Factitious Disorder Imposed on an Another

By | KEY ARTICLES

Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another

Published on 6th January 2019
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
903

FACTITIOUS DISORDER IMPOSED ON ANOTHER

Factitious disorder imposed on another, perhaps better known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, is a form of abuse in which a person fabricates illness for a dependent and puts them through unnecessary medical treatment.

The relationship usually, but not always, involves a mother and her child.

The term Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) was named after Baron Munchausen, an aristocratic literary figure from 18th-century Germany, with a reputation for tall stories.

The correct name for MSBP is now factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA). If the person invents illness for themselves, this is factitious disorder imposed on self (FDIS). The disorder has also been known as fabricated illness (FI).

FDIA: A mental health issue

Factitious disorder is classified as a mental illness.

People with Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy seek to gain attention by inventing illnesses for their dependents.

A person with FDIS tries to gain attention by being the patient.

The person with FDIA gains attention by caring for someone, usually her own child, who is sick. She receives praise for her devotion during the many hospitalizations that the “patient” goes through, and uses the sick child to develop relationships with doctors and health care workers.

The earliest recorded case of fabricated illness was in 1951, and the first “by proxy” case was in 1976.

How common it is remains unclear, partly because of the secrecy practiced by those who have the disorder. One estimate suggests that 2 in every 100,000 children may experience it.

Sometimes it is not the mother but the fatherwho has FDIA, and the receiver may not be a child, but an older teen, a person in their 20s or a vulnerable adult, such as an elderly person who is dependent on a caregiver.

The person with the condition often has a history of abuse or other mental health issues.

The fact that the abuser appears to care greatly about their dependent makes it harder to spot the deception.

To support claims that the child is ill when no illness is present, the person with FDIA may invent signs and symptoms. They may say that the child has convulsions, an eating disorder, pain, allergies or ADHD, when this is not true.

Alternatively, they may make the child ill by getting them to swallow a substance, injecting something into them to make them sick, or smothering them.

This can be fatal.

Symptoms

If a child has repeated and unexplained illnesses, or multiple illnesses, if the symptoms only occur when the parent is present, and if the parent seems to know a lot about medicine, despite not having previous training in the field of health care, these could be signs of FDIA.

While the child is in the hospital, the parent may stay with them all the time and attend to them well, but they may appear less concerned about the child’s well-being than the health care professionals do.

The other parent tends not to be involved in the care of the child, or their involvement is minimal.

The parent may talk to the medical team a lot and try to develop a friendly relationship, but if challenged, they may become aggressive, confrontational, and possibly abusive.

The parent may be keen for the child to undergo tests that most parents would only agree to if absolutely necessary. They may encourage doctors to perform tests and procedures that are painful for the child.

Documents or other sources may indicate that the mother has changed doctors frequently, or has visited different hospitals for her child’s treatment.

Patterns of abuse

Cases of FDIA fall into one of six categories of patterns of abuse, ranging from less severe to extremely severe.

Someone with the condition may:

  1. Invent signs and symptoms and tamper with test results, to encourage the diagnosis of an illness
  2. Deliberately not provide the child with nutrients
  3. Deliberately trigger symptoms, such as applying a chemical on the skin to cause a rash or irritation, but not including smothering or poisoning
  4. Use a low toxicity poison on the child, for example, a laxative to cause diarrhea
  5. Use a high toxicity poison on the child, for example, insulin to induce hypoglycemia, or excessively low blood sugar level
  6. Make the child lose consciousness by deliberately smothering them.

The most common fabricated symptoms include:

  • Fits, or seizures
  • Fainting
  • Apnea, involving bouts of breathlessness
  • Hyperactivity, learning difficulties, and other psychological symptoms
  • Asthma
  • Vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Allergies and rashes.

A child who experiences FDIA is exposed to ongoing abuse, with a chance of serious psychological damage. The child is put at a disadvantage by multiple hospitalizations, and in physical danger from unnecessary surgical procedures and tests.

Causes

The exact causes of FDIA are unclear, but experts believe that a past traumatic experience in the abuser’s life may play a role. In some cases, it stems from a personality disorder.

Some personality disorders are linked to a traumatic childhood event or experience.

Some mothers involved in FDIA may have experienced neglect or abuse when they were children, experienced a tragic loss of a family member, or were brought up in dysfunctional families.

