE

Under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, it is IMPERATIVE that ALL ACTIONS performed in the target country FULLY COMPLIES with the laws of that country and do NOT infringe FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

Here laws mean ENACTED LEGISLATION, not some opinion in relation to a procedure or some other crap designed to DEFEAT MY RIGHTS, which some ShitLankansTM (who are also UK Citizens) have just made up!!

The phrase ‘per legem terrae’, equivalent to ‘by the laws of the land‘, refers to ‘the law in force in a country or region’.

1215 AD

In the year 1215, this term was used in Magna Carta. Perhaps the most famous clause of Magna Carta states:

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.

The word ‘disseised’ means ‘to dispossess someone of land or property’. Such as evidentiary material for ongoing legal cases, and forensic evidence ūüôā

In 1787, the Continental Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance for governance of areas in the United States outside of the individual states. Congress wrote: “No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

Equivalence to Due Process

In 1606, Lord Coke equated this term to due process of law: “But by the Law of the Land. For the true sense and exposition of these words, see the Statute of 37 Edw. 3 cap. 8 where the words, by the law of the Land, are rendered, without due process of Law….“. Justice Powys likewise stated in 1704: “By the 28 Ed. 3.c.3. there the words lex terrae, which are used in Mag. Char. are explained by the words, due process of law; and the meaning of the statute is, that all commitments must be by a legal authority.”

In 1855, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “The words, ‘due process of law,’ were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words, ‘by the law of the land,’ in Magna Charta.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Lemuel Shaw wrote in 1857 that, “Lord Coke himself explains his own meaning by saying ‘the law of the land,’ as expressed in Magna Charta, was intended due process of law, that is, by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men.”

2015 AD – 800 Years Later

I refer now to the 12/17 Fraud involving Edward de Saram (“EDS”) and/or parties associated with Law Enforcement and/or The Melbourne Fraudsters – I have evidence which confirms the link and will upload this shortly.

I am not sure how EDS as a doctor being investigated for Malpractice is suddenly a competent lawyer, but his use of ‘Per Legem Terrae’ [“by the laws of the land”] has really pissed me off given the Fundamental Human Rights violations and loss of my patents and evidence. I dislike justification when it is simply the furtherance of a patently (get it?) obvious fraud.

The summary position is this:-

(a) I had terabytes of evidence in my house that nailed various people in numerous judicial proceedings;

(b) I had terabytes of evidentiary material that I would require in my own defences and/or counterclaims;

(c) During the actual fraud I asked repeatedly what the exact legal basis was, but was not provided with any – there was OBVIOUSLY NO LEGAL BASIS;

(d) I informed my lawyer of my evidentiary material and the obvious risk to its preservation and/or chain, and he confirmed the legal position;

(e) EDS ‘decided’ the basis of ‘Aggravated Kidnapping‘ was the ‘laws of the land‘ – another one of HIS MANY FRAUDS;

(f) Upon returning to my house afterwards, the data had in fact been taken/wiped – this was my concern all along and I was right of course – prescience not paranoia ūüôā

Mental Health Act of Sri Lanka

The Mental Disease Ordinance Chapter 559 is the legislation relating to mental health which is based on the concepts and attitudes to mental disorder that prevailed in 1873 when this Law was first enacted. However there was a revision in 1956 as can be seen (“27 of 1956”).

I was unaware that EDS’ Assault / Battery / Kidnapping / Unlawful Imprisonment were alternative instructions for ‘apply in writing to the District Court‘:-

Video:-

First of all some ‘policeman’ was sent out whilst the others cowered. He was not a legitimate party to the proceeding as I found out later the others thanked him for ‘showing his face’. He was merely brought in to make it look ‘lawful’ – of course it was not.

When I asked them what the issue was they were not interested in providing the reason – this in itself is bizarre as

THERE IS ALWAYS A QUOTABLE LEGAL BASIS FOR A FULLY LAWFUL LEGAL PROCESS.

This behaviour concerned me greatly as well as the fact that EDS was the person behind this issue but was hiding off camera.

Even the body language of the pregnant man in pink when he is saying ‘Money Disruption’ [meaning MONEY LAUNDERING] is that of a child when lying or saying something uncomfortablenote the manner in which his arms swing. The policeman looks down as much as possible either in shame or reluctance to be filmed.

Enhanced Audio track:-

Quick Call to Rienzie Arseculeratne PC for Legal Counsel

I started the conversation by referring to the call interception et cetera that Rienzie knew very well – I had of course consulted him regarding it.

