Convicted for following Samaritans and mental health standard advice. Can anyone write a letter to support my appeal

DaveAsperg said:

I’ve written on here lots of times about the fact that the police and cps prosecuted me for trying to help suicidal ideation. As an autistic doctor this seems to be a very inappropriate and dangerous course of action and I am desperate to find positive actions that may help me survive. I feel a misunderstood failure who is alone against the law.

samaritans and all the suicide charities I have approached all refuse to help. Asking for help when suicidal does not seem malicious communication, but appropriate. However I seem alone in this viewpoint and need support from any major media or organisation. 

I seem to have run out of anyone now. Any idea? 

Being that the Samaritans and all suicide charities deal with the issue of helping people not to act on feelings and thoughts about committing suicide, they are unable to help you deal with either the financial or relative legal issues that you have written about ~ as these involve rather different sectors of service provision.

·

Or in other words ~ the Samaritans and all suicide charities are not then refusing to help you, as you seem to believe dealing with your suicidal problems involves clearing your name legally and re-establishing your financial credibility, which is not in their remit to provide or do.

·

You have been imagining otherwise using what is referred to as paradoxical or counterproductive thinking.

·

In a sense this is not too unlike someone trying to bring a dead friend, lover or pet back to life to stop themselves feeling depressed, with the added difficulty you have been isolating yourself even more from your family by having become excessively focused on your legal and financial interests, much as you did with your interests in your routines, academia and job previously involving suicide prevention.

·

This involves having a narrow range of sensibilities.

·

As a basic suggestion leave media outlets and organisations out of your legal pursuit as their job is to inform people on what date the proceedings begin, and on what basis they end. Also it would be rather counterproductive to increase or raise public awareness of your previous activities involving the dark web, as many people assume quite correctly that it has associations with the black market, and illegal conduct.

·

If you really must though continue on with your legal pursuits ~ focus more on gathering information about the psychological ramifications of having Asperger’s Syndrome, such as for instance the social interaction, imagination and communication incongruences, as include paradoxical thinking and narrow ranges of sensibility.

·

Learn to recognise firstly that the judgement against you seemed correct on basis of the Malicious Communications Act 1989; paragraph 1 (a) (ii) as stating (underlined) as follows:

1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

·

(1) Any person who sends to another person—

·

(a) a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—

·

(I) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

·

(ii) a threat; or

·

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

·

(b) any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

·

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

·

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

Being that you had ‘evidently’ (it seems) sent hundreds of emails to an individual with two of these reading as follows:

·

"I am contacting you out of desperation, I believe you are the only person who can help save my life."

·

And,

·

"I remain desperate to speak to you and since you know my life is at risk, I can't believe you are obstructing me in this."

·

With the individual in question as being (or having been) a financial advisor that had given you correct advice according to the financial regulator at least, and that you were attempting to get the financial advisor to resolve your pension investment losses on the basis that your life was at risk if they did not help you!?!

·

In one of the links you gave originally, you stated that, “The CPS used the Malicious communication act 1988 to convict me for Implied Threat of suicide. This does not seem at all in the spirit of what this act was intended for as there was no threat to the person I spoke to.” only you were threatening that person in an attempt to cause them enough distress or anxiety to get them to resolve your investment losses, which you held them personally responsible for.

·

You were basically convicted for emotionally blackmailing the individual by way of holding your life to ransom ~ not too unlike stating, “Do what I say or I will kill myself!!!” and all that.

·

The case made against you though may have lacked pertinent information about Asperger’s Syndrome (in your particular case and circumstances) which could of prevented the judgement from actually having been a fully balanced decision; according to paragraph (2) (b) as stating (underlined) as follows:

(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1) (a) (ii) above if he shows—

·

(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand [F3, made by him on reasonable grounds]; and

·

(b) that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

·

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

In that your narrow range of sensibilities could not at the time (nor as yet it seems) imagine the social / ethical consequences of your interactions or communications, as you became (and remain) obsessively focused (or fixated) on the personal / moral ramifications of your pension investment losses, along with since also your criminal conviction relating to your suicidal threats involving these losses  ~ with all other considerations having become somewhat secondary or of no real significance to you.

·

I mean think about it . . . your family’s happiness, and even after having been convicted under paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1989; you are still writing posts implying that you are likely to kill yourself unless people support your legal campaign to help clear your name ~ on a forum for vulnerable adults on the autistic spectrum!?!

·

Such threatening (or emotionally blackmailing) communications will either look really bad in court if they get used as a defense against you ~ like the original lot were! Or perhaps instead you could follow previous and current advice about getting psychological assistance from an appropriately qualified mental health therapist. They might not only be able to help you with your mental health problems such as involving the 'Wounded' Child and 'Critical' Parent Ego-states previously explained (here), but they may also write a legal medico report that you were in fact following courses of action that you really believed truly to be quite reasonable ~ on account of your particular variant of the social interaction, imagination and communication incongruences ~ as are associated with having Asperger’s Syndrome, along with of course Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and Suicidal Depression.

·

Just as an idea.

But the major financial loss was unregulated and th e media comments about the regulator ps comment were fictitious lies. There was no such comment and it came from the ifa himself.

i never said I was threatening anything and so the legal argument to allow exclusion did not come up.

i just diagnose what’s has happened and see the effect on me

the case was really all about a police campaign targeting a website and the other charges were added on after. The fact that the website is a fake scam was hidden by the media and the court prosecution. I didn’t place any order and never realised what I typed was being captured and sold to police

i am stuck with injustice, unfairness and media lies.

DaveAsperg said:

But the major financial loss was unregulated and th e media comments about the regulator ps comment were fictitious lies.

The financial loss was reported as resulting from missed deadlines regarding following the advice, which would have been correct at the time of it being provided.

How did your experience of things differ?

DaveAsperg said:

There was no such comment and it came from the ifa himself.

You state that there was no such comment in the singular sense from the financial advisor ~ when I was referring specifically to the examples made of two emails in the plural sense that had reportedly out of hundreds come from yourself, rather than the financial advisor.

Did you not send those hundreds or two particular emails then?

DaveAsperg said:

i never said I was threatening anything and so the legal argument to allow exclusion did not come up.

This is another example of paradoxical thinking, in that if you had not threatened anything (or actually anyone) you would not have been charged with three counts under the Malicious Communications Act for having done so at least twice. The reported verbal count as reportedly being false, may have been accepted as evidence on the basis of correlating with the character of the email evidence, providing you actually sent them in part or whole?

It seems that causing psychological distress or anxiety in other people is not considered threatening behaviour by you ~ as it only involves calling on them to prevent you from suffering distress or anxiety yourself. For example, when you did not receive a same day response to your previous thread starter post, you posted as follows:

DaveAsperg said:

No replies. I certainly feel alone and wonder what others make of me as I no longer seem to fit anywhere. Frightening for suicidal thinking 

https://community.autism.org.uk/f/adults-on-the-autistic-spectrum/17958/regrets-obsession/136008#136008

Which is an implied threat to harm yourself, as triggers anxiety or distress to agitate others into socially interacting with you!?! For example:

DaveAsperg said:

No replies.

Reverse psychology to get replies after two days without replies ~ despite people on the spectrum more usually being anxious about starting an exchange with a potential social clanger, and despite the subject of death or suicide being a social ‘taboo’ (banned on moral and ethical grounds) as it is a difficult subject to address appropriately as it can upset or anger people (which you need to keep in mind more). Plus this forum’s prime directive is supporting individuals themselves rather than sharing their interests or joining their causes, which in the latter sense is a matter for individual members to consider and decide upon as an ‘option’ (involving at least two choices (to agree or disagree)) rather than being an obligation (to do as you expect).

DaveAsperg said:

I certainly feel alone and wonder what others make of me as I no longer seem to fit anywhere.

Reverse psychology and psychological driver to gain interaction and reassurance from others by way of using a departure rouse, similar in character to when a person at a social gathering calls out loud that they intend to leave ~ whilst they actually want instead to be inclusively engaged by the others in order to stay.

This rouse is normally used at social gatherings by an attendee to check if they are individually or everyone collectively is not overstaying their welcome, or as a suggestion that accompaniment to leave with them is being requested (such as of a partner) or suggested (to someone for alternative venues and interactions).

In the given context of your three-part statement then ~ you made a demand for replies; as indicated by way of your statement that you had no sense of purpose socially (unless people join, discuss or debate your campaign) and (as a suicidal prelude) there is socially no functional point to your existence anywhere (suggestion that you will commit suicide unless people make you comfortable here) ~ and (in the ‘Or Else!!!’ sense of demanding things):

DaveAsperg said:

Frightening for suicidal thinking 

A fear framed psychological driver (and reinforcement) for making people imagine that suicidal ideation will develop into suicidal action on your behalf ~ as makes them feel responsible for endangering your life and therefore guilty enough to “save your life” with anticipated replies and responses (without delay in the given instance)!?!

The whole point of your communications has often been about your life being in danger ~ by way of you intending to kill yourself if people and organisations do not do as you expect them to do!?!

As a doctor you must have got quite used to patients doing as you prescribed and health service personnel etcetera doing as you requested, and hence perhaps your insistence that you be treated as you expect.

And although you had gotten used to helping patients with terminal conditions, dealing with death certificates, and then dealing with depression and suicidal ideation also yourself . . . it would be of immense benefit if you kept in mind that the vast majority of people are not as used to dealing with death and dying as you have become yourself!

Remember that more often than not that most people by degree get ‘troubled’ (distressed or anxious) at the prospect of their embodiments dying and (by association) at the news of other people intending to kill their selves, or actually those who have killed their selves. Obviously the more familiar people are with those dying or having suicidal ideations ~ the more distressed or anxious they will be about them in most cases (as includes you in this community DaveAsperg).

This brings us back then to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety" which has been the whole theme and nothing but the theme of your perseverance to make people feel distressed and anxious enough to help you.

The first problem you are having is the use of the charity based approach to get support with suicide prevention, only the black and white paradoxical thinking involved with that is counter productive.

Consider for instance that people have great compassion for the particularly young as they remind them more of life and it’s greater potential (huge charitable taper UP), almost or entirely to the exception of helping older people who remind them more of death (huge charitable taper DOWN), and this greater depth of compassion and therefore charity for younger children exists as they cannot do and decide things so much for themselves (consider here).

With death then being a societal taboo, and suicide also being a major complex decision, they both rather contradict and somewhat challenge therefore facilitating and affirming life in the usual charitable way for the defenceless in a hostile ‘whirled’ (by which I mean the survival of the fittest delusion as opposed to the actual ‘world’ of natural selection and supporting life (check here)).

The basic misnomer is that the older we are the more responsible we are supposed to be, so preadolescents get the level of support you have been expecting . . . whilst adolescents, adults and elders get increasingly less support unless they happen to provide for themselves (according to the survival of the fittest delusion at least).

Another problem you have been having is criticising the police and crown prosecution service seemingly as a whole ~ rather than particular departments of which, whilst having demonstrated the illegal character of written communications that you were actually prosecuted for.

Defaming the legal justice system and breaking the law whilst you’re at it is not a safe financial investment for crowdfunding or a reassuring political campaign socially, but it does demonstrate that you are traumatically disassociated ~ only if you refuse to accept that; do not expect anybody to take you seriously, as your account is conflicted and confused and it seems you cannot see the forest for having your faced pressed against a tree sort of thing.

DaveAsperg said:

the case was really all about a police campaign targeting a website and the other charges were added on after

Not an unreasonable campaign though it seems, being that it purported to be a mafia website forum and you had filled in a contract to kill someone using their personal name and their home / family’s address (!?!), with that someone having been the financial advisor that you had also reportedly (or evidently in the court case sense of things) been sending hundreds of emails to at work, stating that your life was in danger if they did not help you, as you continually have here on this website.

There was also the thing as you state that the website forum was a fake, which it seems it was in that it’s owners were selling the data to law enforcement agencies in the sates, here and Europe reportedly, plus it is and has for a long time been legal practice to bring as many charges together as possible ~ in order to make a combined case more successful and cost efficient, rather than making separate plural cases at greater cost and less chances of winning. It’s much like driving to the supermarket for one big shopping session rather than doing lots of little ones.

It seems filling in the fake mafia contract killing form was in internet curricular-vitae terms a good way of getting a bad character job, and your implied use of the “Do what you write or your going to kill yourself!” approach to making demands ~ was what got you the job with greater responsibilities in terms of gaining a criminal conviction.

DaveAsperg said:

i am stuck with injustice, unfairness and media lies.

So lacking the corrections requested, and any others you feel it is appropriate to provide, it seems you have gotten entrenched (rather than stuck) and have been continuing on as such in terms of being traumatically disassociated by the shock of losing quite a lot of money ~ and also your professional reputation (total wounder session!), and are as such in obsessive compulsive denial, similar to people who shout, “I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!” being that the psychological trauma that you are and have been suffering from, has compromised your sense and sensibilities.

