Project Scorpius – INTERPOL Countering terrorism and transnational crime in South and Southeast Asia

By | KEY ARTICLES
Project-Scorpius-INTERPOL-Countering-terrorism-and-transnational-crime-in-South-and-Southeast-Asia

Project Scorpius - INTERPOL Countering terrorism and transnational crime in South and Southeast Asia

First published on 09th December 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
722

Project Scorpius is a two-year (2017-2019) initiative jointly funded by INTERPOL and the Government of Canada. As the first project specifically designed to support INTERPOL’s global counter-terrorism strategy, it will focus on eight beneficiary countries: Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka.

Countering terrorism and transnational crime in South and Southeast Asia

Countering terrorism and transnational crime in South and Southeast Asia

SINGAPORE – INTERPOL has initiated a two-year project to enhance law enforcement capacity in South and Southeast Asia to prevent and disrupt terrorism and related transnational crime....

Sri Lanka

Law enforcement services in Sri Lanka are provided by the Sri Lanka Police Service (SLPS), a national police agency with a strength of more than 89,000 men and women. The force is headed by an Inspector General of Police who reports to the Minister of Defence.
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

Extra-territorial Jurisdiction – Crown Prosecution Service

By | KEY ARTICLES
Extra-territorial-Jurisdiction---Crown-Prosecution-Service

Extra-territorial Jurisdiction - Crown Prosecution Service

First Published (LinkedIn) on 28th December 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
709

Enter more text here

“THE POLICE BEAT ME UP”

I am in the process of writing a

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Changes to legislation: Criminal Justice Act 1988 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 26 February 2019. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date

Principle

Code for Crown Prosecutors – Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.

General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

  • Territory;
  • Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  • Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  • Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts

Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

  • sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
  • murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  • terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  • bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold.

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction – European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the Extradition legal guidance.

Guidance

Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

  • Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  • The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  • The location and interests of witnesses;
  • The location and interests of the accused;
  • Delays.

These factors have recently been formulated into the Director’s Guidelines on the handling of cases where the Jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with Prosecuting Authorities Overseas

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at Annex A. For the full report, see http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm

Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland

The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the “Agreement for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America”.

Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the Visiting Forces legal guidance.

Procedure

Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Principle

Code for Crown Prosecutors – Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.

General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

  • Territory;
  • Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  • Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  • Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts

Where the offence occurred on a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

  • sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
  • murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  • fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  • terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  • bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold.

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a “substantial connection with this jurisdiction” for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction – European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the Extradition legal guidance.

Guidance

Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

  • Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  • The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  • The location and interests of witnesses;
  • The location and interests of the accused;
  • Delays.

These factors have recently been formulated into the Director’s Guidelines on the handling of cases where the Jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with Prosecuting Authorities Overseas

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at Annex A. For the full report, see http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm

Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland

The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the “Agreement for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America”.

Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the Visiting Forces legal guidance.

Procedure

Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the International Enquiries legal guidance.

Annex A – Eurojust Guidelines, Annual Report 2003, Making the Decision – “Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute?”

A Presumption

There should be a preliminary presumption that, if possible, a prosecution should take place in the jurisdiction where the majority of the criminality occurred or where the majority of the loss was sustained. When reaching a decision, prosecutors should balance carefully and fairly all the factors both for and against commencing a prosecution in each jurisdiction where it is possible to do so.

There are a number of factors that should be considered and can affect the final decision. All these factors should be considered at the meeting of prosecutors from the relevant states affected by the criminality concerned. Making a decision will depend on the circumstances of each case and this guidance is intended to bring consistency to every decision-making process.

Some of the factors which should be considered are:

The Location of the Accused

The possibility of a prosecution in that jurisdiction and whether extradition proceedings or transfer of proceedings are possible will all be factors that should be taken into consideration.

Extradition and Surrender of Persons

The capacity of the competent authorities in one jurisdiction to extradite or surrender a defendant from another jurisdiction to face prosecution in their jurisdiction will be a factor in deciding where that defendant may be prosecuted.

Dividing the Prosecution into Cases in Two or More Jurisdictions

The investigation and prosecution of complex cases of cross border crime will often lead to the possibility of a number of prosecutions in different jurisdictions.

In cases where the criminality occurred in several jurisdictions, provided it is practicable to do so, prosecutors should consider dealing with all the prosecutions in one jurisdiction. In such cases prosecutors should take into account the effect that prosecuting some defendants in one jurisdiction will have on any prosecution in a second or third jurisdiction. Every effort should be made to guard against one prosecution undermining another. When several criminals are alleged to be involved in linked criminal conduct, whilst often it may not be practicable, if it is possible and efficient to do so, prosecutors should consider prosecuting all those involved together in one jurisdiction.

The Attendance of Witnesses

Securing a just and fair conviction is a priority for every prosecutor. Prosecutors will have to consider the willingness of witnesses both to give evidence and, if necessary, to travel to another jurisdiction to give that evidence. In the absence of an international witness warrant, the possibility of the court receiving evidence in written form or by other means, such as remotely (by telephone or video-link), will have to be considered. The willingness of a witness to travel and give evidence in another jurisdiction should be considered carefully as this is a factor likely to influence the decision as to where a prosecution is issued.

The Protection of Witnesses

Prosecutors should always seek to ensure that witnesses or those who are assisting the prosecution process are not endangered. When making a decision on the jurisdiction for prosecution, factors for consideration may include, for example, the possibility of one jurisdiction being able to offer a witness protection programme when another has no such possibility.

Delay

A maxim recognised in all jurisdictions is that: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Whilst time should not be the leading factor in deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute, where other factors are balanced then prosecutors should consider the length of time which proceedings will take to be concluded in a jurisdiction. If several states have jurisdiction to prosecute, one consideration should always be how long it will take for the proceedings to be concluded.

Interests of Victims

Prosecutors must take into account the interests of victims and whether they would be prejudiced if any prosecution were to take place in one jurisdiction rather than another. Such consideration would include the possibility of victims claiming compensation.

Evidential Problems

Prosecutors can only pursue cases using reliable, credible and admissible evidence. Evidence is collected in different ways and often in very different forms in different jurisdictions. Courts in different jurisdictions have different rules for the acceptance of evidence often gathered in very diverse formats. The availability of evidence in the proper form and its admissibility and acceptance by the court must be considered as these factors will affect and influence the decision on where a prosecution might be brought. These are factors which prosecutors must consider when reaching any decision on where a prosecution should be instituted.

Legal Requirements

Prosecutors must not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another simply to avoid complying with the legal obligations that apply in one jurisdiction but not in another.

All the possible effects of a decision to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another and the potential outcome of each case should be considered. These matters include the liability of potential defendants and the availability of appropriate offences and penalties.

Sentencing Powers

The relative sentencing powers of courts in the different potential prosecution jurisdictions must not be a primary factor in deciding in which jurisdiction a case should be prosecuted. Prosecutors should not seek to prosecute cases in a jurisdiction where the penalties are highest. Prosecutors should however ensure that the potential penalties available reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct which is subject to the prosecution.

Proceeds of Crime

Prosecutors should not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another only because it would result in the more effective recovery of the proceeds of crime. Prosecutors should always give consideration to the powers available to restrain, recover, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime and make the most effective use of international co-operation agreements in such matters.

Resources and Costs of Prosecuting

The costs of prosecuting a case, or its impact on the resources of a prosecution office, should only be a factor in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted in one jurisdiction rather than in another when all other factors are equally balanced. Competent authorities should not refuse to accept a case for prosecution in their jurisdiction because the case does not interest them or is not a priority for the senior prosecutors or the Ministries of Justice. Where a competent authority has expressed a reluctance to prosecute a case for these reasons, Eurojust will be prepared to consider exercising its powers to persuade the authority to act.

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

Aspects of Rendition – Electroconvulsive Therapy

By | MILITARY INTELLIGENCE EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION
Aspects-of-Rendition-Electroconvulsive-Therapy

Aspects of Rendition - Electroconvulsive Therapy √

Published on 19th January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
508

Joseph de Saram correctly identified both 2015 Irregular Renditions by forensic evidence and traffic flows well before the events. Even though Joe was deliberately injured seriously in connection with signature protocols, his analysis saved his life from ECT

“CIA has a long history of using torture, not just sanctioning it for the US military but using private military corporations like CACI International and Titan Corporation.[27][28] Professor Alfred McCoy talks about his book “A Question of Torture”, a startling expose of the CIA development of psychological torture from the Cold War to Abu Ghraib. CIA mercenaries attempted to assassinate McCoy more than 30 years ago.

It reveals how the CIA perfected its methods, distributing them across the world from Vietnam to Iran to Central America, uncovering the roots of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture scandals. From 1950 to 1962, the C.I.A. ran a massive research project, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind, spending over $1 billion a year to crack the code of human consciousness, from both mass persuasion and the use of coercion in individual interrogation.”