I refer to an event that EDS had forcibly taken me to see a psychiatrist – even though one was not required because of copious amounts of forensic evidence. I had shown EDS and PDS certain evidence before this event as well as describe it in detail.

I thought I saw EDS had a ‘mic’ on the left side of head and he continued to force me to sit on the right side of the trishaw in the journey to and from the hospital as well as to various computer shops along the way. [Actually, I was trying to be too specific. It was NOT a mic but there was a field in EDS’ immediate vicinity. This is addressed in detail here]

I had known EDS for 43yrs at that time and it is easy to tell when he is doing something fraudulent – the other thing he does is drop his voice to a signature whisper ūüôā

The concern was my personal security as well as the evidentiary material which NAILS EVERYONE.

Key excerpts are:-

I stated “It seems to be that I have exposed something going on either the UK or here and he is trying to get me sectioned so all the evidence can get wiped.

Rienzie replied Oh God.

I confirmed “The issue is this, I honestly don’t need to be sectioned – the issue is my dad has obviously got himself involved in a mess and now he is trying to get out of the mess by shifting.. my evidence is perfect and it is there and it is video in nature.. and you saw the red zips, and… the parties behind that are trying to get me sectioned so they can go through my house and wipe data – that’s what I think is happening. So this is about the preservation of evidence.

As I later found I WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT, FROM EDS’ OWN BEHAVIOUR AND ADMISSIONS:-

I further confirmed “I don’t know what [the police] have come for… but my dad is there and unfortunately I know if I go with them they will go through my house wiping everything, because the evidence that I’ve got unfortunately incriminates him. I threatened him with court orders yesterday and today, and I didn’t know he was behind this. But the evidence pointed to him, and he has implicated himself.

I continued “So in that situation I am not going anywhere, especially as I don’t want to be sectioned and I’ve got no representation, I don’t speak Sinhala and my parents are hell-bent on trying to punish me unfortunately. And the UK lawyers, you can see the way I am writing coherent e-mails – there’s nothing wrong with my state of mind whatsoever. It’s just that the parties around me are saying that I am paranoid or sick to try and create an issue for me.

Rienzie suggested “What if you seal the house and go?” and my response was “No, the problem is that people have been coming in the night, walking around the house and moving things around, that’s another problem I have with security here. I have taken photos… and things have moved around the house – I’ve got all that evidence as well.

And I’ve got the evidence of the crimes being committed against me as well, such as the call interception evidence et cetera… When I talk to my dad about these issues he seems to take it personally for some reason… Also my dad is hanging around and trying to get me sectioned.

Rienzie advised “Just refuse to go.” So I responded “If I refuse to go then they will come back with an arrest warrant presumably if there was an actual crime, is that correct?

Rienzie responded “We can then fight it out in courts.” to which I replied “Yeah exactly, they come with an arrest warrant and then we can deal with it.

I responded “I’m just not going with people especially after the recent Chamaree situation where various people dressed as police came, they didn’t take any statements, they didn’t give any id and it was a free-for-all…

Rienzie correctly responded “Tell them that you just can’t go like that, that there is no reason to go, unless you are arrested and taken, we can file a Fundamental Rights case.

I finally stated “If we make it a proper legal case, with due process, then we can deal with it in the legal way. This seems to be a bit of a free-for-all, a boys club trying to create issues for me.

DESPITE THE TRAUMATIC SITUATION I WAS COMPLETELY PRECISE AND SPOT-ON FROM ‘THE LAWS OF THE LAND’ AND FROM SPEAKING WITH RIENZIE. THERE WAS NO SCHIZOPHRENIA HERE, JUST ONE SAD UK/AU/SG FRAUD AGAINST ME!!

This was a confidential call but I have disclosed it because Rienzie had been found to collaborate with the perpetrators – see later on.

I do not bother to honour agreements with those parties who fail to honour their own agreements with me. In any event this is a serious criminal matter relating to Spoliation of Evidence and the state of mind of the perpetrators is relevant. The rules of ‘best evidence’ applies and audio is obviously better than a transcript.

Evidence of Electromagnetic Interference:-

Video:-

The body language in this video says it all… EDS is the perpetrator and is trying to be the big man among his minions.

I informed them “Okay I spoke to my lawyers and I’m not going anywhere, so that’s the end of that. Can you please leave my property or I will have to ring or notify the police.

I said ‘ring’ initially but as my calls were continually jammed it would prove to be difficult ūüôā

I continued “I’ve already spoken to my lawyers, there is no reason for anything.. I’m not coming down. I’m sorry I don’t speak Sinhala, I don’t speak Sinhala and you’re on my property, could you please leave.”

Because my father and mother have had some idea to try and get this issue.. I’m not going anywhere.. I’m not opening the door. Will you please leave.

Pregnant man (“PM”) – “There are two options, you can take your belongings…

I responded “Just listen. What’s your name?

PM – “Ekanayake

JDS “First name, are you a police officer?

PM – “Yes

JDS – “I’m not going anywhere.

PM – “WE WILL COME INSIDE AND TAKE YOU BY FORCE.

[CLASSIC COERCION – DO WHAT WE SAY OR WE WILL ASSAULT YOU!]

JDS – “ON WHAT BASIS EXACTLY

PM – “Medical Treatment” (I thought in the first video it was ‘Money Disruption’).

The procedure is to simply APPLY IN WRITING to the District Court and obtain a Court Order – a non-psychopath would have done that. But remember, this BULLSHIT was about MONEY LAUNDERING AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE not PSYCHIATRY!!

JDS – “I can say this is my father and mother have come out with some nonsense, right.. there isn’t a single doctor who has actually examined me. Can you please leave.

EDS – “WE’LL BREAK OPEN THE DOOR AND DRAG YOU OUT

[MORE COERCION – INFLICTION OF VIOLENCE IF I DO NOT COMPLY WITH AN UNLAWFUL ACT.]

TANIA AND I HAVE HAD THIS CRAP FOR 37 AND 45YRS RESPECTIVELY.

JDS – “No, if you do that.. I will file a Fundamental Rights case.

EDS – “that’s all right“. What we are saying is that you can get your laptop..

CLASSIC PSYCHOPATHY – CONTINUAL AND BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE LAW

JDS – “I’m not going anywhere, please leave.

EDS – “Who’s your lawyer?

JDS – “I’ve already spoken to the lawyers, I’m not going anywhere.”

EDS – “You can file anything… BUT UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY

JDS – “I KNOW THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY I SPOKE TO THE LAWYER JUST NOW.

[EDS REPEATING ‘LAWS OF THE LAND’ TO TICK THE BOX FOR AN MLAT DOES NOT FOOL ME BECAUSE I KNOW THE ACTUAL ‘LAWS OF THE LAND’]

JDS – “Don’t give me that nonsense, if you open the door I will call the police. Do not open that door.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO TELL THIS RETARD NOT TO OPEN THE DOOR?

EDS – “Break the door!

JDS – “Do not open that door.

I called the [real] police but exactly as predicted my call was jammed and it did not connect.

Enhanced Audio Track:-

Premeditation

First and foremost, EDS lowers his voice in traditional fashion when he knows he is doing something fraudulent.

EDS – “I want to discuss something in extreme confidence.. Joe I think is coming for a nervous breakdown.. Now I’m just thinking how I can get him to see a doctor… He seems to be refusing.”

EDS – “Joe shouldn’t have any idea that I had a conversation with you.” – obvious consciousness of guilt.

EDS – “Saturday I was here and I wanted to go and see somebody and he went with me but because he was going to have a long wait he went back.” As anyone can see I went to the doctor but the long wait was the issue not a refusal…

WELL, IF I WENT TO THE DOCTOR AND THERE WAS A LONG WAIT, THEN THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT A REFUSAL TO SEE A DOCTOR!! MORE LIES FROM EDS.

EDS – “Yesterday when I was talking to him he seems very suspicious about people.” – another lie – I was finding the behaviour of EDS and PDS bizarre and they were scheming. However branding me as paranoid because I have correctly identified various frauds electronically against me is not paranoia – it is EDS’ attempt to evade criminal culpability obviously.

EDS – “There are certain things about what he says, it is weird, it is true, but when he is living in this environment of people doing various things, and especially that woman [Chamaree Silva] she has messed up his brain a little bit… he’s very paranoid about things now… He tends to incorporate into his system rather than looking at it.

THIS IS A TEXTBOOK MILITARY INTELLIGENCE EXCUSE ABOUT ‘INCORPORATING INTO HIS SYSTEM’

This is utter garbage and if Chamaree Silva is the issue then she is one who needs to be treated not me. One of the issues was I was being poisoned and as soon as the poisoner left I was fine. Until that is, EDS came and resumed where she had left off.

EDS – “When he is refusing to come to hospital, what procedure is there to enter the house and take him to hospital, there must be something?

Rienzie Arseculeratne – “[In this country] you can’t do that… that system of forcibly taking someone to hospital doesn’t exist in Sri Lanka.

SO THE LAWS OF THE LAND ARE NOT THAT WHICH EDS IS STATING

EDS – “I spoke to a psychiatrist and was told that there is an approved scheme.

THE SCHEME RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION NOT LEGISLATION. THE ACTUAL COURT ORDER MUST STILL BE OBTAINED OBVIOUSLY!

RA – “I can ask from the Ministry of Health whether there is an approved scheme.

EDS – “If I go the Police [station] and make an entry then the guardian has to sign… because when he is not prepared to take any medicine and see anyone then he will deteriorate.

EDS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED MY LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP!!

My health will deteriorate if EDS continues to Intentionally Inflict Emotional Distress by his lack of boundaries and gaslighting antics, and being nasty to me.

EDS’ statements are fraudulent and not even my personality type. I know when I need to take medication and I know when someone is running a Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy fraud on me. And then when people do not understand electronic surveillance to the level that I do then is ‘appears’ to the bystander that I have a problem. All this was part of the fraud and everyone has ignored the ‘inconvenient truth’ of my evidence:-

EDS – “When it comes to his computer work and various other things he is extremely rational, but if he comes to various aspects he is talking about ‘being got at’ and all that sort of thing and it is difficult to put any sense into him.

I do not even use words such as ‘being got at’!! I speak in an extremely precise manner.

EDS IS JUST DESCRIBING SYMPTOMS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA!

Well if EDS could understand that I have correctly identified electronic harassment surveillance and psychotronic weapons (which comes under the ‘computer work’ that he confirms is ‘extremely rational’) how is he willing to allow a contradiction to arise?

EDS – “He also thinks that I am [involved]. I tend to confront him and say ‘can it be this as well’ and then he doesn’t like it.

ALSO TEXTBOOK MILITARY INTELLIGENCE – TRYING TO TELL THE VICTIM THAT THERE IS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION.

All that is absolutely nonsense – I have an open mind but I know what electronic surveillance is as I am an expert in this area. EDS is involved, as these and other call recordings confirm. EDS thought he could get away with it and lie but clearly his ‘leaking of intent’ has confirmed consciousness of guilt ūüôā

EDS – “So then he must be thinking that I am not listening to him.” – sounds plausible but my personality type is such that I don’t care what fools think – this is just more lies EDS has made up.

RA – “You can always come back to me Ranjit – I am happy to help with this situation…

EDS – “Keep it confidential between you and me.

RA – “100% Ranjit don’t worry… I won’t discuss it at all… even when I met you for dinner I have not told any of your people.

EDS – “That’s good.

RA – “Nobody in your family knows that I am in touch with you [laughter].

EDS – “Find out from the [Ministry of Health] then.

I LOVE THE WAY THESE BABOONS ARE CONGRATULATING THEMSELVES ON THEIR CONSPIRACY AND SECRECY BUT THEY ARE NO MATCH FOR MY ABILITY IN FORENSICS AND CAN THEREFORE LISTEN TO THEIR FRAUD ON LINKEDIN!

Compare and contrast EDS’s behaviour (concealment of crime, nervous laughter) in this recording to:-

As can be seen it is obvious that EDS’ fraud was to (a) intentionally inflict emotional distress (IIED from the early December 2015 trip (b) then tell third parties that I had a mental problem (c) have me sectioned (d) organise ECT to harm me as make it ‘look’ as if there was an ‘issue’ and then (e) take control of my property and assets via legal guardianship so that a deficient search warrant could not be challenged by me and (f) let my enemies get the better of me.

This ‘not taking medicine and having issues’ is the identical theme of the Melbourne Fraudsters in the Supreme Court case so it is obvious where it has come from and why EDS is doing this.

The other problem is that Chamaree told Ray that EDS was nasty to me, and we all know that was on voice record. So EDS had to engage damage limitation, and that has also failed miserably ūüôā

Note how this recording is 4 days before the 12/17 event. EDS knew that what he was proposing was unlawful, having been informed of that by a Presidents Counsel (equivalent to a QC). Yet because EDS is obsessed in carrying out the fraud he suggests other parties whom he erroneously believes he can convince with some story.

PDS lined up the call like a ‘fluffer’. EDS came to the phone and his voice suddenly went onto the ‘fraudulent whisper’ setting.