Diagnosis

It is very difficult to detect a case of FDIA, because it is extremely rare, and doctors can normally expect parents to tell the truth about their child’s health.

A child whose parent has FDIA may spend a lot of time in the hospital.

If a physician suspects a case of FDIA, they will usually refer the case to a senior pediatrician, who will then look at the medical evidence to determine whether the child’s signs and symptoms have a clinical explanation.

If the child is old enough, the doctor may try to talk to them alone, but this can be difficult because the parent tends to stay next to the child all the time.

The medical team will double check the blood and urine samples for evidence of added substances, including unprescribed medicines, toxins, or blood in urine samples.

The case may then be passed to the police and social services, and the child may be taken away from the parent to be cared for by other adults, depending on the level of risk.

Treatment

Treatment involves two patients, the caregiver and the child.

The caregiver will receive intensive psychotherapy and family therapy.

Psychotherapy will focus on why mother decided to fake or induce symptoms and illness in the child, and then look for ways to resolve the problem. This will include learning to form relationships that are not associated with being ill.

Family therapy looks at family tensions and parenting skills, and will seek to restore the relationship between the child and the caregiver.

Patients who accept that they have a problem can normally be treated successfully.

Recovery for the child

If a case of FDIA is established, a medical team will work to get the child back to good health, possibly followed by long-term counseling to help overcome the trauma and stress caused by the abuse.

There is little research about what happens to people after this kind of experience, but studies suggest that children may experience delays in development, behavioral problems and anxiety. Attention problems have been noted.

The child may have missed schooling due to time spent in medical care. They may continue to believe that they really are sick, and they may need psychiatric help later in life.

A 1995 study of 10 adults whose mothers had FDIA reported that they felt unloved and unsafe while growing up, and that they had emotional and physical problems. As adults, they experienced insecurity and symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and they avoided medical treatment.

According to one expert, the person will need “years of therapy and support.”

There are also online discussion boards for people who have undergone this experience during childhood.

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

Really Taking the Piss – Calcium Oxalate in Urine Confirms Poisoning via Ethylene Glycol

By | KEY ARTICLES
really-taking-the-piss-calcium-oxalate-in-urine-confirms-poisoning-via-ethylene-glycol-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Really Taking the Piss - Calcium Oxalate in Urine Confirms Poisoning via Ethylene Glycol (±x)

Published on 10th December 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
957

Joseph S R de Saram provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with . Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE

In the above video Acute Renal Failure results from the consumption or poisoning via Ethylene Glycol (“EG”,”antifreeze”).

(a) The presence of Calcium Oxalate crystals which are normally absent from urine is CONCLUSIVE for EG intoxication.

Overdose of Ethylene Glycol

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners use Clinical Advisor for updated medical guidance to diagnose and treat common medical conditions in daily practice...

(b) Additionally the binding of Calcium ions to Oxalic acid causes Hypocalcemia, ie a reduction in calcium ions in the blood, with its own series of issues…

Ethylene Glycol Toxicity – When the Story Does Not Quite Fit

Ethylene glycol poisoning

Ethylene glycol poisoning is poisoning caused by drinking ethylene glycol . [1] Early symptoms include intoxication , vomiting and abdominal pain . [1] Later symptoms may include a decreased level of consciousness , headache , and seizures . [1] Long....

Pathophysiology

Several toxic alcohols are of medical and toxicological importance; the principal ones include ethanol, ethylene glycol (EG), methanol, and isopropanol. See Alcohol Toxicity...

Background

Over the past few weeks, my supply of food has been dwindling so I have been drinking much more bottled water than usual. The bottled water was obtained by my parents a few months ago.

The food that I have been eating is Kelloggs’ Crunchy Nut Cornflakes from the UK mixed with water, as the milk had run out weeks earlier – nothing risky there on the face of it.

Clinical Symptoms

I have had acute problems with my prostate, to the point of extreme pain, as well as nausea and vomiting for some reason, with continual stomach cramps and headaches.

My kidneys have been hurting and I have been feeling dense and work has not been progressing well.

My heart has been extremely painful with continual arrhythmias, a very tight chest and obvious slurred speech during various conversations (recorded).

