The Unalienable Right of Private Defence

By 26 December 2017HUMAN RIGHTS
the-right-of-private-defence-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

The Unalienable Right of Private Defence ±

Published on 26th 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
485

Enter more text here

THIS MUST SURELY BE ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE APPLICATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE SEEN 🙂

I refer to the article by Preveena Thayaparan of 03 July 2017 and located at

http://masterlaw.today/2017/07/03/right-to-private-defense-law-applicable-in-sri-lanka/

and I have reproduced it in full as I am in the process of explaining its relevance to Cellular Interception…

Right to Private Defence – Law applicable in Sri Lanka

Right of Private Defence is considered by natural law as a primordial right. It has both moral and practical justifications.

This defence means that all human beings have a right to safe guard their life, liberty and property from harms of other persons. However the Right of Private Defence has to be supervised and controlled by law which justifies the limitations on exercise of Right of Private Defence.

The Penal Code of Sri Lanka addresses the Right to Private Defence in Chapter IV under the title, General Exceptions in Section 89 which says “nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the Right of Private Defence”.

Purposes for which Right of Private Defence can be exercised:

  • Section 90 says every person has a right to defend body and property of himself or other persons.

[MYSELF, ANY CORPORATE ENTITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. AND ALSO ANY PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH ME.]

  • Section 91 says Right of Private Defence can be exercised against immature persons, unsound mind or intoxication.

[EDWARD DE SARAM’S PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD CONFIRMS THAT HE AND HIS OFFICIAL INSTRUCTORS HAVE SERIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFICIENCIES.]

Time of commencement, extent and termination of Right of Private Defence

  • Section 95 explains that the offence affecting body or property need not be actually committed but a reasonable apprehension is adequate for purpose of exercise of Right of Private Defence.

[MY FORENSIC EVIDENCE CONFIRMED THAT MY DATA WAS BEING INTERFERED WITH AND WERE VARIOUS OFFENCES UNDER THE COMPUTER CRIME ACT 2007, AS WELL AS MICROWAVE RADIATION AND POISONING OF WATER.]

  • It continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

[EVEN RECENT ARTICLES CONFIRM THE HACKING, RADIATION AND POISONING]

Paranoid Schizophrenia - Yeah Right!

Nothing is more dangerous than the Truth, especially in the hands of a Human Rights Activist." - JSR DS 20170824 UPDATE - BREAKFAST AT TIFFANYS A...

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

In the above video Acute Renal Failure results from the consumption or poisoning via Ethylene Glycol ("EG","antifreeze"). (a) The presence of Calcium...

HackedIn

Almost a year ago, I wrote the following article:- and having just re-read it I see that various audio recordings have been removed. Notwithstanding...

Limitations on exercise of Right of Private Defence

Section 92 portrays the limitations in exercising this defence. The Right of Private Defence cannot be exercised in the following situations:

  • Against acts done or attempted to be done by public servant or direction of public servant in good faith while holding office. Applies even if strictly not justified by law.

[NO-ONE TO THIS DAY HAS PROPERLY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES ALTHOUGH IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ATTACKS AGAINST ME ARE UNLAWFUL THOUGH OFFICIAL. I HAVE MADE ENQUIRIES BUT PARTIES HAVE NOT ADVISED ME TO THE CONTRARY AT ANY POINT.]

  • Where there is time to have recourse to protection of public authorities.

[FROM AROUND MARCH 2015 FILED A SPECIFIC FIRST INCIDENT REPORT IN RELATION TO THE THEFT OF DATA BY SHITLANKANtm FRAUDSTER JV LASANTHA PRIYADARSHANA AND THE MELBOURNE FRAUDSTERS.

[I ALSO ADVISED SRI LANKAN POLICE (CID COMPUTER CRIMES DIVISION) ON CELLULAR INTERCEPTION AND MET WITH LAKSIRI GEETHAL REGULARLY FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS, AS WELL AS PROVIDED THE CID WITH VOLUMINOUS WRITTEN REPORTS – THIS CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED.]

Sri Lanka March 2015 Cellular Interception Forensics

  • It cannot extend to more harm than to necessary inflict for purpose of defense.

[THE DATA EXFILTRATION AND VIOLENCE WAS ESCALATING (AS WELL AS POISONING OF FOOD DELIVERED TO US IN OCTOBER 2015 – WE HAVE EVIDENCE OBVIOUSLY)]

Sri Lanka July 2015 Cellular Interception Forensics – 241 images

Sri Lanka August 2015 Cellular Interception Forensics – 236 images

Sri Lanka September 2015 Cellular Interception Forensics – tonnes

[WHEN THE FOREIGN PARTIES WERE PHYSICALLY IN SRI LANKA, INSTRUCTING SRI LANKANS AND INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST US. OBVIOUSLY THE SHITLANKANStm WERE STRUGGLING AGAINST MY ABILITY TO CAPTURE VOLUMINOUS FORENSICS INFORMATION SUCH AS THIS, AND THEY WERE SCARED OF NOT GETTING THEIR ‘REFERENCES LETTERS’ AND VISAS FROM THE FOREIGNERS, OF WHICH THE LATTER HAD BRIBED THEM WITH.]

[MY ASSERTIONS CAN EASILY BE VERIFIED DIRECTLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION SRI LANKA RECORDS, AND I PROBABLY HAVE THE PHOTOS/VIDEOS OF THE PARTIES WHOSE IDENTITIES CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED AGAINST INTERPOL DATABASES :)]

and

and

and

Sri Lanka October 2015 Cellular Interception Forensics

[IN OCTOBER 2015 I INSTRUCTED ADRIAN CUMINE TO PURCHASE A CELLULAR JAMMER FROM SINGAPORE TO ENABLE US TO OBTAIN PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE MOBILE NETWORK CODES AS WELL AS TO

PROTECT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AGAINST THE ATTACKERS.]

As can be seen there was Cellular Interception in Singapore, and my thoughts of an MLAT were justified. None of these things scared us in any way and in one sense if parties wanted us to stop investigating them, they should have properly notified me.

In the absence of such notification and the corruption, violence and terrorist activity in Sri Lanka and the region it was a case of SHIELDS TO MAXIMUM:-

Accordingly the relevant aspect of the doctrine of the Right of Private Defence:-

“It cannot extend to more harm than to necessary inflict for purpose of defense”

was fully complied with – we stopped their jamming which also facilitated analysis of the SIGINT which enabled IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERPETRATORS.

WE WERE ABLE TO SCAN THEM AS AS WELL AS THEY COULD SCAN US INSOFAR AS IT WAS LIMITED TO THEIR SPECIFIC ATTACKS AGAINST US, WHICH WAS PERFECT 🙂

Types of Harm that can be caused in exercise of Right of Private Defence.

  • It depends on nature of offence against which Right of Private Defence is intended to be used.
  • Section 93 states the right extends to voluntary causing of death or any other harm to assailant if Right of Private Defence is exercised in following offences:
  1. Assault that causes apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence of such assault.

[THIS CONFIRMS THAT I WAS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO BEAT THE SHITLANKANS INVOLVED IN THE 17 DECEMBER 2015 FRAUD, TO A PULP. HOWEVER I DID NOT BECAUSE THEY ASSAULTED ME FIRST AND WORSENED MY SERIOUS NECK INJURY, CAUSING IMMEDIATE LOSS OF MY UPPER BODY STRENGTH.]

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...
  1. Assault with intention of rape.
  2. Assault with intention of gratifying unnatural lust
  3. Assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting

[I WAS SUBJECTED TO AGGRAVATED KIDNAP AND ONCE AGAIN I HAD RIGHTS UNDER THE ACTUAL ‘LAWS OF THE LAND’ NOT EDWARD DE SARAM’S BULLSHIT ‘LAWS OF THE LAND’.]

4. Assault with intention of wrongfully confining a person who is under the apprehension that he is unable to seek assistance of public authorities for his release.

[I COULD HAVE LAWFULLY USED FORCE IN THE PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY AS I WAS OBVIOUSLY BEING UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED.]

Section 96 says Right of Private Defence of property extends to voluntary causing of death or any other harm to wrong-doer if the offence which causes the exercise of this right falls under the following:

  1. Robbery

[AGAIN I COULD HAVE LAWFULLY USED FORCE TO DEFEND MY PROPERTY]

2. Housebreaking by night

[I HAD DISCOVERED PARTIES WERE ENTERING MY HOME AT NIGHT AND I WAS ENTITLED TO USE FORCE IN THAT SITUATION AS WELL]

3. Mischief by fire or explosives on any human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.

4. Theft, mischief or house trespass which causes apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be consequence if Right of Private Defence is not exercised.

Section 97 declares that the right extends to causing any harm other than death caused to wrong doer against other offences affecting property…

The Bottom Line

As can be seen, we acted within the actual law at all times, whereas

(A) EDWARD DE SARAM, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM THE UK AND AU COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE LAW, AND THEN LIED ABOUT MATTERS AFTERWARDS – TO MY/RHODIUM’S OBVIOUS DETRIMENT;

(B)CLEARLY THE NATURE AND VOLUME OF DEVICE-OBTAINED FORENSICS IN RELATION TO CELLULAR INTERCEPTION CONFIRMS ITS OWN SPECIFIC CAUSE OF ACTION; AND

(C) CONCURRENTLY DESTROYS THE FRAUDULENT SHITLANKANtm DIAGNOSIS OF PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA – HA HA!

All our responses were ENTIRELY PROPORTIONATE AT ALL TIMES. However, as can be seen from my next article, our defensive strategy paid dividends and I turned our shield into a sword 🙂

Joe90 v Stingray in Covert Surveillance

As many people know one of my sobriquets ('nickname' to Australians) is Joe90 and one that I have enjoyed from around 1981 and St Bernard's RC Primary...
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