What about My Fractured Cheekbone?

By | KEY ARTICLES
What-about-My-Fractured-Cheekbone-img-1300x400-imgs

What about My Fractured Cheekbone?

First Published 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
939

Joseph de Saram was tortured during the Psychiatric Fraud of December 2015. As part of that he was repeatedly hit in the face by Edward de Saram and/or the parties he had brought. Notwithstanding the serious injuries inflicted Joseph de Saram was mentally alert and there was no stress-induced psychosis to the disappointment of Joseph’s assailants…

One of the most obvious things apart from the severity of my facial injuries in the confirmation that both EDS and PDS are absolutely unconcerned for my injuries, which they themselves have caused.

CLASSIC PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM

These actual recordings contradict the facade that they present to third parties, as being doughting parents…

Malice Aforethought – n.

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

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

The Depraved State of Mind - Malice Aforethought

The mens rea for the offence of murder is ‘malice aforethought’. Malice Aforethought – n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder.

20151218_054228_01-Serious-Facial-Injuries-After-Torture-b850b9ebb2_07632_annotated.png

Note the similarities in the affected facial contour…

Cronulla captain Trent Barrett out for rest of season with fractured cheekbone and eye socket

THEY have climbed off the bottom of the table with a series of gutsy performances, but the Sharks were last night sent hurtling back towards the wooden spoon with star playmaker Trent Barrett ruled out for the rest of the season with a fractured cheekbone and cracked eye socket.

20151219 214705 11 Joseph De Saram Praxy De Saram Fractured Cheek Bone Who Will Pay

Excellent example of a Police technique – PDS decides to cough repeatedly instead of answering a legitimate question in relation to

“Who’s paying for my Cheekbone?”

 

Coughing Cheaters

The Police and/or their Investigator agents are blatantly interfering with judicial proceedings that I am involved with in Singapore and Australia. When I am seeking legal representation even from UK Attorneys, they seem fixated with these non-UK jurisdictions and it seems that there is a deliberate attempt to fabricate something massive against me to cause me unnecessary hardship and ‘soften me up’.

Then the following up question of

“Who’s going to pay for the pain of the shit being kicked out of me, who’s going to pay for that?”

receives the typical response from PDS of ‘playing dumb’ and then her evasive responses which do not address my actual concernes.

20151219 214705 12 Joseph De Saram Edward De Saram Videos Cheek Bone Damaged

One of the most irritating things about PDS is that her poor self-esteem means that she has been a doormat for an entire life. As such when she is in a position of ‘power and control’ over someone such as I, then she becomes ‘bolshy and tries to exert pseudo-power.” 

But the bottom line is that neither parent gives a shit about what they have done 🙂

“I found two videos today, when I was on the roof, like all the carry-on downstairs about Money Disruption.”

Jason and the Aldridgenauts

I had noticed a Jason Aldridge from late 2015 early 2016 had been looking at my LinkedIn profile. I will locate those logs in due course but around the same time I noticed various accesses from obviously associated parties, often concurrently.

and then

“Then you come to a decision whether this charade is going to continue because my cheekbone is all damaged, and I don’t feel very well after having my face kicked in, so you really need to look at the entirety of stuff…”

 

Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988

“THE POLICE BEAT ME UP” I am in the process of writing a number of articles in relation to ‘Evidence of Military Intelligence Operation was Destroyed via Psychiatric Fraud’ and this article “Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988“ is one that I will be referring to. I will insert initial evidence into this article however.

Types of Fracture

While some facial injuries are minor and heal quickly, some can be life-threatening. Facial fractures have the potential to interfere with your ability to breathe or see. Whenever you’ve had facial trauma, it’s important to get medical attention immediately so your doctor can diagnose the extent of the injury.

Here are the six most common types of facial fractures:

1.Nasal

The nasal bones are thinner than the rest of the facial bones, plus they protrude from the face. Thus, they’re the most likely to break. Some signs of a nasal fracture include a nosebleed, bruising, difficulty breathing through the nose, swelling and pain. The nose may look crooked or bent.

2. Frontal Bone

The frontal bone is in your forehead. It’s most likely to break after a high-impact hit to the front of your head. The bone is the thinnest in the middle of your forehead, so this is often where the fracture happens. Since it takes a powerful force to fracture the frontal bone, you may have other injuries as well.

If your forehead looks like it has been pushed inward or you have sinus pain, you could have a frontal bone injury.

3. Zygomatic Maxillary

Your cheekbones are known as zygomas. They are attached to your upper jaw (maxilla) in multiple locations. A zygomatic maxillary fracture is typically characterized by a flat cheek, a change in sensation underneath the eye and problems moving the eye above the affected cheekbone.

4. Orbital

The orbital bone, or eye socket, may fracture after blunt force trauma, such as on object hitting the eye. You could have an orbital rim fracture, which is the thick outer part of the eye socket. A blowout fracture means there is a crack in the lower portion of the eye socket, which can restrict eye movement. A direct orbital floor fracture is a break in the lower eye socket.

Blurry vision, numbness around the eye, swelling and significant bruising can all point to an orbital fracture.

5. Mid-face

Swelling anywhere on the face could point to a mid-face fracture, also known as a Le Fort fracture, which is categorized as I, II or III. What each type has in common is the fracture of the pterygoid processes, part of the sphenoid bone. Inflammation or deformities on the face could indicate a type of Le Fort fracture.

6. Mandible

Your mandible, or lower jaw, is integral to talking and eating. A fracture in any part of the mandible will affect your ability to open your mouth. You could also have broken or loose teeth. If you have severe pain when you try to close your mouth, any numbness, or you feel like your teeth don’t fit together right, it’s time for an evaluation.

Let Northeast Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery diagnose the extent of your facial fractures and recommend the best course of treatment. Whether you simply need watchful care or a skilled surgical repair, our team can help.

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

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
623

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
639

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

UN Convention Against Torture

By | KEY ARTICLES
UN-Convention-Against-Torture

UN Convention Against Torture

First published (Un-LinkedIn) 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
668

Enter more text here

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

1. On the basis of its experience in considering individual communications under Article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), addressing allegations of violation by States parties of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee against Torture ....

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Convention against Torture and Other Crue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Convention against Torture and Other Crue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1) The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal ...

Convention against Torture and Other Crue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

MULTILATERAL

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

MULTILATERAL

Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 Decem ber 1984 Authentic texts: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Registered ex officio on 26 June 1987.

MULTILATERAL

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 Decem ber 1984 Authentic texts: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Registered ex officio on 26 June 1987.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

UK to be examined on UN Convention against Torture

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

UK to be examined on UN Convention against Torture

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international human rights treaty. Its purpose is to prevent the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ill-treatment).

UK to be examined on UN Convention against Torture

UK’s 6th Peridoic report under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

UK's 6th Peridoic report under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international human rights treaty.

UK's 6th Peridoic report under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

By | KEY ARTICLES
the Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

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
721

Enter more text here

Aurélia Ernst – The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Aurélia Ernst - The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

This book is based on my doctoral thesis, which I defended at the Faculty of Law of the Humboldt University of Berlin in March 2014. I would first like to thank the supervisor of my doctoral thesis, Professor Georg Nolte, who showed particular interest in the topic and provided invaluable aca- demic guidance. I would also like to thank Sir Nigel Rodley, who encour - aged me to write a Ph.D. on this topic and ...

Aurélia Ernst - The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

Tainted by Torture – Examining the Use of Torture Evidence

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec. Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Tainted by Torture - Examining the Use of Torture Evidence

Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards.

Tainted by Torture - Examining the Use of Torture Evidence

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Psychological Difficulty of Defining Torture in Law and Policy

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Psychological Difficulty of Defining Torture in Law and Policy

This Article draws upon recent social psychological research to demonstrate the psychological difficulty of distinguishing between torture and enhanced interrogation. We critique the accuracy of evaluations made under the current torture standard using two constructs—reliability and validity—that are employed in the social sciences to assess the quality ...

Torture in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Psychological Difficulty of Defining Torture in Law and Policy

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

This Article puts forward two interdependent conceptual reforms at the intersection of state torture, visuality, and law. First, to qualify as good evidence-legally and socially-torture images are usually required to be "accurate" and "transparent," to successfully suppress all traces of the mediation and representation at work. However, this Article suggests that ...

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

Evidence Obtained by Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: Why the Convention Against Torture’s Exclusionary Rule Should be Inclusive

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris id lobortis lacus. Sed tempus vestibulum ex, at consectetur mi sagittis vel. Ut non ullamcorper est. Duis vel velit quis dui volutpat pellentesque vitae at orci. Vestibulum scelerisque urna eu lobortis consectetur. Vivamus a accumsan velit. Vivamus hendrerit iaculis libero, a interdum sapien placerat nec.

Integer efficitur ipsum porta, placerat ante semper, hendrerit nibh. In ultrices sapien id ex hendrerit, sit amet consectetur justo ullamcorper. Fusce suscipit est sit amet lorem pharetra, in tempus sapien placerat. Pellentesque consequat quam in ipsum dignissim, nec interdum lectus sodales. Quisque tincidunt sagittis posuere. Etiam efficitur purus nisl, eget gravida diam fringilla vitae. Mauris ac risus sed nulla pharetra pellentesque.

Evidence Obtained by Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment: Why the Convention Against Torture’s Exclusionary Rule Should be Inclusive

I. INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent launch of the “war on terror,”1 discussion of the issues related to torture gained new momentum. Lawyers and state officials started ...

Seeing torture anew: A transnational reconceptualization of state torture and visual evidence

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

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture √

By | KEY ARTICLES
breaking-four-of-my-fingers-was-textbook-torture-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture √

First published (LinkedIn) on 3rd 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
808

Joseph de Saram was subjected to what was obviously a Counter-Terrorism operation designed to conveniently open doors for a Law Enforcement operation. Both failed spectacularly because of Joseph’s own background in CT and and also Counter-Intelligence. However extremely serious injuries were inflicted upon him. The breaking of fingers is a signature MI torture technique

I refer to this article:-

International Society of Human Rights

Techniques that are seen in China are also seen in Sri Lanka:-

Classic Defensive Wounds

defense wound or self-defense wound is an injury received by the victim of an attack while trying to defend against the assailant. Defensive wounds are often found on the hands and forearms, where the victim has raised them to protect the head and face or to fend off an assault, but may also be present on the feet and legs where a victim attempts defense while lying down and kicking out at the assailant.

The appearance and nature of the wound varies with the type of weapon used and the location of the injury, and may present lacerationabrasioncontusion or bone fracture.

20151218_054228_01 Serious Finger Hand Injuries After Torture b850b9ebb2_00975_annotated_zoomed

20151218_054228_01 Serious Finger Hand Injuries After Torture b850b9ebb2_07488_annotated_zoomed

20151220_084548_02 Serious Finger Hand Injuries After Torture 7bdf68eec3_03175_annotated_zoomed

OBVIOUSLY THE SEVERE INJURIES AND IMMENSE PAIN DID NOT TRIGGER PSYCHOSIS BECAUSE I JUST DON’T HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA.

AND MY MANY ARTICLES ABOUT MY OWN TORTURE CONFIRM THAT I DO NOT HAVE POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER EITHER 🙂

et voilà – PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD EXPOSED!!

Stress Triggers Psychosis in Individuals Vulnerable to Schizophrenia

A key statement I made is “If anything, if I was unstable THAT would have TRIGGERED SOMETHING, but as you can see it DIDN’T… so even that DEMONSTRATES…” and once again the ShitLankanTM Psychiatrist Dulmini Jayasundara had no response. And actually there is another aspect of this call that CONFIRMS ABSENCE OF SCHIZOPHRENIA, – the signature Flat Affect is entirely missing as well:- ...

Psychiatric Abuse – that old chestnut 🙂

'Paranoid Persecutory Delusions' Label in Military Intelligence Operations - the Martha Mitchell Effect

As Linkies know I have written many articles in relation to:- (a) Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement operations ("MI/LE") The Unalienable Right of Private Defence HIS MUST SURELY BE ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE APPLICATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE SEEN...

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

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

Pseudo-Lethal Injections Ahead of Rendition

[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.

Red Onion State Prison

Breaking Prisoners’ Fingers at Red Onion State Prison: Restraint Technique or Plain Old Torture? (September 12, 2011)

Some things are just so obvious you don’t need rocket science to figure them out. But those in power will still try and convince you your eyes are lying, your basic sense is failing, and the suffering is just imagination. Routine torture by U.S. officials of poor people of color is a case in point....

However, notwithstanding the foregoing which is demonstrably torture in its own right, that which occurred to me was the deliberate infliction of severe pain to the point of death, and I will explain why…

Firstly, when they first grabbed me by my neck, it caused the already damaged intervertebral discs at C4-C5 and C5-C6:-

already damaged intervertebral discs at C6-C7 and C7-C8

that led to an immediate loss of my upper body strength. Please refer to this article:-

A Real Pain in the Neck

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

Malice Aforethought

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

The Depraved State of Mind - Malice Aforethought

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

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

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

HANR – “Yes.”

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

HANR – “Yes.”

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

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

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

THE NORMAL ACTION OF A VICTIM IS TO RESIST WHICH OFTEN EXACERBATES THE NATURE OF THE VICTIM’S OWN INJURIES – IE IN THIS SITUATION PARALYSIS WOULD HAVE BEEN GUARANTEED. THANKFULLY SINCE I HAD PASSED ANATOMY AT UCL MEDICAL SCHOOL, I KNEW THAT RESISTING WAS NOT AN OPTION, HENCE THE SEVERE FACIAL INJURIES.

Unnecessary Infliction of Torture

Given the fact that I had already lost upper body strength and therefore lost the ability to defend myself, the assailants inflicting further injuries was certainly not a method of restraint. I was repeatedly hit a number of times in the face but actually it was the neck and heart issues that they caused, which was the worst part:-

The fingers look much better three years on which confirms the extreme nature of injuries from before:-

Breaking four my fingers is obviously torture, and just one of many examples of Edward de Saram’s ‘depraved state of mind’.

I find it difficult to type with my left hand because of the permanent nature of those injuries – the scar tissue inhibits movement and the joints are painful after only 15 minutes of continuous typing.

This is nothing short of an utterly ridiculous situation and thank God I have recovered forensic evidence which can nail the governments concerned.

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

A Sealed Indictment √

By | KEY ARTICLES
imgs

A Sealed Indictment √

Published on 16 November 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
569

Enter more text here

Indictment Leaks

I refer to the following article entitled ‘Bungled court filing cites charges against Assange’ dated 16 November 2018 and appearing at CNN.

Bungled court filing cites charges against Assange

(CNN)A pair of references to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in an unrelated court filing reveals US government efforts to charge him.

There are two key paragraphs in the above article, and these are as follows:-

(A) ‘Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, DUE TO THE SOPHISTICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THE CASE, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged,” prosecutors wrote in the August 22 filing that was later unsealed on November 8, sitting undetected for days on the public docket.”

(B) “The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, WOULD NEED TO REMAIN SEALED UNTIL ASSANGE IS ARRESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHARGES IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND CAN THEREFORE NO LONGER EVADE OR AVOID ARREST AND EXTRADITION IN THIS MATTER,” prosecutors added in the filing..”

Relevance to Joe

First and foremost, the most obvious parallel is the ‘sophistication of the defendant’ – however in my case it is much worse as I actually have significant Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement experience.

How I Met Big Brother - GeniusJoe v MI5

The UK Surveillance State The above video confirms the UK’s obsession with electronic surveillance and human rights violations in the present. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is illegal. However as many people know, this obsession is not a new thing and it is in fact public knowledge that I was the first person to discover and publicly disclose the fact that

and my hundreds of articles relate to publicity:-

Joe's Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation

[THE REALLY ODD THING IS THAT I WAS ALREADY RELOCATING TO THE UK, HAD LOOKED AT PET TRANSPORTATION PEEPS AND HAD SET UP THREE NEW UK COMPANIES. Q SO WHY THE IRREGULAR RENDITION TO A COUNTRY I WAS ALREADY GOING TO?

In relation to the second paragraph ‘would need to remain sealed until assange is arrested’ is very’ is extremely interesting – the Psychiatric Fraud is relevant because it was the method by which my decision-making ability was fraudulently obtained by Edward de Saram. In fact I recall sitting at my dinner table on 17 December 2015 and when he was up to his usual antics I stated that I would challenge any extradition request and easily succeed.

It was only after then that he became more violent than usual and I was subjected to aggravated kidnap (including torture), and unlawful imprisonment.

To ensure that I was effectively in custody (note the parallel to Julian Assange), he arranged for the psychiatric report to fraudulently state that I needed ‘involuntary admission’.

Essentially the unlawful search and seizure occurred first (and I was unlawfully detained during the same)

Unlawful Imprisonment by Police in Cleveland Resulted in GBP 550,000 Damages Award

Cleveland Police in huge damages payout to lawyer I refer to the article entitled Solicitor wins £550,000 for false imprisonment published in The Guardian on 11 May 2013.

The mere fact that I got out without a medical report in my favour confirms the absence of mental disease and more importantly the fundamental human rights violations which Edward de Saram’s complete lack of boundaries facilitate.

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

Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988 √

By | KEY ARTICLES
fight-in-justice-joseph-de-saram

Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988

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
732

Enter more text here

20160802 122227 Joseph de Saram Serious Injuries from Torture

“THE POLICE BEAT ME UP”

I am in the process of writing a number of articles in relation to ‘Evidence of Military Intelligence Operation was Destroyed via Psychiatric Fraud’ and this article Universal Jurisdiction in Torture via Section 134 UK Criminal Justice Act 1988 is one that I will be referring to. I will insert initial evidence into this article however.

Human Rights Watch

The prohibition against torture is a bedrock principle of international law.

Torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is banned at all times, in all places, including in times of war. No national emergency, however dire, ever justifies its use. No one may ever be returned to a place where they would face torture. Many countries and armed groups nonetheless have engaged in torture.

Human Rights Watch documents the use of torture all over the world. We are committed to pressing government authorities to act to prevent torture, as well as bringing those who engage in torture to justice. We also work to ensure that victims of torture obtain redress, including an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, and full rehabilitation.

The UK Criminal Justice Act 1988:-

Criminal Justice Act 1988

An Act to make fresh provision for extradition; to amend the rules of evidence in criminal proceedings; to provide for the reference by the Attorney General of certain questions relating to sentencing to the Court of Appeal; to amend the law with...

and note the fairly broad drafting of its terms.

The following paragraphs are reproduced in their entirety and I have added my comments in square parentheses.

Legislation

(1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION, SEVERE PAIN, PURPORTED PERFORMANCE, OFFICIAL DUTIES

Evidence of Official Capacity and Duties – Cellular Interception

Irrefutable Identification of Cellular Interception via Pure Forensic Analysis

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

Evidence of Official Capacity and Duties – Electronic Surveillance

Government Health Warning

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

Evidence of Official Capacity and Duties – Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Covert Human Intelligence Sources - CHIS

Still writing this - check back please Covert Human Intelligence Sources ("CHIS") The utilisation of CHIS against me in 2015 onwards was a nothing...

(2) A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—

(a) in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence

(i) of a public official; or

(ii) of a person acting in an official capacity; and

[ACQUIESCENCE – MEANING ‘RELUCTANT CONSENT’ OR ‘WITHOUT PROTEST’]

(b) the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it.

(3) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.

20151022 – STAGED Road Traffic Accident

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." -...

20151022 – Evidence of Grievous Bodily Harm

A Real Pain in the Neck

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

20151026_213632 JDSLK Asiri Surgical Hospital MRI Lateral Deviation of Cervical Spine DSCN2851

20151026_000000 JDSLK Asiri Surgical Hospital MRI Dislocations Im4 C4-C5-C6 DSCN2864

20151217 – Aggravated Kidnap and Unlawful Imprisonment

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

20171026 UPDATE Under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, it is IMPERATIVE that ALL ACTIONS performed in the target country FULLY COMPLIES with...

20151217 – Evidence of Grievous Bodily Harm

20151026_000000 JDSGB Evidence of Cervical Spine Injuries 01

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

20151026_000000 JDSGB Evidence of Cervical Spine Injuries 02

20151026_000000 JDSLK Asiri Surgical Hospital MRI Im1-Im8 A

20151218_000000 Evidence of Facial Injuries after Torture

20151218_054228_01 Serious Facial Injuries After Torture b850b9ebb2_00975_annotated

20151220_000000 Evidence of Facial Injuries after Torture

20151220_084548_02 Serious Facial Injuries After Torture 7bdf68eec3_02888_annotated

20151218_000000 Evidence of Finger Hand and Wrist Injuries After Torture

20151218_054228_01 Serious Finger Hand Injuries After Torture b850b9ebb2_00975_annotated

20151220_000000 Evidence of Finger Hand and Wrist Injuries After Torture

20151220_084548_02 Serious Finger Hand Injuries After Torture 7bdf68eec3_03175_annotated

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.

[NO PROOF IS [ABLE TO BE] FORTHCOMING BECAUSE THE PERPETRATORS NEVER HAD ANY.]

[NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAW, NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, NO-ONE HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO-ONE HAD ANY EXCUSE UNDER ANY LAW.]

(5) For the purposes of this section “lawful authority, justification or excuse” means—

(a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom where it was inflicted;

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.

[NO PROOF IS [ABLE TO BE] FORTHCOMING BECAUSE THE PERPETRATORS NEVER HAD ANY.]

[NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAW, NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, NO-ONE HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO-ONE HAD ANY EXCUSE UNDER ANY LAW.]

(5) For the purposes of this section “lawful authority, justification or excuse” means—

(a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom where it was inflicted;

[NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAW, NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, NO-ONE HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO-ONE HAD ANY EXCUSE UNDER ANY LAW.]

(b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom

(i) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law;

[NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAW, NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, NO-ONE HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO-ONE HAD ANY EXCUSE UNDER ANY LAW.]

(ii) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and

[NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAW, NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, NO-ONE HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO-ONE HAD ANY EXCUSE UNDER ANY LAW.]

(iii) in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted.

[NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAW, NO-ONE ACTED UNDER ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, NO-ONE HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION AND NO-ONE HAD ANY EXCUSE UNDER ANY LAW.]

Psychiatric Fraud - Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat - Part 1

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

(6) A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Third Party Articles

I refer to an excellent article written by Charlotte Wright of Kingsley Napley

Legal update: Universal Jurisdiction - Which foreign crimes can be tried in the UK? | Criminal Law Blog | Kingsley Napley

An internationally recognised law firm based in central London...

Previously we have described how, by the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, certain offences, which can be broadly categorised as “war crimes”, can be prosecuted in the UK regardless of where they were committed and whether there is any nexus to the UK.

The offences falling into this category and which might be prosecuted in the UK are largely covered by three acts:

  • Geneva Conventions Act 1957
  •  Criminal Justice Act 1988
  • International Criminal Court Act 2001

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (“CJA”)

Section 134 of the CJA provides for the offence of torture as follows:

(1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties

Subsection (2) provides for an offence where a person “intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence” of a public official.

The offence can be committed “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”, and “whatever [the accused’s] nationality”. As such it is an offence of universal jurisdiction.

The offence is triable only on indictment, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment (CJA s134(6)). The Attorney General’s consent is required to prosecute (CJA s135).

as well as Justice UK:-

Torture in UK law - Justice

The most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations....

Torture is illegal, right?

Yes. The use of torture has been contrary to common law for several centuries, and the UK was well ahead of many other European jurisdictions in abolishing its use. Although the common law prohibited torture, however, the Privy Council continued to issue torture warrants until Felton’s case in 1628 and it was not until the Long Parliament in 1640 that the practice was formally abolished. In Scotland, torture was prohibited by section 5 Treason Act 1708.

In addition to the established common law provisions, section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence for any public official to ‘intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on another in the perfomance … of his official duties’. This provision was introduced to honour the UK’s commitments under the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention).

Under international law, torture is not only prohibited under such instruments as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Torture Convention, but it has become recognised as ius cogens, a preemptory norm of international law that binds all states whether they have signed instruments such as the Torture Convention or not.((See eg Prosecutor v Furundzija [1998] ICTY 3, 10 December 1998, paragraphs 147-157)) The prohibition against torture under Article 3 ECHR is also one of the few rights that cannot be derogated from in a state of emergency under Article 15.

Torture is something that only happens in other countries. Why is it a human rights issue in the UK?

For several reasons.

First, the various international instruments prohibiting torture not only make it unlawful for UK officials to commit torture but also forbid, for example, the UK sending people to countries where they face a real risk of torture. Although the government maintains that it would never return someone to a country where they face a risk of torture, the Human Rights Act 1998 is regularly relied upon in extradition and deportation cases to challenge the government’s assessment of whether a risk of ill-treatment exists. Even more controversial is the UK government’s negotiation of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with countries such as Jordan and Libya, in order to deport suspects to countries where torture is known to be used. JUSTICE and Human Rights Watch are jointly intervening in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v OO in the House of Lords at the end of October to argue that MoUs cannot safely be relied upon.

Secondly, UK cooperation with other countries in the field of counter-terrorism and the UK involvement with the ‘War on Terror’ has raised serious questions about whether decisions about deportations and control orders have been based partly on evidence gathered under torture in other countries, including the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ used by US officials at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.((See eg Jeremy Waldron, Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House 105 Columbia Law Review 1681-1750 October, 2005; Phillipe Sands, Torture Team, Penguin, 2008)) This was the key issue in the famous ‘Torture Evidence’ case (A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)) in 2005.(([2005] UKHL 71)) In some cases, there have even been claims that UK officials were present during interrogations in other countries in which torture was used, most recently in the Binyam Mohammed case in the High Court in August.(([2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin)))

Thirdly, the conduct of the UK forces themselves, in particular the treatment of prisoners and the death of Baha Mousa, has highlighted defects in the guidance given to British soldiers concerning the proper treatment of detainees. Particularly striking is the apparent failure of the army to draw soldiers’ attention to the 1972 army directive prohibiting the ‘five techniques’ that were held by the European Court of Human Rights to breach Article 3 in Ireland v UK.(((1978) 2 EHRR 25))

Fourthly, there is an issue about the jurisdiction of British courts to punish torturers and provide redress to victims. Although the Pinochet case in 1999 established that foreign heads of state could not claim immunity from prosecution, and the 2005 prosecution of an Afghan warlord in the Old Bailey showed the ability to exercise universal jurisdiction for torture in criminal cases, the doctrine of state immunity in civil cases has still prevented many victims of torture from suing foreign governments in British courts to obtain redress against their torturers. ((Ron Jones v Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26)) A private members bill is currently before Parliament to create an exception to allow such civil actions to proceed.

Fifthly, the scope of Article 3 ECHR extends more broadly than torture of detainees. Although torture is clearly outlawed in the UK, the concept of inhuman and degrading treatment has clear relevance to how detainees are treated in prisons, asylum detention centres, mental health facilities and youth detention centres. For example, the High Court recently warned that guidance on the use of ‘pain compliance techniques’ used on young people in secure training centres may be contrary to Article 3 ECHR.((C (A Minor) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWHC 171 (Admin)))

What’s the difference between torture and inhuman and degrading treatment?

The difference lies in the severity of the ill-treatment. Electrocuting a detainee, for instance, is plainly and obviously torture. By contrast, preventing a detainee from sleeping by use of bright lights and loud noises might not be sufficiently severe to qualify as torture, but it would likely qualify as inhuman treatment. In both cases, torture can be physical or non-physical (eg staging the execution of a family member).

The exact threshold is relative but in both cases, the ill-treatment must go beyond the ‘inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment’.((Labita v Italy (ECtHR, 6 April 2000), paragraph 120)) The European Court of Human Rights has also made clear that the distinction ‘depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim’.((Selmouni v France (1999) 29 EHRR 403, paragraph 100))

Note also that the inhuman or degrading treatment need not be intentional, i.e. the state need not intend to cause pain and suffering in order for the conduct to breach Article 3 ECHR((See eg Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1)), eg the government’s failure to provide support to destitute asylum seekers under section 55 Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.((R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 56))

Why does it matter?

The Torture Convention prohibits both torture, on the one hand, and inhuman and degrading treatment, on the other. However, its provisions sometimes draw a distinction, so that the UK government has – for instance – sometimes argued that the bar against returning a suspect to a risk of ‘lesser’ kinds of ill-treatment is not as absolute as the bar against returning a suspect to torture.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits both torture and inhuman and degrading treatment equally, however. In Saadi v Italy, for instance, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the UK government’s argument that a lesser degree of protection applied where the suspect is a risk to national security, noting that ‘such an approach is not compatible with the absolute nature of the protection afforded by Article 3’. Since Article 3 is directly enforceable in UK courts under section 6 Human Rights Act, it is likely that the exact distinction is less relevant in UK law.

Where can I get more information?

UN Committee Against Torture

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)

Freedom from Torture

REDRESS

Human Rights Watch report on diplomatic assurances

War crimes in Sri Lanka: call for sanctions & application of universal jurisdiction

War crimes in Sri Lanka: call for sanctions & application of universal ... jurisdiction to investigate, charge and prosecute Sri Lankan war

UN Committee Against Torture

The Committee Against Torture (CAT) is the body of 10 independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by its State parties. ...

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)

The CPT organises visits to places of detention, in order to assess how persons deprived of their liberty are treated. These places include prisons, juvenile detention centres, police stations, holding centres for immigration detainees, psychiatric hospitals, social care homes, etc ...

Freedom from Torture

Too little change: ongoing torture in security operations in Sri Lanka Ten years on from the end of Sri Lanka’s civil war, Freedom from Torture has documented evidence of torture of its Tamil citizens....

REDRESS

To seek justice for survivors of torture; to combat impunity for governments and individuals who perpetrate torture; and to develop and promote compliance with international standards....

Human Rights Watch report on diplomatic assurances

The most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations....
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

MI5 – How ‘Being Posh and a Little Bit Gay’ Destroys Fundamental Human Rights

By | KEY ARTICLES
mi5-how-being-posh-and-a-little-bit-gay-destroys-fundamental-human-rights-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

MI5 - How 'Being Posh and a Little Bit Gay' Destroys Fundamental Human Rights ±

Published on 24th November 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
364

Enter more text here

COVER-UPS, ASSASSINATIONS AND INCOMPETENCE - EXACTLY!

Today is (I think) the 17 year Anniversary of when Rhodium PLC, the UK entity founded on 12 June 1995, was placed into compulsory liquidation.

It was a fucking farce and as usual with matters involving me, my competence in architecting systems involving Military Grade Cryptographic Software

'IT/Management Consulting' v4

This post is about an excellent article At Booz Allen, a Vast U.S. Spy Operation, Run for Private Profit written by Matthew Rosenberg which appeared...

and [Anti] Money Laundering Projects was and continues to be an issue for Big SiblingTM – I use the my term rather than Big Brother because of transgender issues 🙂

Dirty Cash!

20170828 UPDATE I am in the process of re-writing this article - it is frequently referenced by me and it is incredibly unique in nature. It also does...