“And what they discovered – they tried LSD”

Drug-Induced Psychosis - 25i-NBOMe as used in Political Psychiatry

As I have recovered more forensic evidence I have been able to make a number of enhancements to previous theories. ...

“they tried mescaline, they tried all kinds of drugs”

Pseudo-Lethal Injections Ahead of Rendition

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries ...

“they tried electroshock”

Shocking Behaviour

Joseph de Saram provides interesting insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how their various deficiencies foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights, and how they get caught. Updates are in progress – unverified articles end with ± and verified articles end with ...

“truth serum, sodium pentathol.”

It's Too Orangey for Joes - CIA Ora

in relation to the use of Neurotechnologies as Weapons and the correlation between:- Military Intelligence, National Security, Aerospace & Defense, and Political Psychiatry Incapacitation of Targets...

“None of it worked. What worked was very simple behavioral findings, outsourced to our leading universities — Harvard, Princeton, Yale and McGill — and the first breakthrough came at McGill.[29] The seven techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called “the attention grab” where a suspect’s shirt is forcefully seized; the “attention slap” or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the “belly slap”; and sound and light manipulation.”[30]

Evidence that Electroshock was on the cards for Joe - Irregular Rendition Attempt 01

During the completely ballsed-up ‘UK-US themed’ counter-terrorism / surveillance operation against me:-

20151023 190620 10 Electroshock Therapy And Surgery Planned

20151024 154921 11 Electroshock Therapy and Surgery

Evidence that Electroshock was on the cards for Joe - Irregular Rendition Attempt 02

Version 2 – it was more advanced and there were far more frauds involved…

20151212 234006 02 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe JDS Needs ECT

20151212 234006 16 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe ECT

20151212 234006 17 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe ECT To Give Insight

20151212 234006 21 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe 24hr Protection ECT

20151212 234006 34 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe Dragging Sister For ECT

20151212 234006 37 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe JDS Not As Easy As Other ECT

20151218 102358 16 More Depressive Rather Than Psychotic No ECT

20151219 171114 01 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe Anti-Psychotics ECT

20151219 171114 02 Edward De Saram Newton Ranasinghe Only Ungoda For Sectioning

HOWEVER IT IS EXTREMELY RARE TO HAVE THIS LEVEL OF FORENSICS FOR SUCH OPERATIONS, AS MOST OF THE VICTIMS END UP DEAD OR ARE MADE TO DISAPPEAR PERMANENTLY 🙂

Next week I will be back doing normal work things…

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

Aspects of Rendition – Control UK Passport

By | MILITARY INTELLIGENCE EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION
Rendition-type-Issues

Aspects of Rendition – Control UK Passport

Published on 19th January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
461

Enter more text here

HOWEVER

Next week I will be back doing normal work things…

20151025 161636 34 Disappearance Of UK Passport Consistent With Rendition Protocols

During the completely ballsed-up ‘UK-US themed’ counter-terrorism / surveillance operation against me:-

Background

During the completely ballsed-up ‘UK-US themed’ counter-terrorism / surveillance operation against me:-

HOWEVER IT IS EXTREMELY RARE TO HAVE THIS LEVEL OF FORENSICS FOR SUCH OPERATIONS, AS MOST OF THE VICTIMS END UP DEAD OR ARE MADE TO DISAPPEAR PERMANENTLY 🙂

Next week I will be back doing normal work things…

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

Suxamethonium chloride in Extraordinary Rendition √

By | MILITARY INTELLIGENCE EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION
Suxamethonium-Chloride-in-Extraordinary-Rendition

Suxamethonium Chloride in Extraordinary Rendition √

Published on 20th July 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
720

Enter more text here

suxamethonium

 

I HAVE VAST EXPERIENCE IN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES AND CAN SPOT THEM A MILE AWAY – HA HA!!

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram
Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP

Isoflurane in Extraordinary Rendition √

By | MILITARY INTELLIGENCE EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION
Isoflurane-in-Extraordinary-Rendition

Isoflurane in Extraordinary Rendition √

Published on 20th July 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
733

Enter more text here

[extraordinary] rendition

noun 1.the process by which a country seizes a person assumed to be involved in terrorist activity and then transports him or her for interrogation to a country where due process of law is unlikely to be respected.

RUNNING COUNTER-TERRORISM OPERATIONS AGAINST ME WHEN I AM NOT A TERRORIST BUT AN EXPERT IN COUNTER-TERRORISM IS BIZARRE AND HAS ZERO PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS.