20170923 081824 PDS and JDS Discussing Contaminated Water

As can be heard I have informed PDS of the issue with the water but as usual the response is one of disinterest or skepticism. I have these type of conversations all the time in which I am made to look like a paranoid fool. Thankfully this is not one of the more irritating ones.

THIS IS A SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE, TO REINFORCE THE CONCEPT THAT ‘JOE IS IMAGINING THINGS’ AND THE RESPONSE IS TYPICALLY A ‘PLAUSIBLE’ EXPLANATION, DESIGNED TO ERODE MY CREDIBILITY FURTHER.

EVERYONE, INCLUDING A FEW LAWYERS IN AU AND GB HAVE BEEN PUSHING THIS TECHNIQUE WITHOUT SUCCESS, AS NO-ONE CAN CHALLENGE THE FORENSICS 🙂

Taking the Piss, Literally

On 07 and 08 December 2017 two samples of my urine were provided to a lab for testing.

Both samples are cloudy, and the one on the left markedly so but it has been in the fridge overnight. However, let us consider the actual lab reports rather than visuals although the abnormal pink colour is obviously not yellow :):-

Sample 01

Sample 02

Analysis Sample 01

and

Analysis Sample 01

and

Findings

The existence of Pus Cells

CONFIRMS INFECTION

and the

* * EXISTENCE OF CALCIUM OXALATE * *

CONFIRMS ETHYLENE GLYCOL TOXICITY OR ITS EQUIVALENT

both FINDINGS REINFORCE EACH OTHER in relation to POISONOUS SUBSTANCES and their DAMAGING EFFECTS ON MY PHYSICAL HEALTH

Attempted Murder – Not Again 🙂

The following videos are forensic cases in relation to actual murders involving Poisoning via Ethylene Glycol.

Excerpt:-

Full:-

As can be heard, the KEY FINDING was CALCIUM OXALATE CRYSTALS and THIS EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE.

Key Concepts

“Incoherent, confused, vomiting, hallucinating”

“Coronary Artery Disease’ was incorrectly considered the ‘Cause of Death’.

“Untimely death”

“Cardiac Dysrhythmia”

“Other toxicology tests proved negative”

Medical References and Whitepapers

Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol Toxicity What Are the Stages of Ethylene Glycol Intoxication?

Upon completion of this section, you should be able to explain the mechanism of ethylene glycol toxicity and describe the three stages of ethylene glycol toxicity...

and

Are calcium oxalate crystals involved in the mechanism of acute renal failure in ethylene glycol poisoning?

Abstract

Introduction. Ethylene glycol (EG) poisoning often results in acute renal failure, particularly if treatment with fomepizole or ethanol is delayed because of late presentation or diagnosis. The mechanism has not been established but is thought to result from the production of a toxic metabolite.

Methods. A literature review utilizing PubMed identified papers dealing with renal toxicity and EG or oxalate. The list of papers was culled to those relevant to the mechanism and treatment of the renal toxicity associated with either compound. Role of metabolites. Although the “aldehyde” metabolites of EG, glycolaldehyde, and glyoxalate, have been suggested as the metabolites responsible, recent studies have shown definitively that the accumulation of calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) crystals in kidney tissue produces renal tubular necrosis that leads to kidney failure.

In vivo studies in EG-dosed rats have correlated the severity of renal damage with the total accumulation of COM crystals in kidney tissue. Studies in cultured kidney cells, including human proximal tubule (HPT) cells, have demonstrated that only COM crystals, not the oxalate ion, glycolaldehyde, or glyoxylate, produce a necrotic cell death at toxicologically relevant concentrations.

COM crystal accumulation. In EG poisoning, COM crystals accumulate to high concentrations in the kidney through a process involving adherence to tubular cell membranes, followed by internalization of the crystals.

Mechanism of toxicity. COM crystals have been shown to alter membrane structure and function, to increase reactive oxygen species and to produce mitochondrial dysfunction. These processes are likely to be involved in the mechanism of cell death.