EDS – “We saw the psychiatrist yesterday, last night, he said he has got another psychiatrist from Ungoda to see him as well and they feel he needs treatment. [Joe] feels that there isn’t a problem and that he wants to come home… Joe is having a heart condition and we met the cardiologist… see if there is any contraindications with the medicine… The [cardiologist] wants to make sure he does it the right way.. every single thing [Joe] will [scrutinize]… We have already asked that Cardiologist there is nothing… but seeing him via channelling tonight in 40mins time and ask him whether he can visit him if it is possible, if not he can give a letter… then he can give a medical report. And AFTER that is done a Court Order than be obtained.

THIS IS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT CONFIRMS THAT THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE 12/17 WHICH CONFIRMS THE FRAUD AND CONFIRMS THAT IT WAS IN FACT KIDNAPPING. THAT THEN RENDERED MY INCARCERATION ON THE PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY AS UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT.

EDS – “Now we need to find an ‘arms-length lawyer’ [so we can continue to work with you but it will be them as the visible person]… we need to get the Court Order because [Joe] has no insight which is the problem… because all [Joe’s] house we took photographs, all the house is locked [so the people coming] is all in his mind.

All in my mind? Has EDS not heard his own conversations to third parties? ha ha.

This is another fraud as there are the audio recordings in which he knows that Francis Perera has the key and he confirms that fact to Gaya Pathikirikorale, his school friend for 50yrs. It therefore cannot be in my mind if I have seen people coming into the house, after Shihara the Owl Cat has alerted me to their presence in the middle of the night, I have photos of ‘before and after’ as well as videos, and we have audio evidence of EDS knowing that someone has the key!!

[insert evidence]

Does EDS not have the ‘insight’ to understand that if a third party has a key, then they can use that key to enter the property without breaking into it?

In fact I refer to this video which confirms that two hours before the 12/17 Fraud I discovered that the door locks had been modified:-

EDS – “[Joe] was brainwashed into believing.” that is false because I noticed the additional parties when there was no-one else residing in the house – as such how could I be brainwashed?

PDS – “What the psychiatrist said was that he will write a medical report and that medical report can be shown to a lawyer, then the lawyer can apply to courts saying that he needs treatment. Once we have that we can change his present place because if we send him to Ungoda that hospital is awful, so if we can get the Court Order then the psychiatrist can treat him at the present place which is a nice place.

Two points – once again confirmation that there was NO COURT ORDER AT THE TIME which CONFIRMS THE FRAUD AGAIN – what is the defence to Aggravated Kidnap and Unlawful Imprisonment exactly?

PDS – “You must not let Joe know that we went to the lawyers through you..” – another instruction from PDS to the instructee. Why is Rienzie following the instructions of an adversary to my detriment if I am the client?

RA – “Don’t worry I will get that lawyer.

PDS – “When the medical report is ready I will contact you.” – if Rienzie was not going to be involved then PDS would give the medical report to the new lawyer, not Rienzie who is clearly still being instructed.

RA – “The problem is that now it is the court vacation.. if this Order has to be obtained from the Magistrates Court then we can do it, there is a court vacation sitting. If it is the District Court then you will not be able to do anything until January.

PDS – “So District Court we cannot, but can if it were the Magistrates Court… Normally which Court is the one?

RA – “I think it is the District Court…once you get the papers you let me know.

Yes it is the District Court as I have referenced the legislation above.

PDS – “Thank you very much for your help Rienzie I really appreciate.

RA – “We’ll also pray for you.

PDS – “Yes thank you I need a lot of prayers as I’m also getting stressed.

RA – “Also you all are having a trying time to have to do this.”

PDS – “Having to come here from there, going through all this mental stress, we need your prayers very badly… we are also praying morning noon and night.. other things [Joe] speaks perfectly, his memory… he should have been a lawyer… from the law point he speaks incredibly accurately… but when it comes to ‘joe you need treatment’ he says ‘no I don’t think’ he as no insight.

This is a textbook example of one of the goals of a MSbP sufferer:-

the text I wrote is:-

Usually, the cause of MSbP is a need for attention and sympathy from doctors, nurses, and other professionals.

RA – “He is thinking that the entire world is against him” – actually I don’t think that at all – obviously parties have been running a fraud against me and have got exposed and EDS and PDS are covering for them…

Please don’t generalise by attaching an incorrect label to me and then describing other features of the label.

PDS – “We had a vague idea but when this woman was putting more and more into his mind it became very obvious..

Well if ‘this woman’ is the issue then put her into a Psychiatric Facility – putting me in there makes no sense if someone else was the causal agent!!

 

Unless the plan was of course to go through my stuff. Even an Australian Lawyer figured this out:-

At this juncture I refer to a quick video which I made after the 12/17 Fraud – despite EDS/PDS swearing blind that no-one came, where have these clothes come from?

It seems that when people don’t understand something in Sri Lanka, they immediately assume that they are experts on it and then failure to recognise their own limitations. That is classic Dunning-Kruger Effect and also ultracrepidarianism.

PDS – “When this woman came to work for him, he was so brainwashed that it became very obvious.” – more garbage PDS EDS and I joined Rienzie and his daughter for the dinner referenced above and PDS told her that my evidence was ‘fantastic’. So if PDS knows that she has seen the evidence and calls it ‘fantastic’ why is she suddenly forgetting forensic evidence and looking at qualitative information, as opposed to ‘quantitative’.

PDS – “I feel awful, [Joe] thinks that I have betrayed him by sending him to hospital and he wants to come home, but I know that if he came home he will never go back.

Yes PDS is ‘feeling so awful’ that she is laughing about it.

RA – “In the evening he called me and wanted me to come, or Sashin to come and rescue him from the hospital [laughter].. I said ‘ok ok’ I’ll come and see him tomorrow.”

Sorry is there something funny with Aggravated Kidnap and Unlawful Imprisonment?

PDS – “Yes, if possible, if you can go Rienzie then at least he will know that you’re not on our side [more sick laughter, schadenfreude].

RA – “Yes that’s right.

So if PDS is clearly instructing RA to visit me, then the instructor is still PDS – this ties in with the early part of the call in which EDS/PDS are looking for an ‘arms-length’ lawyer to obfuscate the true instructee. All fraudulent and I really don’t know what RA is doing defaming me as well as breaching client confidentiality and facilitating a conflict to be created?

PDS – “Thank you Rienzie, that will be good…

Further Confirmation

still being written…

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

Also in this series:-

Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment

Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
Kidnapping-and-Unlawful-Imprisonment-1300x400-imgs

Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment (¬Īx)

Published on 6th May 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
538

Enter more text here

still working on this one please check back later

In criminal law, kidnapping is the abduction and restraint by force or unlawful transportation of a person usually in order to hold them captive against their will.

This may be done with a demand for ransom in exchange for releasing them from concealment, or for other illegal purposes such as destroying the victim’s legal and accounting materials and forensic evidence against the very perpetrators themselves.

Kidnapping can be accompanied by bodily injury which elevates the crime to aggravated kidnapping, and this is particularly so in my case in which Edward de Saram knew that I was suffering from a serious neck injury from the [staged] road traffic accident.

Common Law Offence

Kidnapping is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.

Lord Brandon said in 1984 R v D:-

“First, the nature of the offence is an attack on, and infringement of, the personal liberty of an individual.

Secondly, the offence contains four ingredients as follows:

(1) the taking or carrying away of one person by another;

(2) by force or fraud;

(3) without the consent of the person so taken or carried away; and

(4) without lawful excuse.”

EDS obviously thought that he was ‘a bit clever’ by talking about the ‘laws of the land’ (which would have given a pseudo-defence under (4)) but that was all part of the same sad fraud:-

[insert evidence]

Evidence of Conspiracy and Fraud – PREMEDITATION

I refer to the following excerpts of recorded calls, obtained forensically and entirely lawfully, from the Nokia N8 of Edward de Saram. The whole Psychiatric Issue was a precursor/secondary fraud to the primary fraud of data exfiltration and spoliation of evidence.

EDS asked KSA Perera to go upstairs and delete the call recording. Perera knew very well that I was maintaining all calls to prevent exactly this issue. This is an excerpt focussing on the instruction to delete evidence.

In this follow-up call Perera informed EDS that I wanted Perera to call him, and EDS stated that there should only be one call recording, and lowers his voice saying that I am recording calls. Well it looks to everyone like my concerns about the frauds the pair of them were running, were entirely justified ūüôā

Perera asked if I had visited hospital – this is the whole scam about me requiring medication and/or not taking it, was fraudulently started by Margaret Cunniffe and the Melbourne Fraudsters are connected to this entire fraud as usual.

EDS confirmed that I am going to the UK in a few months. EDS drew specific attention to my files and their importance and how only I can look at them and how I need them, or words to that effect. Also Shihara the Owl Cat seemed to be an inconvenience which is why they tried to poison him.

EDS and Perera laughed together about the fact that I suspected them, even though I was spot on in my assessment of the situation in which these clowns were destroying evidence. Did they both ‘forget’ about the calls in which they agreed to delete recordings above?