Psychiatric Fraud Denied ‘The Right Against Self-Incrimination’

By 2nd November 2017POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY
psychiatric-fraud-denied-the-right-against-self-incrimination-by-joseph-de-seram-linkedin

Psychiatric Fraud Denied 'The Right Against Self-Incrimination' ±

Published on 2nd 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
276

Enter more text here

The right to remain silent is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world’s legal systems.

The right covers a number of issues centered on the right of the accused or the defendant to refuse to comment or provide an answer when questioned, either prior to or during legal proceedings in a court of law.

This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to remain silent when questioned. The right usually includes the provision that adverse comments or inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury regarding the refusal by a defendant to answer questions before or during a trial, hearing or any other legal proceeding. This right constitutes only a small part of the defendant’s rights as a whole.

This article confirms the legal basis by which Perversion of the Course of Justice has occurred, and as a direct result of the Psychiatric Fraud.

My ‘Right Against Self-Incrimination’ has been REMOVED ENTIRELY!!

Case Law – de Mel v Haniffa

The case of de Mel v Haniffa contains an EXPLICIT DECISION – it was UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD by a Bench of three Judges that:-

“An accused person cannot be compelled to produce, during the pendency of criminal proceedings which had been instituted against him, any documents in his possession which may provide evidence against him.”

https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/1977/12/31/r-a-de-mel-et-al-petitioners-and-haniffa-respondent/

“Gratiaen J observed: “To my mind, it is implicit in the scheme of our law that here, as in England, once proceedings have been initiated against an accused person, he is placed in a special category separating him and others in a like situation from the generality of mankind until the verdict has been pronounced. The precarious position in which he stands entitles him at the same time to protection in certain respects, and this is the basis of the special rule whereby he cannot be compelled or legally required to contribute to the proof of his alleged guilt by giving or providing, even indirectly, evidence against himself”.

THE PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD SPECTACULARLY BYPASSED THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BY THE EXFILTRATION OF DATA AND OTHER MY MATERIALS FROM MY HOME, AS WELL AS MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE.

This is the relevance of the term Restricted Patient, and well as the relevance to the Psychiatric Fraud itself – it was not a defence that EDS was trying to assist me with – he was actually acting in the capacity of an agent of law enforcement when he was facilitating the perversion of the course of justice ON THEIR BEHALF!

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...

The Constitutional Right to Remain Silent

The “right to remain silent” is well-known to anyone who watches movies or TV shows about police, but the constitutional rights that the statement represents are not always very well understood. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being compelled to give testimony that could incriminate them. This is not the same as saying that a person has a right to silence at all times. In some situations, police may use silence itself as incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court has held that police must stop questioning suspects once they assert their right to counsel, but it has also held that a person must affirmatively invoke the right to silence.

Silence at Trial

The Fifth Amendment states that “[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The right to silence is among the Miranda rights that police must recite during or shortly after an arrest. The primary application of this right occurs during criminal court proceedings, where prosecutors are not allowed to call the defendant as a witness. The defendant has sole discretion over whether to testify at trial, and prosecutors may not comment if the defendant decides not to do so. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).

Immunity

An exception to the right against self-incrimination in court applies if prosecutors have granted the person immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court has held that the immunity provisions of federal law offer the same protections as the Fifth Amendment. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 462 (1972).

Silence During Police Interviews or Interrogations

The question of whether a person has a right to silence, essentially meaning a right to refuse to speak to police or answer their questions, has no simple answer. As a very general rule, no one is obligated to speak to the police, but even non-verbal communication can, in some situations, be incriminating.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which gave us the well-known Miranda warnings, requires police to cease any and all interrogation once a person has invoked the right to an attorney, and it holds that any statements made afterwards are inadmissible in court. This only applies, however, after police have advised the person of their Miranda rights, which they are only obligated to do once they have placed that person under arrest.

Failure to Invoke the Right to Silence

Two recent court cases illustrate situations when a person’s silence could be used against him or her, without violating the Fifth Amendment or Miranda. Both involve failure by the defendant to assert the right to silence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (2013), dealt with a situation in which the defendant spoke to the police voluntarily during a murder investigation, meaning that he was not under arrest when the purportedly incriminating event occurred.

When the police officer asked the defendant about his possible involvement in the murder, the officer testified, the defendant became very quiet, and his entire demeanor changed.

[EDS CONTINUALLY DROPS HIS VOICE TO A WHISPER WHEN HE KNOWS THAT HE IS DOING OR ABOUT TO DO ANYTHING CRIMINAL – IT IS A SIGNATURE THEME HE DEMONSTRATES AND HE CONTINUALLY CONFIRMS PREMEDITATION IRREFUTABLY]

Police offered the defendant’s silence and behavioral change as incriminating evidence. The court held that police did not violate the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination, in part because the defendant did not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

The California Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in a recent decision, People v. Tom, No. S202107 (Cal., Aug. 14, 2014), which involved evidence of literal silence after an alleged drunk-driving accident—specifically, that the defendant “expressed no concern about the well-being of the other people involved in the collision.” Since this lack of concern occurred after the defendant’s arrest but before he received Miranda warnings, and because he did not expressly assert his right to silence, the court held that his rights were not violated.

Relevance to the Psychiatric Fraud

I read an interesting article today by Chandra Tilake Edirisuriya dated 19 May 2017 and published in Ceylon Today.

 

Following on from other articles in the CHIS series:-

LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

In the case of Chettiar v Darley Butler & Company (1932) 34 NLR 41, two connected proceedings were brought up in revision. In the first case, a person who had not yet instituted criminal proceedings against another on a contemplated charge of cheating...

I specifically refer to the following sections, and have made some small highlighting and editing changes:-

In the case of Chettiar v Darley Butler & Company (1932) 34 NLR 41, two connected proceedings were brought up in revision. In the first case, a person who had not yet instituted criminal proceedings against another on a contemplated charge of cheating had obtained a search warrant in respect of certain bags of rice which were alleged to have formed the subject-matter of the offence. In quashing the Magistrate’s order for the issue of a search warrant, Akbar J was content to say that the material placed before the Magistrate was insufficient to justify the issue of a search warrant.

[SADLY I GET ACCUSED OF THIS ALL THE TIME!]

“In the connected case, the respondent had charged the petitioner with criminal breach of trust in respect of some bags of rice (allegedly the property of the respondent) which he had entrusted to the petitioner as a bailee. The Magistrate allowed the respondent’s application for a general search warrant for the discovery of the rice. Akbar J agreed that a Magistrate had very wide powers to issue a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation of an offence which had been disclosed by legal evidence on record, but commented adversely on the fact that the warrant had been obtained in this case on hearsay evidence.”

[EDS AND PDS CONTINUALLY DEMONSTRATE CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST AND THEIR CONTINUAL PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IS LAUGHABLE – IN FACT THEIR DESIRE TO ‘TICK ALL THE BOXES’ MEANS THAT THEIR PERVERSION CAN BE USED AS MY OWN EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.]

“It was decided in the case of Police Sergeant, Tangalle v Porthenis (1920) 22 NLR 163 that the principle deducible from the decision in Chettiar’s case is that the power of a Court to issue a search warrant for the investigation of an offence can be exercised only when the offence has been disclosed prima facie by evidence which had been properly admitted.”

“The definition of situations in Sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No 15 of 1979, in which a Court is empowered to issue a search warrant, includes references to “a document or other thing”.

“It has been held in the cases of de Soysa v Karagan (1892) 1 SCR 101 and Jonklaas v Silva (1892) 1 SCR 199 that the word “thing”, in the two relevant Sub-sections, has a wide meaning. It is not to be construed as referring to a thing eiusdem generis with the word “document” as used in the same context. The word “thing”, then encompasses all categories of real evidence such as physical objects, articles and specimens.”

[LAWFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY-OBTAINED WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE, AS WELL AS CALL RECORDINGS AND WOULD FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY BUT THEY NEED TO BE GENUINE AND PROPERLY ADMITTED – AN EASY ONE TO CHALLENGE.]

“Situation (c) in which a search warrant may be issued by a Court appears to be of very extensive scope, but the area of its applicability had been curtailed by judicial interpretation. An important consideration in this regard is that the power conferred by this provision cannot be availed of to the detriment of an accused person,” says Professor G.L. Peiris in his landmark thesis ‘Criminal Procedure in Sri Lanka’.”

“The phrase “an accused person” is used here “in the sense in which these words describe a person against whom criminal proceedings have actually been instituted and are pending in a Court of criminal judicature” as Gratiaen J said in the case of de Mel v Haniffa (1952) 53 NLR 433 at page 438,” adds Prof. Peiris.”

Criminal Breach of Trust

“In Re Abdul Latiff (1917) 19 NLR 346, the complainant had instituted proceedings against his partner for criminal breach of trust in respect of certain partnership assets. Pending the inquiry, he obtained a search warrant to secure the production and inspection of all books of the partnership business. Wood Renton J held (with Sampayo J concurring) that, under Sub-section (c) of the relevant provision, the Magistrate had full power to order a general search for, and inspection of, all books of the partnership if he considered the adoption of that course necessary for the purpose of proceedings. However, the Court expressly refrained from deciding whether exception could successfully be taken on behalf of the accused at the trial to the admission in evidence against him of the books covered by the search warrant.”

Power to Restrict a Warrant

“On the power to restrict a warrant Section 69 lays down that the Court may if it thinks fit specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend, and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.”

“On the requirement that an officer should make a list of the things seized, Section 75 lays down that the person executing the search warrant shall make a list of all things seized in the course of the search and of the places in which they are respectively found and shall sign such list.”

[NO-ONE HAS PROVIDED ME WITH A LIST OF ITEMS SEIZED AND NO EVIDENCE OF WHERE AND HOW THEY ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AT MY PROPERTY.]

I refer to this article:-

 

Evidence of Parallel Construction

20180118 UPDATES I have cross-referenced a few articles which will make my ‘adventures’ easier to comprehend 🙂 20170324 INITIAL

“On the provision that the occupant of the place search may attend, Section 76 lays down that the occupant of the place searched or some person on his behalf shall in every instance be permitted to attend during the search and a copy of the list prepared under Section 75, signed by the person executing the warrant, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.”

[THE PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD RUN BY EDS ENSURED THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND, AND AS STATED IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE NO LIST WAS DELIVERED TO ME. MORE IMPORTANTLY I KNEW THAT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE FROM MY CALLS WITH SILVA AND ACCORDINGLY I WAS PREPARED TO CHALLENGE IT MYSELF WITH INTERLOCUTORIES.

 

Monaco

Early Identification of Issues From around August 2015 I identified increased covert surveillance and electronic disruption. Actually I first realised...

EDS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED MY LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP AND PREVENTED ME PARTICIPATING IN MY OWN DEFENCE AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL!

MANY OF MY OTHER LINKEDIN ARTICLES REFER TO ANTON PILLER-TYPE ORDERS.]

Serious Fraudster Office

I read some very interesting articles today about the Serious Fraud Office. I note that there are so many signature themes presented by Vincent

“On the powers of a Magistrate when he is present at a search, Section 79 lays down that (1) the Magistrate by whom a search warrant is issued may attend personally for the purpose of seeing that the warrant is duly executed and (2) that any Magistrate may orally direct a search to be made in his presence, of any place for the search of which he is competent to issue a search warrant.”

Questions So Far

Acquisition of evidence lawfully would have required a Magistrates Court order at the very least The question is ‘was one obtained or not’?

If an order was obtained, then the Psychiatric Fraud prevented me from challenging it, prevented me from instructing my own attorneys, and even obtaining independent attorneys to oversee the process.

I would have followed established Anton Piller protocols OBVIOUSLY and any court order would then have been administered properly, and fair to both parties.

If there was No Court Order:-

No Court Order

Apparently I 'incorporate what I see around me into my system':- 20141213 100730 More BULLSHIT from Edward de Saram ("EDS") and once again completely...

which has been a feature of this Psychiatric Free-for-all then it confirms

YET ANOTHER VIOLATION OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS

Natural Justice has been irreparably compromised and this is a:-

A MASSIVE PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Obviously my defence materials have been stolen and 10 terabytes is a lot of material, and it is handy that I have this forensic evidence which confirms that I am completely correct in my assertions:-

Destruction of Evidence and Perversion of the Course of Justice

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

And it is more handy that I have managed to cleverly recover evidence with nails the perpetratorsI need a lot more time to attempt to recover more data but things are looking extremely promising – it has taken me nearly two years to get to this point…

Of particular interest is the forensic evidence that confirms the deliberate destruction of my data by the investigators and their agents themselves – that is another massive problem for them!!

This VERY INTERESTING CASE continues…

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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