Conclusions. Accumulation of COM crystals in the kidney is responsible for producing the renal toxicity associated with EG poisoning. The development of a pharmacological approach to reduce COM crystal adherence to tubular cells and its cellular interactions would be valuable as this would decrease the renal toxicity not only in late treated cases of EG poisoning, but also in other hyperoxaluric diseases such as primary hyperoxaluria and kidney stone formation.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563650903344793

The cytotoxicity of oxalate, metabolite of ethylene glycol, is due to calcium oxalate monohydrate formation

Abstract

Oxalate is a minor, but important metabolite of ethylene glycol and has been directly linked with acute and subchronic renal toxicity in ethylene glycol poisoning. Numerous studies have characterized the cytotoxicity of oxalate as including plasma membrane damage and organelle injury. Oxalate has two forms in vivo: oxalate ions and calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) crystals that readily form in the presence of calcium. The present study was designed to compare the cytotoxicity of the oxalate ion and COM crystals in human and rat cells. In rat red blood cells, the oxalate ion did not increase hemolysis, while COM crystals produced hemolysis with a concentration-dependent increase.

In human proximal tubule (HPT) cells in culture, COM suspensions, at concentrations >3 mM but with no oxalate ion, caused cytotoxicity as evidenced by the release of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) into media. Cytotoxicity was not observed in HPT cells treated with oxalate solutions that contained no COM because EDTA prevented its formation. The cytotoxic effects of COM to HPT cells were potentiated by acidosis (pH 6.5), but not by glycolate, the major metabolite of ethylene glycol.

The toxicity of COM to HPT cells and to proximal tubule cells from Wistar and F-344 rats, compared using both ethidium homodimer uptake and LDH leakage, increased in human and rat cells in a concentration-dependent manner. Rat cells were more sensitive to COM than HPT cells, but there were no apparent differences between the effects in Wistar cells and F-344 cells. These results demonstrate that COM crystals, and not the oxalate ion, are responsible for the membrane damage and cell death observed in normal human and rat PT cells and suggest that COM accumulation in the kidney is responsible for the renal toxicity associated with ethylene glycol exposure.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X04006699

The cytotoxicity of oxalate, metabolite of ethylene glycol, is due to calcium oxalate monohydrate formation

Oxalate is a minor, but important metabolite of ethylene glycol and has been directly linked with acute and subchronic renal toxicity in ethylene glycol poisoning. Numerous studies have characterized the cytotoxicity of oxalate as including plasma...

ShitLankanTM Perspective

Poisoning with Ethylene Glycol is well-established in Sri Lanka, both from the perspective of attempted suicide as well as attempted murder:-

Acute Kidney Injury, Myocardial Infarction and Death Following Brake Fluid Poisoning; A Case Report

Background: Ethylene glycol is a toxic alcohol which is used in brake fluid, antifreeze, coolants, preservatives and chemical solvents. Ethylene glycol poisoning usually results in depression of the central nervous system, renal insufficiency an...

Background: Ethylene glycol is a toxic alcohol which is used in brake fluid, antifreeze, coolants, preservatives and chemical solvents. Ethylene glycol poisoning usually results in depression of the central nervous system, renal insufficiency and cardiopulmonary compromise, while laboratory findings include metabolic acidosis, increased anion gap, increased osmolar gap and calcium oxalate crystalluria.

Case presentation: A 24-year-old previously healthy person died 13 days after self-ingestion of brake fluid (ethylene glycol). He developed multi-organ failure including acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, respiratory failure, myocardial infarction, low Glasgow coma scale, and elevation of liver enzymes. He also developed hypotension for which 3 inotropes were started. He had ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on day 4 of the poisoning associated with a reduction of ejection fraction of up to 25% with septal anterior wall hypokinesia. He needed intensive care treatment via ventilator and inotropic support. Five cycles of hemodialysis were carried out for acute kidney injury. His autopsy examination revealed sub-endocardial hemorrhages.

[I ALREADY HAVE A LOW EJECTION FRACTION IN THE 50S]

Discussion: Acute kidney injury and metabolic acidosis are frequently seen following ethylene glycol poisoning from brake fluid ingestion. The cardiotoxic effect of its poisoning could be due to multiple microcalcifications of the myocardium. This clinical report highlights the severity and the sequence of events following ethylene glycol poisoning.

Conclusion: STEMI may result following ethylene glycol poisoning in addition to other cardiac effects such as hypotension, tachycardia, myocarditis and ischemic changes in ECG.

Acute renal failure following oxalic acid poisoning: a case report

Oxalic acid poisoning is being recognized as an emerging epidemic in the rural communities of Sri Lanka as it is a component of locally produced household laundry detergents. Herein we describe a case of a 32 year old female, presenting after direct ingestion of oxalic acid. She then went on to develop significant metabolic acidosis and acute renal failure, requiring dialysis. Renal biopsy revealed acute tubulointerstitial nephritis associated with diffuse moderate acute tubular damage with refractile crystals in some of the tubules. The patient symptomatically improved with haemodialysis and renal functions subsequently returned to normal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3527234/

AS CAN BE SEEN SRI LANKANS KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF ETHYLENE GLYCOL. HOWEVER I DO NOT WASH MY CLOTHES OR USE DETERGENTS – I JUST BUY NEW CLOTHES AND SO THE ONLY WAY I CAN BE EXPOSED IS DELIBERATE POISONING 🙂

Harassment Surveillance

As I mentioned in this article:-

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...

Gang Stalking is experienced by the Targeted Individual as psychological attack, that is capable of immobilizing and destroying them over time. The covert methods used to harass, persecute, and falsely defame the targets often leave NO EVIDENCE to incriminate the civilian spies.”

and

“When the target tries to describe what is happening to them, it sounds as if they have had a mental breakdown.”

So when I say “people are poisoning me” I sound like I have a psychological problem or I have ‘paranoid schizophrenia’ – that old chestnut 🙂

However as can be seen

THE FORENSICS PROVIDE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT I AM ACTUALLY BEING POISONED !!

and the Ethylene Glycol is the reason for my Acute Renal Failure symptoms, which I am in the process of stabilising rapidly 🙂

ONCE AGAIN MY ANALYSIS OF FORENSIC MATERIAL IS CORRECT, AND I AM NOT BEING PARANOID – HA HA !!

The case continues…

Also in this series:-

Grabbing My Pussy was a Colossal Mistake

Unlike many men, I have a large pussy. It is soft and warm and I play with it all the time which gives me lots of pleasure. Often when I stroke it, it

Acute oxalate nephropathy caused by ethylene glycol poisoning

Ethylene glycol (EG) is a sweet-tasting, odorless organic solvent found in many agents, such as anti-freeze. EG is composed of four organic acids: glycoaldehyde, glycolic acid, glyoxylic acid and oxalic acid in vivo . These metabolites are cellular...
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent – Drug-Induced Sudden Cardiac Arrest Ahead of Rendition

By | KEY ARTICLES
killing-me-softly-with-his-drugs-political-psychiatry-facilitated-rendition-and-destruction-of-evidence-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent – Drug-Induced Sudden Cardiac Arrest Ahead of Rendition √

Published on 29th September 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
842

Joseph S R de Saram provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with . Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE

Thankfully every time I have had a Sudden Cardiac Arrest my heart has restarted on its own 🙂

Psychiatric Fraud

I refer to this article about how it is extremely easy to inflict grievous bodily harm on someone within a hospital context – I mean heart patients die all the time in hospital don’t they?

Iatrogenesis in Psychiatric Fraud

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

Background to More ShitLankanTM Psychopathy

First and foremost Edward de Saram (“EDS”) and Newton Ranasinghe (“HNR”) demonstrably confirmed an intent to undertake a course of action which would result in permanent paralysis, and the evidence is irrefutable:-

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture

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

but the torture and paralysis did not matter, as the objective was Rendition:-

Joe's Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation

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

12/17 Fraud Starring Edward de Saram (“EDS”) and Newton Ranasinghe (“HNR”)

Today I present forensic evidence of various attempts of EDS and HNR to poison me and/or otherwise

incapacitate me with Anti-Psychotic Drugs (collectively “Psychotropic Medication”).

Psychotropic Medication can both (a) fabricate the symptoms of major psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia

Substance-Induced Mental Disorders

Background As I wrote in the following article, Edward de Saram obtained and poisoned me with psychotropic medication that 'conveniently' fabricated...

and when the victim’s has suffered, (b) Psychotropic medication can also kill the victim quickly.

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...

We already have forensic evidence confirming that EDS had brought Abilify (Aripiprazole) to my residence:-

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...

REMEMBER FOLKS IT’S NOT MY VOICE ON THESE AUDIO RECORDINGS 🙂

20151213 223040

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

[PLAYING DUMB AS USUAL, AND ‘UNGODA’ WAS THE ONLY PLACE THAT A PERSON CAN BE SECTIONED – CLASSIC CRIMINAL FRAUD.]