I think for example that it is like as if you have a knife wound and you want the knife taken out because the pain is excruciating ~ only removing the metaphorical knife (i.e., the criminal conviction) would cause you to bleed out at the moment, and we here as if like passers-by are trying to calm you down, stop you doing any further damage to yourself and to find out what’s what ~ in order to keep you focused (in a therapeutically distracting way) and as such help the paramedics once they arrive, sort of thing perhaps?

DaveAsperg said:

But the major financial loss was unregulated and th e media comments about the regulator ps comment were fictitious lies.

The financial loss was reported as resulting from missed deadlines regarding following the advice, which would have been correct at the time of it being provided.

How did your experience of things differ?

DaveAsperg said:

There was no such comment and it came from the ifa himself.

You state that there was no such comment in the singular sense from the financial advisor ~ when I was referring specifically to the examples made of two emails in the plural sense that had reportedly out of hundreds come from yourself, rather than the financial advisor.

Did you not send those hundreds or two particular emails then?

DaveAsperg said:

i never said I was threatening anything and so the legal argument to allow exclusion did not come up.

This is another example of paradoxical thinking, in that if you had not threatened anything (or actually anyone) you would not have been charged with three counts under the Malicious Communications Act for having done so at least twice. The reported verbal count as reportedly being false, may have been accepted as evidence on the basis of correlating with the character of the email evidence, providing you actually sent them in part or whole?

It seems that causing psychological distress or anxiety in other people is not considered threatening behaviour by you ~ as it only involves calling on them to prevent you from suffering distress or anxiety yourself. For example, when you did not receive a same day response to your previous thread starter post, you posted as follows:

DaveAsperg said:

No replies. I certainly feel alone and wonder what others make of me as I no longer seem to fit anywhere. Frightening for suicidal thinking 

https://community.autism.org.uk/f/adults-on-the-autistic-spectrum/17958/regrets-obsession/136008#136008

Which is an implied threat to harm yourself, as triggers anxiety or distress to agitate others into socially interacting with you!?! For example:

DaveAsperg said:

No replies.

Reverse psychology to get replies after two days without replies ~ despite people on the spectrum more usually being anxious about starting an exchange with a potential social clanger, and despite the subject of death or suicide being a social ‘taboo’ (banned on moral and ethical grounds) as it is a difficult subject to address appropriately as it can upset or anger people (which you need to keep in mind more). Plus this forum’s prime directive is supporting individuals themselves rather than sharing their interests or joining their causes, which in the latter sense is a matter for individual members to consider and decide upon as an ‘option’ (involving at least two choices (to agree or disagree)) rather than being an obligation (to do as you expect).

DaveAsperg said:

I certainly feel alone and wonder what others make of me as I no longer seem to fit anywhere.

Reverse psychology and psychological driver to gain interaction and reassurance from others by way of using a departure rouse, similar in character to when a person at a social gathering calls out loud that they intend to leave ~ whilst they actually want instead to be inclusively engaged by the others in order to stay.

This rouse is normally used at social gatherings by an attendee to check if they are individually or everyone collectively is not overstaying their welcome, or as a suggestion that accompaniment to leave with them is being requested (such as of a partner) or suggested (to someone for alternative venues and interactions).

In the given context of your three-part statement then ~ you made a demand for replies; as indicated by way of your statement that you had no sense of purpose socially (unless people join, discuss or debate your campaign) and (as a suicidal prelude) there is socially no functional point to your existence anywhere (suggestion that you will commit suicide unless people make you comfortable here) ~ and (in the ‘Or Else!!!’ sense of demanding things):

DaveAsperg said:

Frightening for suicidal thinking 

A fear framed psychological driver (and reinforcement) for making people imagine that suicidal ideation will develop into suicidal action on your behalf ~ as makes them feel responsible for endangering your life and therefore guilty enough to “save your life” with anticipated replies and responses (without delay in the given instance)!?!

The whole point of your communications has often been about your life being in danger ~ by way of you intending to kill yourself if people and organisations do not do as you expect them to do!?!

As a doctor you must have got quite used to patients doing as you prescribed and health service personnel etcetera doing as you requested, and hence perhaps your insistence that you be treated as you expect.

