http://teroauvinen2.wordpress.com
No more files can be uploaded to this wordpress account. See http://teroauvinen2.wordpress.com for more recent posts.
Tero Auvinen
April 25, 2013
Complaint on the Actions and Inactions of the Tokyo Police
The following document was sent via registered mail to
Keishithou Honbu Kohouka Ate
2-1-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda Ku
Tokyo 100-8929
Tokyou To Kouaniinkai
2-1-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda ku
Tokyo 100-8929
and
Kensatsucho
1-1-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda
Tokyo 100-8904
on April 25, 2013. The first two addresses were obtained from Akira Tsukatani at the Oi Police Statation on April 7, 2013 (see Appendix 5 below) and the last one from Kobayashi and Nogusa at the Kamata Police Station on April 9, 2013 (see Appendix 6 below).
[start of the document]
Appendix 1 (see the files Kamata Police 130214 1 24 – Kamata Police envelope 2 2 in http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/kamatapolice/)
Appendix 2 (see the file Kamata Police Address in http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/kamatapolice/)
Appendix 3 (see the files Kamata Police 130218 1 26 – Police Stations in Kanagawa 5 5 in http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/documents/)
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Kobayashi and Nogusa at the Kamata Police Station refused to write down the name of the institution to which the complaint should be addressed – “Kensatsucho” – on the same paper with the address, but they did confirm that the spelling, written down by myself on a separate sheet of paper, is correct.
Appendix 7
Appendix 8 (see the files S130122 1 3 – S130122 3 3 in http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/sentmail/)
Appendix 9 (see the files S130218 1 6 – S130218 6 6 in http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/sentmail/)
[end of the document]
February 14, 2013
Kamata Police (see also “Japan Police” in the Documents page)
The following document was submitted in person to the Kamata Police, 2-3-3 Kamata honcho Ohta-ku Tokyo 144-0053 on February 14, 2013.
The police submitted the following note in response to a request to write down the address of the Kamata Police.
The police opened the envelope and after a lengthy and repetitive meeting with several officers the police returned the entire document and said that copies had been taken that would be translated into Japanese. According to the police there was no officer present at the Kamata police station during my visit who would have had sufficient command of English to read and understand the document. One of the officers did read aloud in English the part of the first sentence where I am requesting my entire body and environment to be documentably examined but allegedly did not understand it. Upon request the police refused to
1) provide the address of “headquarters” where, according to the police, officers with a sufficient command of English would be available
2) forward the original document to the “headquarters” and
3) provide formal proof that would acknowledge the receipt of the document that was delivered to the Kamata Police Station in person.
The Koban or police near the JR Kamata Station East Exit refused to accept a personally delivered document in English or to provide an address where the document could be sent in order to solve those potential criminal offences that, among other things, prevent effective communication on other potential criminal offences. One of the officers even made a theatrical phone call to an interpreter before confirming its desirability or appropriateness – the contrary might be evident from the document that I was attempting to deliver, if not also from the preceding personal communication – attempted to prevent me from hanging up as he tried to pass me the phone, and loudly declared “sayoonara, sayoonara” immediately after I did so.
January 24, 2013
Metropolitan Police Department, Tokyo
The following document was sent to Metropolitan Police Department, 2-1-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8929 on January 22, 2013.
[start of the document]
January 21, 2013
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to request the police to documentably examine my entire body and environment for all types of mechanisms suitable for surveillance, harassment, torture or other types of breaches of the body’s physical or informational integrity – the environment being defined as the operational range for each specific type of surveillance, harassment, torture etc. mechanism. Of particular interest are, among other things, the following questions:
How can specific physical effects or sensations be produced in specific parts of your or someone else’s body in response to your thoughts only?
How can specific actions or events be synchronized with the targeted individual’s thoughts?
How to stop all forms of breaches of the body’s physical and informational integrity and other forms of surveillance permanently?
What are the technical mechanisms that are used to attack specific organs, parts of the body or the entire body, particularly at night? Who is behind these campaigns of violence, social theater etc. in Japan? How to take legal and/or other forms of action against networks of actual or latent complicities that may appear to span virtually the entire society? Potentially relevant jurisdictions, polities to be (re)claimed etc. include at least Finland and England in addition to Japan.
The potential criminal offences involved in the case include, among other things, physical torture, threat to life and health, extreme privacy violations, illegal access to unpublished academic material and other types of occupational and/or personal information, harassment of cognitive and communicative functions as well as a large-scale and longstanding group stalking campaign. It is possible – if not likely – that some of the acts of remotely induced violence, for instance, were ongoing already during my first stay in Japan in 2001-2005. Some of the potentially relevant addresses in Japan include at least the following:
Famiiru Yoshioka 203, 1-11-7 Kamata, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 144-0052 (present)
1811-14 Usami, Ito-shi, Shizuoka 414-0001 (mainly April-June 2012)
Takizu Denenchofu Dai 2 502, Denenchofu Honcho 57-8, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 145-0072 (mainly July-December 2006)
Meitsu Shinagawa Minami 3-9-7-304 Minami Oi, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 140-0013 (mainly 2003-August 2005)
2-1-11-522 Takanawa, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0074 (mainly September 2001-2002) [If I remember correctly, the date of arrival in Japan was around September 10, 2001 and I stayed at the Weekly Mansion Shinagawa, 1-22-19, Kitashinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 140-0001, before moving into 2-1-11-522 Takanawa, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0074. This information was not included in the original document that was sent to the Metropolitan Police Department.]
I have enclosed translations or copies of my communication with authorities in other countries for your review. Some of the substantive points that I have made in this communication regarding the nature and some of the implications of the alleged criminal offences are directly relevant to the alleged criminal offences committed in Japan. As will be obvious from the enclosed documents – if not also from the aforementioned questions – it is not possible to discuss this case in detail before some of the alleged criminal offences have effectively been solved and the physical integrity and privacy – in terms of both the external operating environment and internal cognitive informational integrity – of the potential victims guaranteed.
Please use registered mail for correspondence.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Famiiru Yoshioka 203
1-11-7 Kamata, Ohta-ku
Tokyo 144-0052
http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com
[end of the main body of the document]
December 18, 2012
Complaint to the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman
[Neither an exact translation nor a rewriting that would have been optimized for English of the document that was submitted to the Ombudsman in Finnish on December 5, 2012. The Ombudsman decided on December 10, 2012 not to investigate this case further. (Dnro 4722/4/12, decision made by Jussi Pajuoja, Tel: +358-9-4321, Telefax: +358-9-432-2268, email: oikeusasiamies (at) eduskunta.fi)]
I ask the Parliamentary Ombudsman to keep all material related to this case secret based, among other things, on the following:
-The exceptional extent and nature of the criminal offences potentially related to the case. Rather than a single event, the case may be assumed to involve a series of criminal offences and harassment processes aiming at the holistic destruction of the victim’s or the victims’ lives that potentially affects a large proportion of the victims’ former, current, and possibly also future social contacts unless the technical applications that enable the types of criminal offences and harassment processes in question are removed or their use restricted and the crime- and harassment-enabling economic, political, social, etc. structures subjected at the minimum to an open public debate of a more general nature that is formed freely, privately and without artificial and/or politically motivated actor linkages – if not automatically destroyed in case the latent legal processes that are potentially associated with these structures can be brought to completion to a sufficient extent.
-If the suspicions of criminal offences prove to be even partly correct, the victims’ cognitive functions have been deliberately modified and/or weakened and their operating environment been deliberately made more difficult in terms of the victims’ capacity for independent, unhampered thinking and communication processes. The victims thus cannot be assumed to have had an opportunity for independent and unhampered thought formation and communication, which they could be held legally responsible for in their communication with the authorities or which could be publicly regarded as products of their free and unhampered ability and consideration. The “prudently considering person” taken up by the police in the “closure of investigation” documents [a literal translation of the name of the documents that declared the police's refusal to start an investigation] might, even without knowing the details of this case, ask whether the implementation of the types of criminal offences and harassment processes in question is possible without the knowledge and/or active participation of public authorities and institutions or actors that may sometimes be regarded as being constitutive of the “public sphere” or “publicity”. Making the documents relating to this case publicly available could therefore be regarded as a continuation of the criminal process aiming for the holistic destruction of the victims’ lives, whereby possibly partly the same actors who are responsible for undermining the victims capacity to act would be publishing material relating to their own potential crimes at a stage where the victims’ capacity to express such criminal connections and/or to defend themselves publicly has already been substantially weakened.
I ask the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate the appropriateness of the police’s activities in relation to investigation requests 8630/S/2137/12 and 8630/S/2147/12 that were submitted to the Oulu police station on April 6, 2012 and April 8, 2012, respectively, and in relation to other acts and/or omissions of the police.
The potential criminal offences involved in the case include, among other things, physical torture, threat to life and health, extreme privacy violations, illegal access to unpublished academic material and other types of occupational and/or personal information, harassment of cognitive and communicative functions as well as a large-scale and long-standing group stalking campaign. These processes have potentially continued in some respects for several years in, for example, the following addresses in Finland as well as in several locations abroad:
Kaislatie 3 T 10 90150 Oulu
Ratakatu 12 as 34 96100 Rovaniemi [Another potentially relevant address in Rovaniemi that was not included in the original complaint to the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman is Kuntotie 10, 96400 Rovaniemi (mainly January-March 2007).]
Describing the details of the case requires securing the victims’ physical integrity and privacy – in terms of both the external operating environment and internal cognitive informational integrity. Certain criminal processes related to the case would thus have to be effectively solved before details of the case can be clarified.