Yes I was considering its contraindications and was astonished that anyone had even considered prescribing it to me in the first place – that drug will probably cause Sudden Cardiac Arrest, OBVIOUSLY:-

DEADLY - Sudden Cardiac Arrest triggered by Aripiprazol (Abilify)

Summary Sudden cardiac death is found among people who take Abilify, especially for people who are female, 20-29 old , have been taking the drug for ...

but EDS had a plane to catch and he decided to poison me with it rather than waiting for my decision:-

20151212 234006

HNR – “We can get a Police’s Magistrates’ Order.

[OH YEAH? BACK TO BACK POLICE WARRANT? – SOUNDS LIKE I AM A RESTRICTED PATIENT AND ABOUT TO BE ARRESTED 🙂 – I SHOULD SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING AT BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES COURT (NCA V CHATWANI) AND ALSO WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT (EXTRADITION) – HA HA.

EDS – “Okay, we’ll consider that… I’m only here until Thursday night.

HNR – “Thursday?

EDS – “So we have to [execute our plan] over the next few days only.

[IT’S NICE TO SEE HOW THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REGARD FOR MY HEALTH – NO WONDER THE DRUG-INDUCED PSYCHOSIS WAS CRIPPLING FOR 1 WEEK.]

Remember this

‘worse for 1/52’ confirms criminal fraud.

All of the following activities confirm EDS’ and HNR’s Depraved State of Mind:-

The Depraved State of Mind - Malice Aforethought

The mens rea for the offence of murder is ‘malice aforethought’. Malice Aforethought - n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm...

which is a necessary prerequisite for Attempted Murder and Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent.

20151212 234006

HNR – “This is how it is – if you sign something for Dr Mendis at Ungoda, you authorise him.

[FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINING MY LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP !!]

EDS – “Upali [Peris] doesn’t remember [Joe], fixing computers [Upali] cant remember, he’s saying I can’t remember… [Upali] is saying give [Joe] concerta injection from the start… who is [so crazy] to give concerta injections, what about Neuromuscular NMSConcerta etc injections are not given on admission.

Concerta (Methylphenidate) is a drug used for children with Attention Deficit issues

Sudden Cardiac Arrest caused by Methylphenidate (Concerta)

Concerta, the brand name of the medication methylphenidate, is prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit disorder ("ADH") and attention...

and NMS is used for patients with typically lower-limb muscular problems:-

Sudden Cardiac Arrest from NeuroMuscular Stimulators

Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), also known as neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) or electromyostimulation, is the elicitation of muscle...

Both treatments that EDS is discussing will probably kill me…

20151212 234006

EDS – “But an Olanzapine injection [can be given].

Olanzapine will probably kill me:-

Sudden Cardiac Arrest caused by Olanzapine (Zyprexa)

Read about the many side effects:- and and and and https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cpn/2013/647476/ Interesting isn't it? Joseph S R de Saram CISSP...

20151212 234006

20151212 234006

HNR – “The thing is Ranjit, Dr Mendis.”

EDS – “It’s not Mendis, it’s Upali Peris,”

HNR – “NO what I said… so it was Upali that recommended Concerta.

[SO A DOCTOR THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN IS RECOMMENDED A DRUG THAT WOULD PROBABLY KILL ME – HA HA]

Sudden Cardiac Arrest caused by Methylphenidate (Concerta)

Concerta, the brand name of the medication methylphenidate, is prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit disorder ("ADH") and attention...

EDS – “Upali.

20151212 234006

EDS – “Yes, Upali said ‘let’s give a Concerta injection… then without even assessing the patient if you give those injections, suddenly what happens if there is an [adverse] reaction, then it is a [dead] patient.

Escalating Violence Towards Me – Despite Me Already Being in the Psychiatric Hospital

THIS EASILY MEETS THE EVIDENTIARY BURDEN FOR CRIMINAL FRAUD AS WELL AS ATTEMPTED MURDER 🙂

20151219 171114

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.

[SO A CONTRAINDICATED DRUG IS BEING FORCED UPON ME DESPITE BOTH PARTIES KNOWING THE RISKS.

IN THIS SITUATION CRIMINAL FRAUD IS EVIDENT BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT A LETTER CONFIRMING THAT IT IS ‘NOT CONTRAINDICATED’ AS OPPOSED TO A PROPER ASSESSMENT AND CONFIRMING THAT IT IS SAFE – IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT SAFE WHICH IS WHY THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HAS TO ‘SAY’ IT IS ‘NOT CONTRAINDICATED’ – ANALYSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENTENCE.]

[RISPERDAL? DO YOU MEAN THIS DRUG (RISPERIDONE)?

IT IS OBVIOUSLY CONTRAINDICATED !!!

I cannot be prescribed Risperidone now as a heart patient regardless of whether EDS forced it down my throat as part of EDS/HNR DTI fraud with Eversheds and Wragge & Co in 2001 !!]

I FIND ALL THIS SHITLANKANtm PSYCHIATRIC PSYCHOPATHY QUITE SHOCKING!

The Sound of Murder - So Long Farewell

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...

AND IN OTHER SENSE IT IS SO PATHETIC AND LAUGHABLE

I IDENTIFIED A CLANDESTINE MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OPERATION AND JUST RAN TACTICAL SCENARIOS RELATING TO THAT – HA HA !!

This interesting case continues…

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

Father Figure

By | Z MIGRATION IN PROGESS B
screenshot_2015-09-13-19-01-38_sm-a500g_css-41301

Father Figure (±x)

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
530

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 🙂

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​

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 MIGRATION IN PROGESS B

Per Legem Terrae - Perversion of the Course of Justice via Political Psychiatry (±x)

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
503

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 🙂

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 🙂

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 🙂

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 🙂

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 🙂

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 🙂

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

By | Z MIGRATION IN PROGESS B
screenshot_2015-09-15-06-33-47_sm-a500g_css-41301

Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment (±x)

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
519

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 🙂

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?

Not sure why EDS was discussing my health issues with Perera, except to continue to plant the seed that I have a mental problem. Furthermore, it was clear that Perera has taken the keys to my house. So if EDS knew that Perera had the keys then why did he say I was hallucinating when I said that people were coming into my house at night? That is another fraud of EDS.

EDS repeated the theme of me having a mental problem, in the same way that Margaret Cunniffe goes around repeating the same garbage to all and sundry and engages in self-victimisation.

EDS stated that I did not want to see a doctor and/or take medicine. That is not correct – I was happy to see a legitimate doctor without a connection via some old boys club to EDS. Well if I saw a proper UK doctor rather than a co-conspirator then we would get the correct opinion rather than Sri Lankans and their smear campaign!

As can be heard EDS knew very well that I was recovering from a fractured neck and yet still wanted to run his fraud regardless. This is quite sick, and all of course to get me out of the house so evidence could be stolen/planted! Which right-thinking parent would risk a staged event that could increase the risk of transection of my spinal cord?

Malice Aforethought

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

which also links to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy and Honour Based Violence in:-

As it happened my neck was seriously damaged further as a result of the 12/17 Fraud so the foreseeability of damages against EDS is not in question. The beating caused my neck to crack again and compressed my spinal cord during the assault – I lost power to my upper body so could not even defend myself against the ongoing torture.

EDS stated that because of my knowledge of the law he needed to cover himself, otherwise it would be a problem – well duh if he is planning a spectacular fraud against me that is entirely unlawful and affecting multiple jurisdictions, he should be incredibly careful so he can evade criminal culpability! Obviously in view of the forensic evidence on LinkedIn he was not careful enough 🙂

This is also an excellent example of the phenomenon of ‘Leaking Intent’ in which criminals have the urge to boast about their future crimes.

EDS was defaming me every single time he was talking about a mental situation and repeating this theme to all and sundry does get a little tiring. However EDS confirms that Perera has told a lot of lies and taken a lot of money. Also this confirms EDS’ modus operandi of EDS being a two-faced fraudster and that Perera had the Means/Motive/Opportunity to take my data! Perera was bribed by EDS and that enlivens the UK via Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction

And once again EDS calls me paranoid, because I suspected him and Perera of colluding – once again I simply refer to the two phone calls above which confirms that they are obviously colluding and I am perceptive not paranoid – therefore my assertion was entirely correct. It was obvious when the pair of them were conspiring in front of me in the preceding days!

Even after I had been kidnapped I was getting beaten in the ambulance whilst speaking to my lawyers Peters & Peters because they did not want me to get legal assistance.