I HAVE VAST EXPERIENCE IN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES AND CAN SPOT THEM A MILE AWAY – HA HA!!

Case Studies from Reprieve‘s Site – ironically 05 March is my birthday 🙂

Preparatory Steps Ahead of Rendition

The two specific events are:-

(A) 20151022 Staged Road Traffic Accident

No Ordinary Accident

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

(B) 20151217 Psychiatric Fraud

Psychiatric Fraud - Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" and "ignorance of law excuses no one"...

20151022 Staged Road Traffic Accident

When I arrived at the hospital, my passport was taken from me and photocopied and official parties (non-doctors) were hovering around.

In fact my blood pressure was ridiculously low (having been drug-induced)

RHO-hypnol as a Data Rape Drug

"Data Rape is the process by which any type of Intellectual Property is exfiltrated by the temporary or otherwise incapacitation of its Guardian." -...

and the doctors did nothing to treat me until someone ‘official’ allowed them to do so – that was all wrong and

FOREIGN ACTORS WERE MANAGING THIS ENTIRE EVENT.

By the following day 23 October 2015, the pressure was still low, as the following call to Joanne Cochrane confirms:-

Joanne should still have the photo of the blood pressure of 75 over 41.

A diastolic pressure of 41 is dangerous obviously – normal is 120 / 80.

AND INTERESTING THAT NO DISCHARGE DATE WAS EVEN PROVIDED TO ME, EVEN A TENTATIVE ONE – I WAS NOT GOING TO BE SEEING MY HOUSE AGAIN 🙁

EX-JDS-0006

This video was made by Cpl Francis Perera, and it shows me at around 22:30 on 26 October 2015 straight after the MRI and coming out of sedation. It was recovered around three days ago and that was actually the first time that I had ever seen it.

[APOLOGIES FOR LOOKING UGLY, AND LIKE A BEACHED WHALE :)]

The video is important because it confirms that:-

(a) I was able to have basic conversations, ‘was able to enquire about my location‘ and ‘was able to ensure that Perera was filming‘;

(b) There is NO OXYGEN MASK on my face;

(c) There is NO OXYGEN cylinder on the floor;

(d) There is NO INTRAVENOUS LINE into either hand;

(e) There is NO BAG OF SALINE next to the bed;

(f) The genuine doctor has left and has not made a determination that I either require Oxygen or require an IV-line; and

(g) There is a ‘soldier boy’ (note the pose) dressed in blue outside my room ‘guarding me’ which relates to the Pseudo-MLAT and the official nature of my neck getting broken (though obviously unlawful).

EX-JDS-0007

All Quiet Until 3am

Around four people came into my room, with masks covering their faces. They attached an IV-line to the cannula in my left hand as well as put a mask over my face. The fact that they even had the masks in the first place meant trouble 🙂

The bag of saline did not look correct and the gas did not smell like oxygen – more like nitrous oxide plus something else actually! When I removed the mask they put it back over my nose and mouth and I struggled to prevent them because of the muscular weakness from my neck injury. Every time I removed it they put it back!

I asked them where the saline came from and they did not know. I had not seen those people before, but they were Sri Lankan and it was dark!

They could not answer my question as to why saline was necessary in the first place and why they were giving it now rather than 22:30 when I was coming out of sedation, when it would have made sense.

Additionally they could not explain why I even needed oxygen in the first place and no tests had been performed prior to the administration of saline or oxygen.

As I said in the call the oxygen “didn’t smell like oxygen, it smelt like some other shit.”

It was a very dangerous situation as people were taking photos of me in intensive care, and there was even cellular jamming and guys with rucksacks 🙂

WHEN THE CALL IS INTERCEPTED THE QUALITY OF MY VOICE DETERIORATES – IT MAKES ME APPEAR INCOHERENT BUT IT IS ACTUALLY THE CELLULAR INTERCEPTION. THE NEXT CALL SEGMENT IS PART OF THE SAME CALL BUT I SOUND MARKEDLY DIFFERENT.

and

Note how the call quality deteriorates when active interception is occurring – they wanted to see what I was going to say about them. And they did not even know who was the doctor who had asked four of them to administer the saline and oxygen, or what the blood pressure was!!

and

Note how the call quality deteriorates when active interception is occurring – they wanted to see what I was going to say about them. And they did not even know who was the doctor who had asked four of them to administer the saline and oxygen, or what the blood pressure was!!

and

Note how the call quality deteriorates when active interception is occurring – they wanted to see what I was going to say about them. And they did not even know who was the doctor who had asked four of them to administer the saline and oxygen, or what the blood pressure was!!

Cpl Francis Perera’s Confirmation in Sinhala

Francis starts by saying ‘no problem now, Joe is doing well’ and the rest is similar to the above.

Joseph de Saram’s Confirmation to Praxy de Saram

Francis starts by saying ‘no problem now, Joe is doing well’ and the rest is similar to the above.

As is demonstrated, people WERE actually making a nuisance of themselves and obviously trying to harm me – so that which I described was actually true and not some persecution-complex.

The key thing here is that I was not affected by their antics and that made the situation even worse. They got more pissed off because of the bribes they were getting were results-orientated.

In fact I was being poisoned by Chamaree Silva over the preceding 3 days and I knew that an event was around the corner. In fact I even confirmed this via a Coded Message to Joanne.

Given the fact that I DO go to hospital when I am unwell, but ‘I have been suddenly unwell over the previous days and choosing not to go’, means that I know about the drug-induced psychosis and what would happen if I do end up in hospital without adequate security.

Which of course is EXACTLY what happened 🙂

20151217 Psychiatric Fraud

Please read this article in its entirety for specific evidence of the use of Anti-convulsant drugs to facilitate rendition:-

It's Too Orangey for Joes - CIA Ora

I refer to this article:- in relation to the use of Neurotechnologies as Weapons and the correlation between:- Military Intelligence, National...

The process of pseudo-lethal injections fits the ‘Restricted Patient’ model:-

What is a Restricted Patient?

Restricted patients are persons detained in hospital under a compulsion order with a restriction order. They have usually committed an offence punishable by imprisonment but as a result of mental disorder are not imprisoned but ordered to be detained in hospital for treatment, without limit of time.

The Restricted Patient

[One of my favourite films, and even this as a Spying / Military Theme can you believe? Ha ha] What is a Restricted Patient Restricted patients are...

20151212 234006 Excerpt 23

This is a further conversation between Newton Ranasinghe (“NXR”) and Edward de Saram (“EDS”) – more disgrace on the UK NHS regrettably:-

NXR – “There’s nothing like that,for the now the thing is, speak to the guy at Ungoda [only hospital for Sectioning], and he will say what the ‘legal’ plan is, these other guys are a private group,.. they don’t treat RESTRICTED PATIENTS… Mendis is the one who is able to [fraudulently] admit people who cannot be admitted elsewhere.

* * THE USE OF THE PHRASE ‘RESTRICTED PATIENT’ MEANS THAT BOTH NXR AND EDS KNOW ON 12 DECEMBER 2015 THAT THERE IS EITHER:-

(A) AN ISSUE THAT HAS MATERIALISED OF A CRIMINAL NATURE OR

(B) MAY FORESEEABLY MATERIALISE VIRTUALLY IMMEDIATELY

AND AS SUCH THEIR ACTIONS ARE A BLATANT PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IF NOTHING ELSE:-

Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

THEIR ACTIONS ARE FACILITATING MY ADVERSARIES’ AGENDA, AND DENYING ME MY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

THE USE OF THE PHRASE ‘PEOPLE WHO CANNOT BE ADMITTED ELSEWHERE’, CONFIRMS THE EXTRAJUDICIAL ASPECT OF THIS FRAUD. IF I ACTUALLY SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL PROBLEM, THEN THE NORMAL CHANNELS COULD BE UTILISED 🙂

Examples of Criminal Issues are

(C) Local Arrest ahead of an Extradition Request – I am not aware of one but as an Intelligence Analyst the evidence is interesting; and

(D) The fraud of Chamaree Silva who has been manipulated by third parties and provided Affidavits to the Melbourne Fraudsters for the VIC SC case. To complete the theatrics she would have filed a fraudulent First Incident Report – these types of things occur all the time in corrupt countries such as Sri Lanka.

Perfect Intelligence Analysis

In relation to the audio above about being a ‘Restricted Patient’ I only obtained that around the end of December 2015 whilst the Psychiatric Fraud occurred on 17 December 2015 onwards.

Accordingly in the Psychiatric Fraud and the Staged Road Traffic Accident my analysis of the:-

ongoing hostile situation in relation to incapacitation, despite serious physical injuries, was spot on 🙂

I have to say all these attempts are just laughable and quite humiliating for the government actors concerned 🙂

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram
Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP