I am no longer under investigation for mad crimez

boethius

Just got news from my lawyer today that I the 4 year investigation into me for mad crimez I allegedly committed as CEO and board member of a corporation, have been dropped.

I couldn't have done it without socrates and a character I invented to keep me company, the rapscallion Constable Meletus.

Denizens of the forum, this is how you defend yourself against police prying into your business:

Police case number 5680/R/6414/22
Eerik Wissenz <wissenzatgmaildotcom> Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 12:31 PM
To: Viman Tomi POL <TomidotVimanatpoliisidotfi>

But if you are curious how I see police actions in this affair:

Police see some corporate board race starting about share ownership and money laundering and email access and shit.

A bunch of horses are basically retarded. One horse is a mystery box.

Police are just like ... hmm, I'm going to bet against the mystery box.

Someone says (obviously no one actually did, but for literary purposes): Don't you want to see what's in the mystery box before going all in against them, could be just a normal looking horse which may easily win against all these odd looking horses.

Police: Nah, nah, no need to look, anything in a mystery box is clearly nothing to be concerned about.

Socrates: And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits; So one must never do wrong… Nor must one, when wrong, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong. But verily, gentle Meletus, you should still probably at least see what's in the mystery box, for it is certainly not some trick designed to fool the gullible if you yourself created the mystery box for no discernible reason or motive. And what is there to fear? Certainly you would have no problem trusting to your own faculties that whatever you see in the box will not fool you but provide additional information in your decision to predetermine the result of criminal reports without doing any investigation at all. Seems a dangerous game Meletus.

Police: nah, mystery box we created must stay, we are fully committed to avoid seeing or knowing anything about the horse in the mystery box before deciding they for sure can't can't possibly win, and to bet significantly agains them in a way that creates stakes for us of which no reward function even exists if we be right or wrong.

Socrates: but Constable Meletus, you crass fool! certainly it's an offence to reason and the gods to take on such blind risks, to harm oneself and others, without even there being any benefits to you! How can siding with injustice, or taking such a risk, not even for any benefit of which a avid man may understand the action, but merely it seems on the principle that injustice is preferable to justice. That you do this in the garments of a police officer makes the offence to reason and, I dare say, Hades itself, certainly is all the more destable in the eyes of your peers if you turn out to be wrong in you gamble! All the more baffling Constable Meletus, I must say I truly do not understand. What you seem to say is that injustice must be defended on principle and justice rebuked with significant risks and no benefits to yourself! But how can that be! Say it ain't so Meletus.

Police: Yolo bitches. I grip it and I rip it Socrates. New time new rules. You wouldn't get it. When there's a mystery box that has the potential, once opened, to cause all sorts of troubles, people in our time let it lie, see what happens later: climate change, enabling money laundering, over fishing, destroying forests, gain of function research on dangerous pathogens. We always roll the dice regardless of the risks or whether there's even any benefits to ignoring potential problems down the line. It's called being a baller Socrates, and bigger the unnecessary risks, bigger the balls, higher the views, ca-ching, ca-ching Socrates! We're talking fucking cold, hard, cash, Socrates. But in this case not real cash, at least not for us, just the people laundering money who don't pay us, but some sort of mystical coin none-the-less. — The Official Public Record

And so it goes.

The point of the rebuke is they could have called me to see what I have to say and what evidence I had in my possession before making super terrible decisions.

Anyways, for those curious, the mystery box is all the actual evidence of the circumstances, that you can peruse at your leisure here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SXU6VkygIWM14S4O-IQQUhlz41qYBjFH?usp=share_link

Why police created a mystery box is that I filed the key crimes months before the actual criminals decided it would be a good idea to send expensive attorneys to police to reassure them there's no evidence of what I reported and that they should put me under investigation instead, which they do without ever talking to me and clearly not even looking at the cases I filed with clear evidence attached.

4 years later there's now a long list of liabilities the police now have to deal with for the obvious spurious and harassing nature of the investigation, but also if my accusation that basically everyone and their dog are laundering money is not defamation then that establishes pretty clearly that those super serious accusations are clearly credible enough to be themselves investigated.

Police are now in the position that the money laundering accusations are reasonable enough to repeat in pretty much any context, and yet they've pretended for 4 years I needed to be investigated instead of those (what police now even agree) reasonable accusations of money laundering.

Mikie

What exactly is this?

boethius

This is the way.