At the time of submitting the investigation requests the police refused a request for personal communication in the absence of other customers. A registered letter mailed on April 23, 2012 to Jorma Joensuu – the investigator in charge according to the “notification of investigation” documents [a literal translation of the name of the document given to the customer as a proof of submitting an investigation request] – was “Unclaimed” and returned to the sender on May 15, 2012. The letter contained, among other things, an investigation request related to the case and my temporary contact details where all correspondence regarding the case should have been sent. The closure of investigation documents, dated April 10, 2012 and sent without clear confirmation of the date of mailing on the envelopes, have reached the recipient at my permanent address remarkably late considering the date of the documents. Sending the closure of investigation documents to my permanent address instead of the temporary address has facilitated a breach of postal secrecy. A police report, partly in regard of this incident, has been filed on November 15, 2012 (receipt number 140913293). As indicated in the investigation request contained in the registered letter mailed to Jorma Joensuu on April 23, 2012, an employee of the Höyhtyä health center and/or a person introducing herself as such has potentially been involved in a criminal offence related to this case on April 10, 2012 (police report filed on November 15, 2012, receipt number 140913358) and been in contact with me via regular mail even after this date.
By refusing – the refusal also being inappropriately expressed – an opportunity for personal communication in the absence of other customers, the police has knowingly failed to obtain from a victim in an exceptionally vulnerable position that information which might have been obtainable in the prevailing circumstances or which should have been conveyed to a competent and appropriately behaving police officer in those circumstances. The exceptional vulnerability of the victim is clearly expressed in the investigation request. Quoting the investigation request that was submitted on April 6, 2012, “If the aforementioned suspicion turns out to be even partly correct, information on my body, actions, surroundings etc. may even at this moment be transmitted to parties unknown to me. This substantially limits the possibility to discuss the details of the case before the aforementioned investigation process has been completed… I also suspect to be a victim of a large-scale and long-standing group stalking process. I may submit a more detailed investigation request regarding the group stalking process after the implementation of the measures that have been deemed to be appropriate based on the aforementioned investigation has been completed.”
In the closure of investigation documents the police expresses its lack of prudent consideration by stating that “Auvinen’s narrative is apparently based on a document prepared by some group, and the stated things and conclusions, lacking more precise justification, cannot, on the basis of general life experience, be regarded as plausible”. The police also deliberately interprets the contents of the investigation request overly narrowly and clearly inaccurately by asserting that “Auvinen… suspects to have been a target of a type of crime, whereby the recited ICT implants have been inserted into his body unknowingly and unwillingly.”
Conceptually, the police fails to provide adequate justification for its selectively applied demands for more precise justification. Does the police feel obliged to contact a local health center on the basis of the mental health law in the case of everyone who, based on “subjective personal views”, mentions the possibility of potential breaches of IT information security without “objectively discernible and justifiable factor or factors” as judged by the police? If not, what is the presumed primacy of the needs of machines in relation to human rights (e.g. the commonplace and routine-like nature of IT information security tools and their relatively easy accessibility without the need for the consumer to present a well-founded case on IT information security risks that have actually materialized or to prove his/her mental health to others merely due to mentioning the possibility of an IT information security risk that may have materialized in relation to the practical possibilities of many individuals to examine the status of their bodies’ and operating environment’s informational integrity in relation to potential security threats) based on?
The investigation requests clearly indicate that for the type of suspected criminal offence in question, it is particularly difficult for the potential victim to both cognitively form “justification” and to convey it to others. In the case of suspected breaches of cognitive informational integrity the ongoing, particularly serious type of criminal offence inhibits the kind of free cognitive activity that would be necessary for the formation of “justification”. In cases where breaches of the body’s informational integrity are associated with active physical responses based on the victim’s cognitive activity and/or environment, any activity or event inside or outside the body becomes a potential part of a torturous process aiming, effectively if not also intentionally, at the annihilation of any activity that might be classifiable as human. Without taking into consideration any potential neurolinguistic significances: if a given internal (thought, thinking processes in general etc.) or external (sound, word etc.) stimulus is associated always or even slightly more often than average with certain unpleasant – if not torturous – bodily or external responses, it may not be entirely implausible to assume that certain individuals will strive to reduce the frequency with which the given type of stimulus appears in their body or environment or unwillingly submit to such a reduction. If the increased frequency or overall prevalence of the torturous responses is associated, for instance, with thinking processes in general irrespective of their content, mere pre-communicative thinking or the thinking processes that are needed for communication can be classified as torture. The issue is thus not the absence of “justification”, as a “prudently considering” reader of the investigation requests or a “prudently considering” police officer assessing the needs of a potential victim of a criminal offence who is asking for an opportunity for personal communication at the police station would have surely realized. The police did not take into account facts that are evident based on the investigation requests or provide an opportunity for the presentation of “justification” in a manner that, taking into account these facts, would have been most likely to rectify some of the consequences of the police’s gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse. It is also notable that (1) the police’s demand for “justification” in any form within the framework of the aforementioned example is a torturous and potentially illegal measure when the police is aware of the possibility of circumstances where the basic rights that are necessary for the victims to be able to form and/or communicate “justification” are not respected, (2) the logic applied by the police may be interpreted as legitimating criminal offences or human experiments that are sufficiently rare and/or located outside of the police’s “general life experience” and (3) the investigation requests clearly indicate the possibility of circumstances where the victim’s communication simply cannot be regarded as a reliable expression of the victim’s will or account of the facts related to the case.
The investigation request filed on April 6, 2012 contains several sentences and passages, each of which alone expresses the exceptionally vulnerable position of the potential victims and refutes the police’s unfounded claim on the lack of “justification”. How, for instance, does the police intend to obtain “justification” from victims, whose “psychic functions” are being “influenced, determined or changed” with ICT implants? Should the police not in every case regardless of the precise type of criminal offence automatically and routinely ensure that (1) the victims have a free and private opportunity to form and communicate all those “justifications” related to the case that the victims, based on their own private and free consideration, deem appropriate and (2) all information or potential “justifications” conveyed by the victims are freely formed and communicated by them? Is the police not, at the minimum, guilty of subornation, aiding and abetting a crime and identity theft as a result of demanding “justification” from the victims of potentially a particularly serious criminal offence in a situation where the victims have already expressed their suspicion of a criminal offence involving violation of cognitive privacy, cognitive harassment and/or cognitive manipulation? By demanding “justification” in circumstances where the victims cannot, based on the suspected type of criminal offence, freely and privately form them, the police is aiding the perpetrators of a particularly serious type of criminal offence by providing an official, authoritative forum for expressing material that is at the minimum incomplete – if not manipulated, and at some stage of the criminal and/or legal processes potentially also public – instigates the victims to communicate in order to obtain the possibility of securing their basic rights in a situation where the preconditions for such communication may not be fulfilled, and erroneously attributes the results of the incomplete if not manipulated communication in official documentation to the victims and/or situations, where the victims are assumed to have had an opportunity for free, private and comprehensive formation and communication of their thoughts. Effectively the police thus at the minimum demands the victims to testify against themselves in the form of a statement that is incomplete, prepared under harassment and/or manipulated as a precondition for obtaining the possibility of securing some of their basic rights. Other sentences and passages from the investigation request, “each of which alone expresses the exceptionally vulnerable position of the potential victims and refutes the police’s unfounded claim on the lack of ‘justification’” include, for instance, the following:
-ICT implants can be used in order to have a remote control over the will of people. ["(remote control over the will of people)" was included in English in the original investigation request for the sake of clarity.]
-ICT implants with network capability can be misused in several ways for all kinds of social surveillance and manipulation.
-In some cases ICT implants suitable for individual and social forms of control are already in use.
-ICT implants can influence the human nervous system and the brain and thus also human autonomy and identity both as individuals and as a species.
-There is a stepwise shift in progress from surveillance based on video and biometrics to the modification and networking of individuals via various electronic devices, implants and RFIDs.
-ICT implants may enable the control of an individual’s body and the dispossession of autonomy, bringing one’s body under the control of others. ["(individuals are dispossessed of their own bodies and thereby of their own autonomy. The body ends up being under others' control.)" was included in English in the original investigation request for the sake of clarity.]
-ICT implants may be used for changing an individual’s identity, memory and self perception and to change an individual’s perception of others.
-ICT implants for surveillance threaten human dignity. State authorities, individuals and groups could use them to increase their power over others.
It is also particularly noteworthy that, based on the investigation requests, the police cannot assume the processes in question to be homogeneous, whereby the precise types of harassment and torture experienced by the victims in the past and their intensities could reliably and comprehensively predict the frequency with which they may appear in the future or the victims could convey information on the types of processes to others without changing their nature and exposing themselves to any potential retaliatory measures. This is entirely obvious to a person considering – not necessarily even “prudently” – the meaning of, for instance, “remote control over the will of people”, “manipulation” of people, or “dispossession of the body’s control and autonomy”. The description of a given type of harassment or torture may, for instance, be associated with an exceptional increase in the frequency of that particular type of harassment or torture or, conversely, the description of a given type of harassment or torture that may have been particularly frequent in the past with a significant change of the ongoing criminal processes in respect of that particular type of harassment or torture. The type and/or intensity of the harassment or torture may be modified according to the exigencies of the situation. Not unlike other processes involving torture or enslavement, telling about the criminal offences in question to others or its preparation is punishable by an exceptionally wide range of instruments that has been partly described, among other things, in the investigation requests. By means of its groundless demand for “justification” that involves malfeasance or worse, the police knowingly exposes victims who are in a particularly vulnerable position to the threat of an escalation of the ongoing criminal processes – potentially including danger to life – for the sake of obtaining “justification” that is of questionable informational value.
It may also be appropriate to note that the harassment-ness or torture-ness of any given type of harassment or torture does not necessarily in any way depend on, for instance, temporal or other types of conditionalized synchronization or the victims’ capacity to form and/or to communicate such connections to others. Victims of random or regular but, as a result of, for instance, the victims’ imperfect or particularly advanced epistemic and/or significance-producing capacities in the victims’ consciousness imperfectly forming types of harassment and torture may be assumed to be particularly vulnerable to any potential alternative models of explanation that may be propagated in connection with the criminal processes in question. “Remote control”, “manipulation”, “dispossession of autonomy” and other types of enslavement, torture or harassment involve an obvious possibility of deliberate modification of the composition, intensity etc. of the processes in question in a manner that makes the detection or verification of the given type of criminal offence actually or ostensibly more difficult. A “prudently considering person” may thus justifiably regard automatic and routine-like testing and/or protection of, for instance, the body’s informational integrity as logically prior to describing any potential consequences of breaches of such informational integrity. As the distribution of personal observations and internal or external effects resulting from breaches of the body’s informational integrity is deliberately formable and modifiable, no single observation or experience may – when the perpetrators so wish – be definitely attributable to breaches of informational integrity to the exclusion of alternative explanations in a manner that would be consistent with the police’s “general life experience”. A significant proportion of potential types of slavery, harassment and torture may – due to their nature, duration etc. – also be particularly difficult to associate with potential neurolinguistic significances or other types of regularities. A “prudently considering person” may thus regard the absence of automatic and routine-like testing and/or protective measures even in the case of individuals who have “subjective” experiences of observations, responses, symptoms etc. that are implementable with technical mechanisms suitable for the types of criminal offences in question as a particularly egregious instance of gross negligence, malfeasance or worse. In this respect the police may be regarded, in addition to enabling a particularly serious type of criminal offence, as guilty of covering up the existence, nature, extent etc. of the type of criminal offence in question by limiting victims who are potentially in a particularly vulnerable position to alternative models of explanation that erroneously disregard the suspected criminal offences associated with the cases.
Overall, the investigation requests convey a picture of a particularly serious types of torture, slavery and harassment, against which a “prudently considering person” could have expected, even on the basis of publicly available information, police that is e.g. acting legally, carefully and without delay within the scope of its authority, exercising its discretionary powers and duty to provide guidance to potential victims of criminal offences appropriately, providing sufficient justification for its decisions, behaving appropriately and in other ways acting according to the principles of good governance and respecting basic rights to prepare significantly before the submission of my investigation requests. I ask the Ombudsman to investigate, why information of this significance for the proper operation of the police has not been appropriately taken into account in the police’s activities significantly earlier and why closures of investigation that reflect gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse have been possible still in 2012. A “prudently considering person” might be assumed to expect, for instance, the police to test and protect its own employees automatically and in a routine-like fashion against the types of cognitive harassment and manipulation that have been described, among other things, in the investigation requests regardless of their precise method of technical implementation – the consequences of these processes are, after all, in certain cases potentially significantly more severe than, for instance, in the case of public authorities working under the influence of drugs, against which the police presumably is prepared to test and/or protect its employees. The extent of gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse exemplified by the closure of investigation documents is significant enough for a “prudently considering person” to ask – in line with the police’s logic or its absence, such request being “justified” or substantiated by the closure of investigation documents, in case such a request might otherwise not be “justified” based on the “general life experience” of the police or some other potentially inappropriate, arbitrary and/or illegal standard – to what extent the police officers involved in processing my investigation requests might have been targets of the types of cognitive harassment and/or manipulation that have been described, among other things, in the investigation requests. From the perspective of general credibility and reliability of the operation of public authorities, a “prudently considering person” may, for instance, expect securing the bodily and environmental informational integrity of public authorities to be an automatic and routine-like procedure: without certainty of the appropriate and reliable execution of such a procedure, every instance of interaction with public authorities constitutes for the customer – whether herself a victim of breaches of the body’s informational integrity or not – a potential security threat, whereby (1) confidential information may be passed on to third parties through public authorities and/or operating environments that have not been appropriately tested and/or protected even in cases where potentially no other formal offences are committed by the authority in question and (2) the customer cannot be certain whether he/she is in reality interacting with a representative of public authority who is capable of free and private will-formation or potentially partly or entirely with some other unspecified parties that are capable of implementing the types of criminal offences described, among other things, in the investigation requests. It is also particularly noteworthy that in the circumstances that prevailed at the Oulu police station, the police potentially cannot ask victims to present additional information – or “justification”, regardless of how justified or, as in this case, unjustified they might be – in relation to any type of criminal offence. In those circumstances the police does not, for instance, strive to prevent other customers – or, in regard of group stalking processes, people who might not be at a given place at a given time without the victim’s presence – from observing or recording the victim’s interaction with the police and actively contributes to breaching the confidentiality of the interaction with the victim by, for instance, talking on the phone with another customer – or worse – close enough to enable synchronized harassment of the victim’s interaction with the police as well as the transmission of the interaction’s informational content to third parties.
The investigation requests are technology neutral. To the extent that certain, prior to the effective solution of the criminal offences in question imperfectly or indirectly describable phenomena can be produced through other mechanisms than those classifiable as ICT implants, I am not claiming that these phenomena have been produced using ICT implants. This does not naturally exclude the possibility that at least some of the phenomena in question have in fact been produced using instruments that can be classified as ICT implants, or that there are – not unlike computer malware that is or remains undetectable to the user due to imperfect information – instruments that can be classified as ICT implants in my body that require the attention of the police, among others. The investigation requests also do not claim that all incidents or processes involving violence related to the case would have been produced using the same single method of technical implementation. The investigation requests are thus not “apparently based on a document prepared by some group” (the choice of wording reflects the police’s gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse). It is unreasonable to expect the victim of any type of crime to state the technical methods of implementation involved in the criminal offence in question – particularly in a manner that might conform to the “general life experience” of the police. It is particularly unreasonable in situations where the implementation – let alone the provision of appropriate evidence and solutions – of the criminal offence is likely to demand particularly deep and/or extensive expertise or resources. The available version of the document mentioned in the investigation request describes a potential method of implementation for relevant phenomena from a source that might even be regarded as relatively authoritative on a topic, on which, based on, for instance, a researcher’s “general life experience” all relevant information may not be publicly available at a reasonable cost. With the resources of the police procuring and internalizing such information may be regarded as significantly more reasonable – if not as a statutory duty. Does the police’s seemingly nearly total unpreparedness – and/or worse – to face a potential victim of this type of criminal offence regardless of the potential offence’s significance and its extreme consequences for the victim in itself already constitute evidence of malfeasance, violations of the principles of good governance and/or worse? Following the logic applied by the police, should Jorma Joensuu, Antti Palokangas and other police officers who may have been involved in processing my investigation requests be invited to the health center on the basis of the mental health law due to their manifestly subjective and unfounded view, according to which information that has been publicly available for years – if not decades for some parts – and is highly relevant for their profession is not, based on their “general life experience”, plausible? Does such a manifestly subjective and – unlike the views expressed in the investigation requests – easily falsifiable claim expressed by the police not at the minimum fulfill most – if not all – requirements for a successful complaint to the Ombudsman?
As a result of the police’s inappropriate actions and failures to act, the closure of investigation documents entirely omit potentially the main substance of the ongoing criminal processes – the group stalking campaign, which often involve violations of informational integrity, but can rarely be described comprehensively by explanatory models that focus exclusively on the implementation methods of such violations – and, for instance, other potential surveillance types involved in the “‘stepwise process’ from surveillance based on sound, video and biometrics to the surveillance, modification and networking of individuals implemented through other means than ICT implants.” The closure of investigation documents do not show that the police would have taken the group stalking campaign into account while preparing the documents, which provides further evidence of the police’s malfeasance, actions outside the scope of its authority and/or worse. The police has effectively decided not to provide a potential victim of torture and violations of informational integrity with circumstances, where information on other criminal offences – involving both the victim and potentially others, possibly including minors – could be discovered or disclosed. Instead, the police has decided – without justification – to request the victim of potentially a particularly serious type of criminal offence to be contacted by a party, which a “prudently considering person” who takes the nature of group stalking processes into account in his/her decisions could assume to constitute a substantial risk both for the exceptionally vulnerable victim of a criminal offence and the observance of publicly professed societal and professional ethical principles in general. A “prudently considering person” must thus, on the basis of factors related to group stalking processes in general and to this case in particular, inquire the police’s own role in the potential criminal processes in question. I ask the Ombudsman to investigate, what the police – including the Finnish Security Intelligence Service – has known about my case both at the time of preparing the closure of investigation documents and before the submission of my investigation requests – at a time when “prudently considering” police with “life experience” focusing exclusively on the best interests of the victim and/or compliance with the law in his case could have been expected, on its own initiative, to intervene in certain potential criminal processes and/or tendencies that the police has been or should have been aware of. While conducting the investigation, I ask the Ombudsman to take into account the consequences of the police’s inappropriate actions – on, for instance, the “justifiability” of the request that has been expressed here – in this case. Group stalking processes are rarely homogeneous in terms of time and place – perpetually unchanging combinations of criminal offences and harassment, which could be comprehensively examined at any given moment at any given location. An opportunity for a victim – who might be subject to potentially substantial informational, communicative and/or physical constraints, but might nonetheless have preserved a certain capacity for basic observation – to meet the police personally at a time when some elements of the group stalking processes were particularly intense in the city in question might have provided an opportunity for more extensive assessment of the police’s own potential role in the criminal and/or harassment processes in question. To the extent that the inappropriate actions of the police irrevocably denied the opportunity for such assessment, a “prudently considering person” may be bound to point out that the police, through its own acts of commission and/or omission, is responsible for the potential lack of substantive “justification” that, even based on the police’s own “life experience”, might implicate the police to certain criminal and/or harassment processes or more minor misdemeanours to a greater extent.
I ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to identify the mechanisms through which the victims’ physical integrity and privacy may be breached without the victims’ consent and often knowledge and appropriate means to protect the victims. In the words of the investigation request that was submitted on April 6, 2012, I ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to “documentably examine my entire body for ICT implants and any potential adverse health effects that they may have caused. I also ask the police to investigate other potential types of surveillance involved in the aforementioned ‘stepwise process’ from surveillance based on sound, video and biometrics to the surveillance, modification and networking of individuals implemented through other means than ICT implants… I also ask the police to investigate, whether the Government of Finland and/or other relevant parties have neglected their informational, legislative or other potential types of duties in regard of ICT implants, other surveillance technologies and group stalking processes.” I also ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to start investigating other criminal offences that are potentially and/or likely to be involved in this case before the victims’ privacy and bodily integrity has been secured. My blog writings at the following address may outline some of the criminal offences that are potentially and/or likely to be involved in this case.
http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/
In an informational sense a personal meeting with the police may no longer be warranted before the aforementioned process has been completed and the victims’ privacy and bodily integrity secured. As long as the documentability condition is fulfilled, the process for securing bodily integrity may thus be conducted also in some other location than the police’s premises with minimal communication relating to the case.
The police’s gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse may also be assumed to have had particularly significant societal consequences. Based on, for instance, the amount of resources and the breadth of expertise required for the implementation of the types of criminal offences described in the investigation requests, a “prudently considering person” might ask, how many individuals wielding, among other things, societal forms of power have at the minimum been aware of the possible mechanisms of implementation described, among other things, in the investigation requests for breaching the body’s internal and/or external informational integrity, if not actively participating in such breaches or in personal or wider scale exploitation of information obtained through them? In the view of a “prudently considering person”, how plausible would it be to assume, for instance, that the agglomeration of resources and expertise that is required for the implementation of the types of criminal offences described in the investigation requests would currently be working only against the author of the investigation requests, while complying with the law and other potentially relevant standards in the case of all other individuals outside or potentially inside the aforementioned agglomeration? To the extent that the mechanisms for breaching the body’s internal and/or the operating environment’s external informational integrity described, among other things, in the investigation requests, have been more widely known, the police is at the minimum guilty of discrimination and/or racism as a result of regarding its own manifestly narrow “general life experience” as a sufficiently comprehensive standard when assessing, for instance, the prudence of its consideration or the appropriateness of its use of discretionary powers. The police should have taken into account the possibility of a group or a sub-population, in the case of which “general life experience” may include facts described, among other things, in the investigation requests. In this regard I ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to investigate the appropriateness of the actions of all those individuals, who have (only) been aware of the possibility of implementing the types of criminal offences described, among other things, in the investigation requests, but may have failed to take such information appropriately into account in their occupational or other activities. I also ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to identify all those parties, who have had access to information that has been obtained in my case or other similar cases through breaches of the body’s internal and/or the external operating environment’s informational integrity that have been implemented using mechanisms described, among other things, in the investigation requests. In this regard I ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to take immediate action in order to initiate or to enable legal processes, which aim at or require removing all of the aforementioned parties from office and all other types of positions involving the exercise of societal authority. To the extent that the police’s gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse has delayed the initiation of such a process, the police may be regarded as being guilty of, among other things, aiding and abetting a conspiracy of potentially considerable proportions and/or violent terrorism – referring to these phenomena as “common practice” or some other politely obscene euphemism does not invalidate the substantive claims inherent in these wordings. While conducting the investigation I ask the police and/or the Ombudsman to take into account the apparent motives of some political, economic, academic etc. actors to hinder or delay the investigation of particularly serious potential crimes targeted at, in a sense, a particularly difficult-to-harass individual, who might be questioning or proving wrong some of the beliefs – if not sects that might be relatively vulnerable or averse to open and critical examination – appearing in these fields.
I also ask the Ombudsman to investigate the legality or appropriateness of the police’s activities to the extent that it may, in a formal sense, be regarded to have complied with some aspects of the law by following policy guidelines prepared by individuals who have not been appropriately tested and/or protected. (If appropriate mechanisms for testing and/or protection were in use, a “prudently considering person” might assume the police’s “general life experience” to include at least the possibility of the type of criminal offence in question, if not also the actual implementation methods for the aforementioned mechanisms for testing and/or protection.) In this regard the police has grossly negligently – if not illegally – failed to ensure that the policymakers in question have had an opportunity for free and private will-formation and communication without being subjected to the mechanisms of torture, enslavement and harassment or their threat described, among other things, in the investigation requests, or that the policy guidelines conveyed through any given policymakers have in fact been products of their independent and free consideration. I also ask the Ombudsman to investigate, to what extent the police’s grossly negligent – if not illegal – inability and/or unwillingness to update its “general life experience” into a more contemporary form in regard of the technologies described, among other things, in the investigation requests has facilitated the implementation of the types of criminal offence in question. A “prudently considering person” may assume that the police’s grossly negligent – if not illegal – inability and/or unwillingness to implement fast, effective and routine-like mechanisms for testing and/or protection has had a crucial effect on the ability or willingness of individuals in, among other things, positions of public or other types of authority to expose themselves to the obvious personal risks and/or likely consequences involved in conveying information on the types of criminal offences in question to others.
A “prudently considering person” may also be bound to point out that many of the charges made against the police in this complaint are potentially applicable also to the acts and/or omissions of the Ombudsman. By failing, on his own initiative, to intervene in the grossly negligent, malfeasant and/or worse actions or omissions of the police in regard of the types of criminal offences described, among other things, in the investigation requests significantly before the submission of my investigation requests, is the Ombudsman himself not guilty of, for instance, gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse? Has the “general life experience” of the Ombudsman been equally limited as in the case of the police, or has the Ombudsman knowingly exposed victims who are potentially in a particularly vulnerable position to the grossly negligent, malfeasant and/or worse actions or omissions of the police and potential escalations of the criminal processes? To the extent that the Ombudsman has been aware of the possibility of the types of criminal offences in question, has the Ombudsman not, by means of his decision not to intervene, been actively and knowingly participating in the criminal and harassment processes aiming at the holistic destruction of the victims’ lives? It might be regarded as a sign of particularly gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse on the part of the Ombudsman to wait until criminal and harassment processes potentially involving, among other things, particularly gross violations of privacy are covered “in public” or “in the public sphere” before intervening, on his own initiative, in the actions or omissions of public officials in relation to the criminal and harassment processes in question. The Ombudsman’s gross negligence, malfeasance and/or worse may be regarded as particularly aggravating in, for instance, situations, where the victim’s capacity to submit a complaint is subject to the same constraints as in the case of reporting the types of potential criminal offences in question to the police – whether in a manner that might, based on the police’s “general life experience”, be regarded as “justified” or not – or when some of the relevant officials have already decided not to adhere to the level of privacy desired by the victim, the victim has already been forced to make material related to the case public in order to attain the possibility of securing his/her basic rights, or the criminal and/or harassment process in question involves potential charges against some of the institutions or parties that may sometimes be assumed to at least partly constitute “publicity” or the “public sphere”. A “prudently considering person” may thus justifiably assume that the current Ombudsman is not competent, qualified or otherwise suitable for performing his duties in regard of this complaint or other tasks related to his position. I ask the Ombudsman, on his own initiative, to resign from his current post and the appropriate parties to appoint as his successor a person who, based, among other things, on “general life experience”, capacity for the appropriate use of discretionary powers and judgement and practically demonstrated immunity against the actual or latent complicities that may often be associated with group stalking processes is more suitable to perform the duties of the Ombudsman and to process this complaint.
The European Court of Human Rights has, by means of a decision communicated on November 22, 2012, decided not to examine my application (application number 23251/12 T.A. v. Finland). The decision does not indicate whether the Court will, as requested in my application, “Communicate its position on the substantive issues raised in this application irrespective of whether the Court declares this application admissible.” In regard of the events in Rovaniemi a police report (receipt number 141170284) has been filed on November 30, 2012.
Attached are copies of the text of investigation requests 8630/S/2137/12 and 8630/S/2147/12 and the closure of investigation document 8630/S/2137/12.
My postal address, to which all correspondence related to this case should be sent, is
Tero Auvinen
Famiiru Yoshioka 203
1-11-7 Kamata, Ohta-ku
Tokyo 144-0052
JAPAN
[End of the message sent to the Ombudsman. Below are translations of the investigation requests 8630/S/2137/12 and 8630/S/2147/12 that were attached to the complaint.]
Investigation request [8630/S/2137/12]
According to the version of the document “Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body” published by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies in 2005 that is available to the undersigned:
-ICT implants can be used to locate individuals.
-ICT implants can influence, determine or change psychic functions.
-ICT implants can be used in order to have a remote control over the will of people. ["(remote control over the will of people)" was included in English in the original investigation request for the sake of clarity.]
-ICT implants with network capability can be misused in several ways for all kinds of social surveillance and manipulation.
-In some cases ICT implants suitable for individual and social forms of control are already in use.
-ICT implants can influence the human nervous system and the brain and thus also human autonomy and identity both as individuals and as a species.
-There are no reliable scientific investigations concerning the long-term health impact of ICT implants in the human body. Potential health or security risks that are cited include e.g. adverse tissue reaction, migration of the implanted transponder, compromised information security, failure of implanted transponder, failure of inserter, failure of electronic scanner, electromagnetic interference, electrical hazards, magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility, and needle stick.
-ICT implants may allow the information contained in electronic devices to be changed remotely without the data subject’s knowledge.
-An individual’s consent is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to legitimize the use of implants. Implants should never be used against the data subject’s wishes and/or unbeknownst to him/her.
-There is a stepwise shift in progress from surveillance based on video and biometrics to the modification and networking of individuals via various electronic devices, implants and RFIDs.
-ICT implants may enable the control of an individual’s body and the dispossession of autonomy, bringing one’s body under the control of others. ["(individuals are dispossessed of their own bodies and thereby of their own autonomy. The body ends up being under others' control.)" was included in English in the original investigation request for the sake of clarity.]
-ICT implants may be used for changing an individual’s identity, memory and self perception and to change an individual’s perception of others.
-ICT implants for surveillance threaten human dignity. State authorities, individuals and groups could use them to increase their power over others.
-Human dignity should not only be respected, but also protected by taking steps actively in order to bring about the conditions allowing individuals to live with dignity.
-Autonomy of the individual becomes especially important in connection with ruling out that a person’s conduct may be determined and/or influenced by external entities.
-ICT implants may contribute to the creation of “networked individuals” who are continuously connected, allowing, for instance, movements, habits and contacts to be traced and defined. This would be bound to modify the meaning and contents of an individual’s autonomy and to affect their dignity.
-In the case of individuals who have become parts of an ICT network via implants, it is particularly important to ensure the transparency of the entire network (who has access to it, who can retrieve information from it, who can change it, and so forth).
-Legislation is necessary to regulate technology that modifies the body and its relationship with the environment and thereby impacts deeply on personal identity and life.
-Public debate and education are essential to ensure transparency and the Member States have a responsibility to ensure that the power of development and access to ICT implants are decided through democratic processes.
I suspect to be a victim of a type of criminal offence, where the possibility of an ICT implant or implants being installed into my body without my knowledge and consent cannot be ruled out with certainty. I ask the police to documentably examine my entire body for ICT implants and any potential adverse health effects that they may have caused. I also ask the police to investigate other potential types of surveillance involved in the aforementioned “stepwise process” from surveillance based on sound, video and biometrics to the surveillance, modification and networking of individuals implemented through other means than ICT implants. If the aforementioned suspicion turns out to be even partly correct, information on my body, actions, surroundings etc. may even at this moment be transmitted to parties unknown to me. This substantially limits the possibility to discuss the details of the case before the aforementioned investigation process has been completed.
I also suspect to be a victim of a large-scale and long-standing group stalking process. I may submit a more detailed investigation request regarding the group stalking process after the implementation of the measures that have been deemed to be appropriate based on the aforementioned investigation has been completed. The surveillance, networking and/or group stalking processes may also have contributed to the emergence and development of serious, long-term and in terms of their eventual nature or impact potentially still indeterminate adverse health effects.
I also ask the police to investigate, whether the Government of Finland and/or other relevant parties have neglected their informational, legislative or other potential types of duties in regard of ICT implants, other surveillance technologies and group stalking processes.
Oulu 5.4.2012 [submitted on April 6, 2012]
Tero Auvinen
Kaislatie 3 T 10
90150 Oulu
I ask to be contacted preferably via registered regular mail and, when visiting the police station in person, for the possibility to discuss confidentially without the presence of other customers. I am not reachable by phone.
Investigation request [8630/S/2147/12]
I ask the police to investigate, whether my academic research-in-progress or other types of drafts or thoughts conveyed through other means have been transmitted to outsiders. I also ask the police to investigate, whether any form of research, development or in other ways economically or scientifically significant activity utilizing the aforementioned material or thoughts is taking place at companies, public entities, universities or other entities that may be suitable for the exploitation of such material or ideas.
When assessing potential economic significance or the general exploitability of ideas for other purposes, the following factors, for instance, may be noteworthy:
-It is not necessary to utilize or apply ideas in their present or plagiarized form in order to derive economic or other types of benefit. Material suitable for understanding, forecasting, modifying etc. general societal or more narrowly defined trends, for instance, may offer significant benefits to the end-user irrespective of occupational field or the types of activities or courses of action which may follow the stolen material’s internalization by the end-user.
-The commercial, theoretical or other types of exploitation of the stolen material is not necessarily most widespread and/or advanced in the same field from which it may have been extracted.
-Even in the narrowly defined field of academic research it is not necessary for an activity to conform to all conceivable definitions of plagiarism before it can be regarded as being exploiting the stolen material or providing evidence thereof. Copying and publishing the material in its stolen form, for instance, is not a precondition for research that might be based on or in other ways utilize the stolen material.
-Potential, realized, or demonstratable economic gain may not accurately describe the extent of the damage caused. In cases where the potential criminal offence partly involves material or property that is not for sale and/or factors that are potentially of considerable humanly significance, economic considerations cannot be regarded as the only relevant justification for starting the investigation.
Oulu 8.4.2012
Tero Auvinen
Kaislatie 3 T 10
90150 Oulu
I ask to be contacted preferably via registered regular mail and, when visiting the police station in person, for the possibility to discuss confidentially without the presence of other customers. I am not reachable by phone.
December 18, 2012
UK police
Below is a copy of my email correspondence with the Coventry Police in the UK.
1) How long do the Brits let the police get away with pretending that its 19th century approach to reporting criminal offences – with clearly identifiable offenders, locations and types of criminal offences that the victim may reasonably be expected to be able to both comprehend and to recount to the police with no special training or types of protection – remains adequate in the 21st century when many criminal offences may be either continuous or not easily describable in terms of simple temporal dichotomies, technologically advanced, non-trivially detectable or demonstratable even with resources and expertise and potentially affecting the victim’s ability to comprehend and to communicate the facts – if not personality, personhood, or the very nature of humanness or life in general?
2) To the extent that my emails “are making no sense”, as suggested by PC McInally in the email of 11 December 2012, is the police not acting at the minimum negligently by not taking up, on its own initiative, the possibility of cognitive harassment and/or physical torture as potential sources of the victim’s alleged confusion? To the extent that my emails are making sense, is the police not acting at the minimum grossly negligently due to, among other things, its apparent unwillingness to guarantee a potential victim’s physical integrity and privacy?
3) How can one enter into correspondence with the police where the “views or opinions expressed” do represent those of the police? The police is effectively refusing to investigate potentially a particularly serious criminal offence, while leaving open the possibility that such a decision does not “represent the views or opinions” of the police.
4) How to obtain the police’s postal address for registered regular mail? Suppose, for instance, that I am a victim of criminal processes that have been explicitly designed to torture me to silence – if not death – through the fastest available route while still being presentable to corruptible outsiders as being, say, “communicative” rather than violent in nature. Does the police not have any kind of a duty to let me prove my identity and to engage in correspondence where the “views or opinions expressed” do represent those of the police, so that if there ever will be a moment in the human history where a sufficient number of individuals know what is going on and remain able and willing to act, the acts and omissions of the police in this case or other similar cases could be challenged by anyone able and willing to do so?
5) Regarding the email of 10 December 2012 from the Coventry Contact Centre, is the police not effectively giving up British sovereignty by making the investigation of potentially a particularly serious criminal offence conditional upon the performance of the police in another country? In cases where “your local police” may already have demonstrated its incompetence or worse in at least one jurisdiction, is the UK police not effectively deciding not to investigate potentially a particularly serious criminal offence committed in the UK? Or is this all part of a UK educational policy of returning excessively independent externally funded postdocs back to countries that may be unlikely to cause legal trouble after plagiarizable units of research-in-progress have been extracted from the victims without their consent and often knowledge?
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:22501) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1212111261885.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 11
Dec 2012 12:05:58 -0800
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHN0fB6Ky089tR/zkSLIx/XDtDgH5gIzr6GgAipHACAApkabA==
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:05:40 +0000
Message-ID: <C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A7EFC9@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <fc48d3b0644.00000a44teau@inbox.com>,<461F24D36E0.000008CBteau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <461F24D36E0.000008CBteau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.101.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A7EFC9EXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.41
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.41;0.00
–_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A7EFC9EXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mr Auvinen
Your emails are making no sense and, frankly, are wasting your time and ours. My advice to you is that no further email correspondence will be entered into with you and future emails will be disregarded.
PC McInally
Coventry Contact Centre
[Below is the first reply from the Coventry Contact Centre to my email of 10 December 2012. This message was not included in the second reply from PC McInally on 11 December 2012]
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:57072) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1212100017136.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Mon, 10
Dec 2012 00:17:19 -0800
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHN0fB6Ky089tR/zkSLIx/XDtDgH5gIzr6GgAipHACAAEF39A==
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:17:14 +0000
Message-ID: <A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70584A353@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <fc48d3b0644.00000a44teau@inbox.com>,<461F24D36E0.000008CBteau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <461F24D36E0.000008CBteau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.101.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70584A353EXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.41
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.41;0.00
–_000_A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70584A353EXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sir
given your concerns I suggest you report any offences to your local police who can securely pass the information over to ourselves.
Regards
Coventry Contact Centre
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 10 December 2012 04:21
To: cv contact centre
Subject: RE: RE: RE:
Just repeating the same anachronistic and clearly inappropriate – if not illegal – requests will not make them any more pertinent to this case. You can hardly expect potential victims of any types of breaches of physical or cognitive informational integrity to be able and/or willing to “outline the facts clearly” – let alone to an extent that might constitute a “full version of events”. This is particularly apparent in cases which may also involve cognitive harassment, manipulation, modification, violence – whether purely external or partly relying on the victims’ bodily reactions or responses for its effectiveness – or outright torture. Without first making sure that the victims have a private and unhampered opportunity to cognitively form and communicate facts that may be relevant to the case, the appropriate conditions for the victims to freely form and convey “the facts” or other types of information that might reasonably be expected from the victims, given the nature of the alleged or potential criminal offences, simply do not exist. By insisting on “the facts” or even a “full version of events” in the presence of potentially particularly gross violations of some of the victims’ basic rights, you are exposing potential victims of ongoing violent crime, harassment and enslavement to the risk of an immediate escalation of the criminal and harassment processes as well as accepting as “facts” – or even as a “full version of events” – communication that the victims have clearly not been free to form and convey.
One of your first tasks would be to find out, for instance, how thinking, writing and other types of cognitive or communicative processes can be disturbed by associating specific words or thoughts with specific effects or responses in specific parts of your body or environment. Before the potential victims’ physical integrity and internal and external informational privacy has been guaranteed, it is simply not possible to give a “full account” of the events and any attempt to do so may be a highly unpleasant, if not torturous, experience for the victims – not to mention the rather extreme implications on the likely level of cognitive privacy which alone would prevent the victims from freely forming and communicating issues that may be relevant to the case. Once you have identified the mechanisms through which bodily integrity and cognitive privacy may be breached without the victims’ consent and in some cases knowledge and found out how to protect the victims from these techniques, it would be your task to identify the offenders – including potentially everyone who has had access to information that has been involuntarily extracted from the victims or their environment and/or has been aware of the technical feasibility of implementing these types of offences and failed to protect the victims’ or the public interest appropriately. It is quite possible to argue that the protection of each individual’s physical integrity and cognitive privacy, for instance, should be a routine procedure that is or can be implemented independently of any suspected criminal offences, and that the Coventry Police – due to, among other things, its apparent failure to prepare itself for the prevention of these types of criminal offences or to guarantee some of the potential victims’ basic rights even after they have stated the possibility of this type of criminal offence – is likely to be among the potential offenders.
There may be no obvious reason to assume that at least some aspects of the criminal and harassment processes would not have continued for the entire duration of our stay in the UK in December 2010 – April 2011. For some types of offences the location is thus likely to be my physical location at each moment while in the UK, mostly Lakemba, 111 Kirby Corner Road, Coventry CV4 8GL.
Could you please let me know about your address for registered regular mail.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:44288) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1212040906840.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 4
Dec 2012 08:11:54 -0800
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHN0fB6Ky089tR/zkSLIx/XDtDgH5gIzr6G
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:11:45 +0000
Message-ID: <C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A7E12A@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <FC48D3B0644.00000A44teau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <FC48D3B0644.00000A44teau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.231.101.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A7E12AEXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.21
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.21;0.00
–_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A7E12AEXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sir,
if you are the victim of a criminal offence that occurred whilst you were at the University of Warwick you will have to be more specific and outline the facts clearly.
We will need the dates, times and persons involved, both the victim(s) and the offender (s) we will also need to know the location ( s ) of all incidents…
If you are not able to provide these details , then it will be well nigh impossible to further you r enquiry.
As has already been stated , if an offence has taken place we will need full details and this will involve the taking of a full version of events from the victim.
With Thanks
Coventry Police
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 04 December 2012 07:25
To: cv contact centre
Subject: FW: RE: RE:
—–Original Message—–
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:20:57 -0800
Message-ID: <AE314B9E256.000007B0teau@inbox.com>
From: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE:
To: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
X-REPLY-ID: 891
X-THREAD-ID: 1
In-Reply-To:
<A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70584739C@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <6e581ebe875.000000b9teau@inbox.com>
<edab6ad0a55.00000aa9teau@inbox.com> <67ab2d9c009.0000017bteau@inbox.com>
<e81fa418933.00000714teau@inbox.com> <507cfca1d5e.000006bbteau@inbox.com>
X-Mailer: INBOX.COM
X-Originating-IP: 110.3.244.32
X-Max-AId: 0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Once again, bodily integrity and cognitive privacy would have to be guaranteed prior to any form of questioning. One of your first tasks would be to identify the mechanisms through which bodily integrity and cognitive privacy may be breached without the victims’ consent and in some cases knowledge and to find out how to protect the victims from these techniques. This does not mean that you should not investigate other potential and/or likely criminal offences involved in this case before the victims’ bodily integrity and cognitive privacy can be guaranteed.
Our address while in the UK was Lakemba, 111 Kirby Corner Road, Coventry CV4 8GL.
I would prefer not to send personal information via email. Could you please send your postal address for registered regular mail.
Did you receive an email from me that was sent on November 8, 2012?
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
—–Original Message—–
From:cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk
Sent:Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:35:06 +0000
To:teau@inbox.com
Subject:RE: RE:
Morning
please clarify what offences you are reporting, details of the offenders, times and dates and your date of birth, address whilst in the UK and any other relevant information.
Thank you
Coventry Contact Centre
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 23 November 2012 00:28
To: cv contact centre
Subject: RE: RE:
Yes, I am the visiting academic that I was referring to earlier, although I am unlikely to be the only victim in this case. As should be obvious from the blog, some of the potential charges include physical torture, threats to life, extreme violations of privacy and unauthorized access to unpublished academic work and other types of information. As these processes are still ongoing, some of the alleged criminal offences would effectively have to be solved before the case can be discussed in detail.
I have not had previous communications with the UK Police regarding this matter.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:26627) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1211060135388.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 6
Nov 2012 01:29:56 -0800
Received: from mailb.west-midlands.pnn.police.uk ([51.67.240.67] helo=tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local)
by cjx1g.pnn.police.uk with esmtp (envelope-from <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>)
id 1TVfTl-0002jO-If
for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:29:54 +0000
Received: from EXCH-CH-004.wmpad.local (10.230.17.42) by
tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local (192.168.10.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.355.2; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:26:42 +0000
Received: from EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local ([fe80::c1f2:d3e3:60a7:c574]) by
EXCH-CH-004.wmpad.local ([fe80::4ce5:2b43:d5cb:4efe%36]) with mapi id
14.01.0339.001; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:29:37 +0000
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHNsLe9QxcDPkfXE0uB57kWZj+/dZfGrrRMgAsm9dmAATBdgIACdXkwgABwTQCABrToTw==
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:29:36 +0000
Message-ID: <A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70583B4C1@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <edab6ad0a55.00000aa9teau@inbox.com>
<e81fa418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>
<507cfca1d5e.000006bbteau@inbox.com>,<67AB2D9C009.0000017Bteau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <67AB2D9C009.0000017Bteau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.231.101.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70583B4C1EXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.31
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.31;0.00
–_000_A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70583B4C1EXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Morning
could you please advise whether you have had previous communications with the Police regarding this matter and confirm whether you are the victim in the case. If so could you give brief details of the incident in order for us to assess it.
Regards
Coventry Contact Centre
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 02 November 2012 03:03
To: cv contact centre
Subject: RE: RE:
You can reach me at the following postal address:
Tero Auvinen
Famiiru Yoshioka 203
1-11-7 Kamata, Ohta-ku,
Tokyo 144-0052
JAPAN
Would it not be possible to “ascertain full details and if there are any criminal offences” in cases where the victim may no longer have any fixed contact details?
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:20784) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1211011249277.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Thu, 1
Nov 2012 12:23:30 -0800
Received: from mailb.west-midlands.pnn.police.uk ([51.67.240.67] helo=tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local)
by cjx1j.secure-ops.net with esmtp (envelope-from <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>)
id 1TU1IW-0008Vs-c3
for teau@inbox.com; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:23:29 +0000
Received: from EXCH-CH-002.wmpad.local (10.230.17.40) by
tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local (192.168.10.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.355.2; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:20:38 +0000
Received: from EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local ([fe80::c1f2:d3e3:60a7:c574]) by
EXCH-CH-002.wmpad.local ([fe80::884c:7167:640:1c5e%36]) with mapi id
14.01.0339.001; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:23:27 +0000
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHNsLe9QxcDPkfXE0uB57kWZj+/dZfGrrRMgAsm9dmAATBdgIACdXkw
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:23:26 +0000
Message-ID: <C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A69EBA@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <edab6ad0a55.00000aa9teau@inbox.com>
<e81fa418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>,<507CFCA1D5E.000006BBteau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <507CFCA1D5E.000006BBteau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.101.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A69EBAEXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.31
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.31;0.00
–_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A69EBAEXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sir,
As previously advised in this email we need full contact details of the victim so we can ascertain full details and if there are any criminal offences.
Regards
Coventry CMC
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 31 October 2012 06:48
To: cv contact centre
Subject: RE: RE:
I don’t have a phone and we no longer live in the UK. The group stalking campaign has continued elsewhere after the visiting fellowship at the University of Warwick. Bodily integrity and cognitive privacy would have to be guaranteed prior to any form of questioning.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:58442) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1210300450461.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 30
Oct 2012 04:42:22 -0800
Received: from mailb.west-midlands.pnn.police.uk ([51.67.240.67] helo=tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local)
by cjx1i.secure-ops.net with esmtp (envelope-from <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>)
id 1TTB9A-0000Yn-Vx
for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:42:21 +0000
Received: from EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local (10.230.17.41) by
tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local (192.168.10.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.355.2; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:39:33 +0000
Received: from EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local ([fe80::c1f2:d3e3:60a7:c574]) by
EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 30 Oct 2012
12:42:19 +0000
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHNsLe9QxcDPkfXE0uB57kWZj+/dZfGrrRMgAsm9dk=
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:42:19 +0000
Message-ID: <C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A693D7@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <e81fa418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>,<EDAB6AD0A55.00000AA9teau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDAB6AD0A55.00000AA9teau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.101.30]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A693D7EXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.31
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.31;0.00
–_000_C304B43DE66CD14CADB3C7C01CC100D704A693D7EXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Sir,
Please can you given us the name and contact details of the victim(ie Telephone number). This is so we can make contact them and if appropriate arrange an interview. If this person lives outside the West Midlands Police area but still in the UK, this should be reported to them for a statement of evidence. This would then be forwarded to ourselves.
Regards
Coventry Contact Centre
Tel: 101 or 0345 113 5000
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 23 October 2012 11:10
To: cv contact centre
Subject: RE:
Thank you for your email. I was a visiting researcher at the University of Warwick, Department of Politics and International Studies [personal information removed]. Our address at that time was Lakemba, 111 Kirby Corner Road, Coventry CV4 8GL.
My blog (http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/) gives an idea of some of the allegations. Detailed explanation of the circumstances of the case would require at the minimum bodily integrity and cognitive privacy.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Received: from cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:29845) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1210230111166.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 23
Oct 2012 01:11:37 -0800
Received: from mailb.west-midlands.pnn.police.uk ([51.67.240.67] helo=tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local)
by cjx1e.pnn.police.uk with esmtp (envelope-from <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>)
id 1TQaWN-0007xE-5D
for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:11:35 +0100
Received: from EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local (10.230.17.41) by
tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local (192.168.10.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.355.2; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:08:46 +0100
Received: from EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local ([fe80::c1f2:d3e3:60a7:c574]) by
EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 23 Oct 2012
10:11:24 +0100
From: cv contact centre <cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHNsLe8m6MPJMkjb0eXK/7f1pGtOpfGmsHl
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:11:24 +0000
Message-ID: <A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70583ADD5@EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local>
References: <E81FA418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <E81FA418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.17.206]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”_000_A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70583ADD5EXCHCH001wmpadl_”
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.51
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.51;0.00
–_000_A0E868B531B84745A87C3456E93D46C70583ADD5EXCHCH001wmpadl_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Morning
we would require the victim’s contact details in order to speak to him/her and ascertain what has occurred or for the victim to make contact with us directly. If there are offences brought to light we will make a diary appointment with the victim. We can not take 3rd party reports.
Regards
Coventry Contact Centre
Received: from contactusnew_wmp@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:56780) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1210230301751.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 23
Oct 2012 03:01:36 -0800
Received: from mailb.west-midlands.pnn.police.uk ([51.67.240.67] helo=tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local)
by cjx1f.pnn.police.uk with esmtp (envelope-from <Contactusnew_WMP@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>)
id 1TQcEo-0003lJ-Bh
for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:01:34 +0100
Received: from EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local (10.230.17.39) by
tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local (192.168.10.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.355.2; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:58:26 +0100
Received: from EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local ([fe80::fcef:65c3:1e5e:9992]) by
EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local ([fe80::c1f2:d3e3:60a7:c574%42]) with mapi id
14.01.0339.001; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:01:05 +0100
From: Contactusnew WMP <Contactusnew_WMP@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE: RE:
Thread-Topic: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHNsQg8EObUY5g2PkuENgDTrtCVkJfGuPtj
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:01:04 +0000
Message-ID: <3363BB608F65AE44952A81194E387870CA45C1@EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local>
References: <e81fa418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>,<EDAE3A8A861.00000AABteau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDAE3A8A861.00000AABteau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.17.206]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 1.72
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;0.00;1.72
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your e-mail. This has been forwarded to the relevant department for their
attention.
Kind regards
THE CONTACTUS TEAM
WEST MIDLANDS POLICE
JFD/C
To report crime and anti-social behaviour which does not require an emergency response please call 101. In an emergency call 999, For all other enquiries (or for callers outside the West Midlands) dial 0345 113 5000
Our vision ‘Serving Our Communities, Protecting Them From Harm’
Website: http://www.west-midlands.police.uk
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
View all our social network links
________________________________________
From: Tero Auvinen [teau@inbox.com]
Sent: 23 October 2012 11:11
To: Contactusnew_WMP@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Thank you for your email. I was a visiting researcher at the University of Warwick, Department of Politics and International Studies [personal information removed]. Our address at that time was Lakemba, 111 Kirby Corner Road, Coventry CV4 8GL.
My blog (http://teroauvinen.wordpress.com/) gives an idea of some of the allegations. Detailed explanation of the circumstances of the case would require at the minimum bodily integrity and cognitive privacy.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
Received: from contactusnew_wmp@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk by
(64.135.83.95:25) via mail.pnn.police.uk (212.62.5.146:50562) with
[InBox.Com SMTP Server] id 1210221855007.WH95 for teau@inbox.com; Mon, 22
Oct 2012 18:55:01 -0800
Received: from mailb.west-midlands.pnn.police.uk ([51.67.240.67] helo=tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local)
by cjx1h.pnn.police.uk with esmtp (envelope-from <Contactusnew_WMP@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>)
id 1TQUdv-0005Xx-PS
for teau@inbox.com; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:55:00 +0100
Received: from EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local (10.230.17.39) by
tmgmail-ch-1.wmpad.local (192.168.10.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
14.1.355.2; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:52:01 +0100
Received: from EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local ([fe80::fcef:65c3:1e5e:9992]) by
EXCH-CH-001.wmpad.local ([fe80::c1f2:d3e3:60a7:c574%42]) with mapi id
14.01.0339.001; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:54:39 +0100
From: Contactusnew WMP <Contactusnew_WMP@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk>
To: Tero Auvinen <teau@inbox.com>
Subject: RE:
Thread-Index: AQHNsLe88E+ZWp0QNki9sV0yAT5+bpfGMZO+
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:54:38 +0000
Message-ID: <3363BB608F65AE44952A81194E387870CA3358@EXCH-CH-003.wmpad.local>
References: <E81FA418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <E81FA418933.00000714teau@inbox.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.230.17.206]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ACL-Warn: X-Virus Scan: F-Secure 9
X-PNN3-Rtr: dnslookup
X-Spam-Ratio: 2.21
X-Spam-Details: 0;0;0;2.21;0.00
Good morning
Thankyou for your e-mail, please can you e-mail back with more information i.e where this was happening, who was targeted etc. This enquiry can then be forwarded to the relevant department .
THE CONTACTUS TEAM
WEST MIDLANDS POLICE
KM/D
To report crime and anti-social behaviour which does not require an emergency response please call 101. In an emergency call 999, For all other enquiries (or for callers outside the West Midlands) dial 0345 113 5000
Our vision ‘Serving Our Communities, Protecting Them From Harm’
Website: http://www.west-midlands.police.uk
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
View all our social network links
From: teau@inbox.com
Sent: 23 October 2012 00:35
To: contactusnew_wmp@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk; cv mailbox; cv_contact_centre@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk
Subject:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to inquire how to request the police to investigate a group stalking campaign that was targeted against a visiting academic at the University of Warwick in early 2011.
Kind regards,
Tero Auvinen
September 27, 2012
Heroes of Death, Every One of Them?[1]
How many politicians, CEOs, researchers, spiritual leaders, representatives of the media or other types of power-wielders have, on their own initiative, told or would tell you (and act according to the exigencies of the situation and conscience), for instance, about the following things?
-Your thoughts can be read. The cognitive and/or biological processes of your body may even at this moment be subject to measurement and/or modification.
-The power-wielder in question may well be aware of the breaches of his/her/your body’s informational integrity, if not willingly and actively participating in them.
-Your thoughts and details of your life can be fed back to you through several different communication channels and used, for instance, as the source material for time-optimized physical and psychological violence.
-Illnesses and/or their symptoms can be deliberately caused and/or simulated.
-The acceptability of any specific thought can be forcibly communicated even to the most difficult and/or unwilling neurolinguistic students. (Those readers who have so far been spared from violent mind molestation may think about the following example. You have the technical capacity to cause specific physical effects, sensations or worse to the targeted individual. How would you make clear to that person that the implementation of a specific line of thought threatens his/her life? What types of sensory stimuli or physical effects would you choose and to which organ, organs and/or parts of the body would you direct the effects or series of responses? What kind of a sensitizing strategy might in the longer term reduce the need for unusual – and thus potentially more easily verifiable – effects or series of responses?)
Even in the case of torture-proof and self-preservation instinct-less agents a potential informational dilemma may hinder open communication: how to plan – let alone implement – communication and/or action under constant surveillance and harassment? Lack of cognitive informational integrity deprives a person of at least that part of his/her cognitive processes, memories, identity etc. that can in any given circumstances be left out from the conscious thinking processes. Often – if not always – the damage is substantially more severe. Conscious cognitive line-drawing would already require cognitive privacy. Circumstances, situations or problems requiring active thinking on the part of the victim may not be describable even in general terms before the mechanisms of mind molestation are dismantled and the body’s informational integrity guaranteed. Torture-like forced physical or sensory responses that are independent of the informational content of the cognitive processes further destroy substantive thinking capacity. Part of “political”, “scientific” etc. communication takes place in circumstances, where potentially every participant in the conversation knows that the presumed type of communication cannot take place.
-There is no reliable communication channel. Internet – or ostensibly similar closed or in other ways controlled system – user may never be quite sure about the authenticity of the material appearing on his/her screen. Even in the case of technically unfiltered organic internet the selection of search engine results or customization of page contents may be based on harassment algorithms rather than the genuine informational needs and preferences of the user: any information collected on the user may be fed back to him/her in any proportion to “authentic”, pre-customized (“)information(“), (“)news(“), or other material based on political and/or commercial considerations. In theory this might mean, for instance, real-time monologue with your own thoughts through “the internet”, while “the internet” seeks to constantly learn more about your behavior and thinking patterns. Almost any type of digital material can be edited while (re)writing history and (re)packaged into reattributable publications or informational packages optimized for certain occupational contexts.
Seemingly uncustomized material often includes customization that may be meaningful to specific individuals in specific situations. Without such asymmetric customization or occult tailoring the media would operate in both economic and political senses inefficiently – the unused communication capacity would require explanation rather than unprejudiced inquiry into the ways in which such communication capacity may be used. The commercial and power political potential of asymmetric customization may be augmented by the psychiatrisms that may often be associated with it: the unjustified attempts to direct the examination of certain phenomena to a psychiatric and/or psychological viewpoint instead of other, intuitively and objectively more appropriate approaches. What kind of an operating environment and agentic moral standards would be needed for the media to be able to refuse to fulfill its potential (occult) elite-integrating and dissident-suppressing function? (“)News(“)-like narratives and (in the most commonly understood contexts) often seemingly inappropriate expressions provide the elite with an opportunity to perform their class privilege and internal pecking order and remind potential class war deserters of the likely consequences of sudden and excessive outbursts of conscience or morality. In the case of dissidents the psychiatristic illusion provides a potentially cost-effective option for eliminating political opponents: if – according to a certain fictitious viewpoint – the media is by definition incapable of, say, feeding back information that has been gathered on a certain individual through legal and illegal methods in a form that is intelligible to him/her, any potential failure to use such a mechanism – rather than its occasional or regular use – would appear to require explanation. In principle a substantial proportion of the topic-, word- etc. selections of various types of media operating in several different countries might be based on intelligence information gathered on a specific individual and/or process – in the extreme on real-time communication based on the targeted individual’s thoughts. Asymmetric customization has both substantive – pecking-order-reflecting and (occult) miracle-expressing – and stylistic-technical dimensions. Whenever needed, some members of the elite may attempt to reduce substantively relevant occult customization into mere stylistic-technical noise in order to protect the established modes of organization and communication from excessively realistic examination by outsiders who are insufficiently committed to the elitist agendas and/or disciplinary mechanisms.
-In some contexts also political, economic etc. decisions involve substantive customization. Both rewards and punishments are distributed vicariously to individuals who would normally not be considered to have deserved them. One of the easiest – and in the metaphysical sense not necessarily entirely groundless – approaches to understand this might involve viewing it as a parody of Christianity – as a parody of the irreproducibility and inimitability of the redemptive significance of the vicarious sufferings of the Son of God. The creation of real or perceived interdependencies provides an opportunity to build artificial integration and politically exploitable differences of worldviews.
-Nearly all societal functions and occupational and/or social interactions may be transformed into stages of social theater or warfare: organized series of situations with the aim of harming the victim. A substantial proportion of the harm caused is objectively real crime and/or damage that is independent of the victim’s attitudes or methods of coping. Once a sufficient degree of organization has been reached the principles of psychiatrism and credibilism may, however, be applicable to a wide range of social situations and institutional contexts. The more unlikely a certain coordinated event or series of events may appear to an outsider, the greater its credibilistic potential in the unjustified discrediting of a victim who may not be assumed to have principled objections to the truthful description of such events. Virtually any institution irrespective of its openly stated operating principles or objectives may be used for the purposes of structural harassment and/or crime. Without excluding other possible explanations, a profit-maximizing firm may in certain circumstances attain its objectives more effectively by using its existing infrastructure for the harassment and/or crime against dissidents. The economic gain derived from harassment, stolen material and other forms of illegal activities may well exceed the total costs of such operations, while the legal system – to the extent that it reacts to such crimes at all – may act as an involuntary market-making and price-setting mechanism: as a (“)price(“)-setter for types of material or illegalities that would never have been effectively buyable or (cut-rate) priceable without the help of the legal system. It may also not be obvious that the majority of the owners of a profit-maximizing firm would necessarily want to recycle the resources needed for harassment and/or illegal activities through the company’s bookkeeping, particularly in cases where some of the harassment services would be implementable directly through the firm’s existing infrastructure.
At the individual level anyone may knowingly or unknowingly become a part of harassment and/or criminal processes aiming to harm a specific victim. In some cases children are mobilized to perform certain roles in organized social situations. If you and/or your children happen to be targets of organized harassment and/or crime, you may not expect anyone to act truthfully or to fulfill minimum standards of occupational ethics and/or morality.
-You are either a part of the surveillance-nihilistic information plutocracy or against it. It may not be obvious what might be achieved through (“)communication(“) with individuals cooperating with or co-opted by the information plutocracy. Your own communication may always be distributed to wider audiences unknown to you, while your interlocutor may seldom be willing to engage in an open conversation even based on his/her personal understanding and worldview. You probably already have been a target of the information plutocracy’s theatrical (“)interviews(“): asymmetric, (“)informationally(“) exploitative social situations, where your interlocutor or other programmable response-enticer is at least aware of the potentially wider distribution of the contents of your (“)communication(“), if not actively creating organized social situations or (“)informational(“) exchanges that might subsequently be used against you. In case you become a target of wider social warfare, there may be attempts to co-opt all your family members, acquaintances, contacts, providers of services you utilize etc. knowingly or (“)unknowingly(“) into organized harassment and/or crime processes. Many of them may not understand the victim’s circumstances and/or attitudes toward them. Some may be estranged from the victim through co-optation into harassment and/or crime or other means before the source and nature of the relevant politically exploitable differences in information or worldviews could have been identified through open communication.
How to act in a situation in which nearly the entire elite regardless of occupational, ideological etc. labels and a large part of the individuals who have become involved in the harassment processes at least silently or implicitly approve widespread structural crime and/or harassment – if not actively participate in them, potentially in roles defined or inspired by someone else? (To the extent that any one of them might claim otherwise, they would appear to be vulnerable to the same charges of psychiatrism and credibilism that may sometimes be directed at the victims among sufficiently naive audiences: how, where, when etc. exactly have they expressed their objections to structural crime and/or harassment? On what kinds of worldviews, communication methods etc. are those interpretations based on? In principle it is quite possible that within their own cognitive frameworks any of the co-opted individuals genuinely believe to be fighting structural crime and/or striving to (“)help(“) the victims. The potential benefits of such activities may nonetheless not be entirely obvious to victims or audiences who may, for instance, not be able to verify the accuracy of such claims, would select drastically different courses of action in identical circumstances based on the same information, or who view the relevant cognitive frameworks themselves as problematic.)
In case individuals causing similar physical, economic etc. harm were of different nationalities and cross-border mobility was involved, the appropriate course of action suggested by some individuals wielding power under the label of state sovereignty might be relatively straightforward: instead of social warfare the situation would constitute a conflict between nations and every socialized soul that has been appropriated for state use through conscription would have an effective responsibility to kill for the common good. If, on the other hand, the social status of the individuals engaging in the design and/or implementation of structural criminal services was lower and/or the occupational, ideological etc. labels less appealing, some of the existing legislation on, for instance, organized crime or quelling a rebellion might be applicable. Some of the potential obstacles to a simple solution would thus appear to involve the potentially wrong nationality, relative immobility and/or excessive social status of the perpetrators on the death row to implement the sovereign’s verdict.
For the purposes of a working definition structural harassment and/or crime might be described as the provision of terror services with the aid of state or state-regulated infrastructure – regulation including both the active design and implementation of mechanisms of violence and the passive creation of opportunities for private experimentation through, for instance, legislation and/or law enforcement that is structurally biased against the interests of the victims. In the absence of better terminology it may not be entirely inappropriate to refer to the group of structural criminals and their silent and/or implicit approvers simply as a terrorist organization. In contrast to more traditional forms of terrorism the de facto organization’s effective objective or effect is to harm society by upholding inefficient, exploitative – if not enslaving – and discriminating and/or racist separation between de facto members and the rest of the society and by suppressing socially or societally significant activities outside its own sphere of influence.
Conventional forms of communication with the information plutocracy – which is, of course, quite different from a meritocracy – are likely to be futile. Your thoughts may be plagiarized for the purposes of career progression for some of the information plutocracy’s members as well as for improving the effectiveness of processes involving surveillance, harassment and/or violence in the future. It may also not be obvious why you should join any organization, process etc. outside open societal interaction in order to obtain “information”, “understanding” etc. It is quite possible – if not necessary – to acknowledge the evilness of evil without assuming that your own participation in such processes would change your understanding or impression of their nature. It may thus be appropriate for the reader to keep in mind – if not necessarily in conscious thoughts – the possibility of perhaps the most obvious alternative: the nature and activities of the information plutocracy are what they appear to be, politically exploitable differences in information, worldviews etc. are the elite’s opium in a series of justificationist narratives that will never result in the justification of their actions, and radical change would require the replacement of most individuals in positions of authority, potentially “every one of them”. The standards for determining the potential usefulness of articulation have rarely been more demanding, while articulation by definition has nothing to say about unarticulated action.
[1] The lyrics of the song that was performed, for instance, during the celebrations of Finland’s ice hockey world championship in central Helsinki in 2011 are “…we are heroes of life, every one of us.” This connection should perhaps not be overinterpreted. Even in the absence of any further analysis, one would hardly expect one occultistically co-opted world championship to constitute the only instance of sports – both on and off the rink, field etc. – being used as a kind of a scoreboard for occult processes. There may be little reason to believe that sports in general might be subject to the influence of the networks of actual or latent complicities to a lesser extent than some other areas of social interaction. What is perhaps more relevant is how and why certain individuals are selected as targets of the harassment processes where few publicly professed social or societal rules appear to apply and how and why much of the rest of the society – in sports or elsewhere – may appear to co-operate.