And although you had gotten used to helping patients with terminal conditions, dealing with death certificates, and then dealing with depression and suicidal ideation also yourself . . . it would be of immense benefit if you kept in mind that the vast majority of people are not as used to dealing with death and dying as you have become yourself!

Remember that more often than not that most people by degree get ‘troubled’ (distressed or anxious) at the prospect of their embodiments dying and (by association) at the news of other people intending to kill their selves, or actually those who have killed their selves. Obviously the more familiar people are with those dying or having suicidal ideations ~ the more distressed or anxious they will be about them in most cases (as includes you in this community DaveAsperg).

This brings us back then to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety" which has been the whole theme and nothing but the theme of your perseverance to make people feel distressed and anxious enough to help you.

The first problem you are having is the use of the charity based approach to get support with suicide prevention, only the black and white paradoxical thinking involved with that is counter productive.

Consider for instance that people have great compassion for the particularly young as they remind them more of life and it’s greater potential (huge charitable taper UP), almost or entirely to the exception of helping older people who remind them more of death (huge charitable taper DOWN), and this greater depth of compassion and therefore charity for younger children exists as they cannot do and decide things so much for themselves (consider here).

With death then being a societal taboo, and suicide also being a major complex decision, they both rather contradict and somewhat challenge therefore facilitating and affirming life in the usual charitable way for the defenceless in a hostile ‘whirled’ (by which I mean the survival of the fittest delusion as opposed to the actual ‘world’ of natural selection and supporting life (check here)).

The basic misnomer is that the older we are the more responsible we are supposed to be, so preadolescents get the level of support you have been expecting . . . whilst adolescents, adults and elders get increasingly less support unless they happen to provide for themselves (according to the survival of the fittest delusion at least).

Another problem you have been having is criticising the police and crown prosecution service seemingly as a whole ~ rather than particular departments of which, whilst having demonstrated the illegal character of written communications that you were actually prosecuted for.

Defaming the legal justice system and breaking the law whilst you’re at it is not a safe financial investment for crowdfunding or a reassuring political campaign socially, but it does demonstrate that you are traumatically disassociated ~ only if you refuse to accept that; do not expect anybody to take you seriously, as your account is conflicted and confused and it seems you cannot see the forest for having your faced pressed against a tree sort of thing.

DaveAsperg said:

the case was really all about a police campaign targeting a website and the other charges were added on after

Not an unreasonable campaign though it seems, being that it purported to be a mafia website forum and you had filled in a contract to kill someone using their personal name and their home / family’s address (!?!), with that someone having been the financial advisor that you had also reportedly (or evidently in the court case sense of things) been sending hundreds of emails to at work, stating that your life was in danger if they did not help you, as you continually have here on this website.

There was also the thing as you state that the website forum was a fake, which it seems it was in that it’s owners were selling the data to law enforcement agencies in the sates, here and Europe reportedly, plus it is and has for a long time been legal practice to bring as many charges together as possible ~ in order to make a combined case more successful and cost efficient, rather than making separate plural cases at greater cost and less chances of winning. It’s much like driving to the supermarket for one big shopping session rather than doing lots of little ones.

It seems filling in the fake mafia contract killing form was in internet curricular-vitae terms a good way of getting a bad character job, and your implied use of the “Do what you write or your going to kill yourself!” approach to making demands ~ was what got you the job with greater responsibilities in terms of gaining a criminal conviction.

DaveAsperg said:

i am stuck with injustice, unfairness and media lies.

So lacking the corrections requested, and any others you feel it is appropriate to provide, it seems you have gotten entrenched (rather than stuck) and have been continuing on as such in terms of being traumatically disassociated by the shock of losing quite a lot of money ~ and also your professional reputation (total wounder session!), and are as such in obsessive compulsive denial, similar to people who shout, “I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!” being that the psychological trauma that you are and have been suffering from, has compromised your sense and sensibilities.

I think for example that it is like as if you have a knife wound and you want the knife taken out because the pain is excruciating ~ only removing the metaphorical knife (i.e., the criminal conviction) would cause you to bleed out at the moment, and we here as if like passers-by are trying to calm you down, stop you doing any further damage to yourself and to find out what’s what ~ in order to keep you focused (in a therapeutically distracting way) and as such help the paramedics once they arrive, sort of thing perhaps?