Sir2u

↪Mikie

B.S.

boethius

↪Sir2u

How could this possibly be BS?

Do you even formulate arguments before making claims? Same as the data system that is both a GDPR breach that happens to be ideal for child trafficking, you simply make contradictions and address zero points.

Not that you're persuadable by evidence and reason, but if others are curious, there is inaccuracies in my report of these events:

Police case number 5680/R/6414/22
Viman Tomi POL <TomidotVimanatpoliisidotfi> Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:26 AM

To: Eerik Wissenz <wissenzatgmaildotcom>
Hello Eerik,

The minimum punishment of the crime has to be over 4 months.

”1) häntä epäillään tai hänelle vaaditaan rangaistusta rikoksesta, josta ei ole säädetty lievempää rangaistusta kuin neljä kuukautta vankeutta”

Harassing communication says the following:

“1 a § (13.12.2013/879)

«Viestintärauhan rikkominen»
Joka häirintätarkoituksessa toistuvasti lähettää viestejä tai soittaa toiselle siten, että teko on omiaan aiheuttamaan tälle huomattavaa häiriötä tai haittaa, on tuomittava viestintärauhan rikkomisesta sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kuudeksi kuukaudeksi"

Meaning the minimum (which would have to be over 4 months) is a fine. The maximum potential punishment for harassing communication is six months.

Tomi Viman
Senior constable
Central Finland Police Department
Tampere police station
Sorinkatu 12, 33100, Tampere
puh. 0295 445 831 — The Official Public Record

What I was suspected for kept on changing, it started in 2021 as defamation, then at the time of the above email it was harassing communication, later it became stalking, and then changed back to defamation and harassing communication.

For anyone interested in evidence, the key parts are in the mentioned folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SXU6VkygIWM14S4O-IQQUhlz41qYBjFH?usp=share_link

Which is a super abundance of evidence of money laundering and why 4 years later the investigation into me for defamation and harassing communication of my reporting and explaining how the money laundering worked to the auditor, corporate attorney and board members at the time, is obviously not a crime but reasonable suspicions to have and reasonable corporate actions to take. The harassing communication is from the corporation inviting me to negotiate and then my explaining things (at the time I hadn't compiled the evidence into PDF's so I'd explain each key point in texts or email as part of the negotiation) and then these messages (in a negotiation I was invited to) were just tallied up in a table as like 100 messages in January! That's harassment!

The police officer above even admitted (in a recorded call) that he didn't have copies of these messages, just knew I sent a certain number. Which also just completely insane, you can't "talk about evidence" that you have in your possession and police not review that evidence before creating the investigation. Reason my actual messages weren't submitted as evidence, nor collected by police, is that it's explaining all the crimes in the context of a back-and-forth negotiation.

Hence my explaining to police that they shouldn't create a mystery box.

I filed the reports of actual crime months before they put me under investigation, so they could have easily phoned me and understood what evidence actually exists.

Normally corporate crime is happening all the time, in many if not most corporations, but perpetrators don't create sufficient evidence. So, my understanding is police boldly assumed that this would be another case of corporate crime they can't do anything about because corporate people cover their asses. However, that's not some guarantee, obviously corporate people fuck it up every once and a while, so it's unclear to me why police decided best not to check what it actually is in this case. Hence constable Meletus helps us understand the police attitude in this affair.

Tzeentch

Just got news from my lawyer today that I the 4 year investigation into me for mad crimez I allegedly committed as CEO and board member of a corporation, have been dropped. — boethius

Congratulations. :up: Hope you're able to find some peace and quiet, because false accusations can put an enormous weight on one's state of being.

boethius

Thank you

↪Tzeentch

, it's really appreciated.

Most members of our Western society, that I've talked to, are not in anyway disturbed by false accusations, and even less disturbed by the implication that if the accusation of defamation is false it's because there's sufficient evidence the money laundering is definitely real and police obviously haven't been investigating those actual crimes these 4 years.

People try to explain to me how of course corporate people laundering money will accuse me of defamation, and that of course police are going to cover for them, and of course if I then complain about police obviously covering up money laundering that of course police aren't going to like that and they have their buddy system and of course they'll harass me even more.

This is all after they've accepted my account of things is true due to my having actual evidence.

Basically explaining in minute detail how the corruption works truly believing that I just don't understand how the corruption works and that once I do then I'll be able to accept it, and are truly unable to understand that I don't accept the corruption. I'll try to reassure such people that I definitely get that the cops have a buddy system to shield each other from any sort of accountability for their own actions, but the difference in values in that I don't find that acceptable, and not that I haven't accepted yet because I don't understand it. And they'll just repeat to me how cops look out for each other and really don't want me pointing out they've been covering up money laundering, they'll really not like that you see.

And I can talk to these kinds of people basically as long as they want, and they simply can never accept that what they describe in detail and clearly identify as corrupt actions by police and prosecutors, I simply won't enable and tolerate. What's weird is that they truly believe that I'm just not understanding things, that I'm stubborn basically, and simply cannot see my point of view of seeing the corruption, understanding the corruption, and just not going to accept the corruption.

And it's really strange as we have so many media productions of whatever form in which fighting corruption is the central theme, so you'd think (at least I did think before) that people would see what the motivation is, even if they personally would keep their head down or indeed be happy to take a bribe. But if I point out these kinds of stories as an example of what I'm talking about (that I don't like corruption and therefore will do something about even at some cost to myself) the response is just "you're not in a movie!".

boethius

↪Tzeentch

Which I was really puzzled by (maybe my sample of people was maybe really strange) until the genocide started, and what I had been experiencing in my little microcosm of family and former-friends and Finnish police (quite famous in Finland for being racist fascists) was suddenly on the scale of our whole Western society: People have seen movies in which we are emotional about a holocaust and do not accept the holocaust and do something about a holocaust, but that's something people do in movies (aka. famous actors no one should ever pretend to "be like" and try to share in their glory) and not "the real world" where you have to be realistic and accept things are the way they are.

Tzeentch

↪boethius

I think it's the result of decades of living under the nanny state. People will accept the information, but they are unable to process it. You see it everywhere these days, like it's becoming more obvious as the cracks are starting to show and the western system seems to be nearing a flipping point.

boethius

↪Tzeentch

This is part of it definitely, though my intuition is that nanny state policies are less important than police state policies in this matter (though both very consequential).

However, I think there is more to this issue than simply the individual's loss of community and relationship to the state.

At the moment it is just a conjecture, as I don't know enough to offer confidence, but at least how I imagine it, in other more explicit totalitarian regimes, such as for example Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, in particular where and due to the deification of the state, people are conscious of choosing the state over community and family relations. The cognitive dissonance arrives later when the virtue of the state is doubted, but as long it isn't doubted there is a certain coherence to acting on behalf of the state.

In other words if you fear the state but also idolize the state all your emotions are pointing in the same direction of doing what the state wants.

However, in our Western culture we do not reify the state, but rather the explicit ideology is that the state is dangerous and needs constraints and checks and balances and so on and "power corrupts" and people have rights. In this ideological sauce, so to speak, where the sate isn't explicitly idealized, acting on behalf of the state when one knows the state to be wrong creates severe cognitive dissonance.

What is conjecture is that this cognitive dissonance is greater and of a different flavour, if my meaning is understood, compared to systems of more explicit state obedience.

To put things in concrete terms, consider a basic virtue signaller going to all the civil rights parades and other state sanctioned causes, believing this in their heads to be "civil disobedience", but in every other aspect of life simply advancing their career and doing what they are told and the state is basically their best friend. We can call this civil disobedience theatre in which the individual and the state are mutually winking and mutually respectful allies. When this person encounters a just cause (that they see as just) in which the state is not playing the fetish role of the naughty school teacher but truly is cracking down on dissent in a vicious way, the result is a sort of state servitude pathology.

To give an idea of why I use the word pathology is that these conversations I'm referring are truly bizarre. For example, one constant feature is immediately bringing out their own grievances with the state; bad things the police or other authority figures did to them (even if the story is nonsensical such as leaving the scene of a car accident, knowing that what you're supposed to call police but instead taking the person who hit you's word for it that the damage will be paid for, then wanting police to fix things later but they don't ... as a proposed equivalent police wrong doing to being placed under investigation for years for reporting African diamond money laundering to the auditor). The emotions of injustice about their own grievances with authority and the state are super genuine and extreme, to which my answer is always "exactly, we don't want corruption or incompetence, it's not a good thing," but somehow these experiences justify tolerating corruption and defending the states actions as corrupt.

So it's really very psychologically profound, on the level of justifying a parent's abuse which abused children unfortunately cannot avoid doing, and the reasoning will be incoherent and disjointed, filled with equal terror and admiration for the abusive parent.

I am no longer under investigation for mad crimez

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions