My fellow forum enthusiasts, a little mystery of meaning to lighten your day:

In several emails sent to different recipients, [Boethius] has stated that the police have committed a number of different offences. [Boethius] has stated that he has reported the offences he suspects, including but not limited to money laundering, aggravated fraud, aggravated extortion and a variety of offences involving business operations, to several parties. He has contacted the [baddassery] Bureau of Investigation's Financial Intelligence Unit last April, but did not receive any reply or enquiry regarding the evidence he presented. He has also reported the matters in person at the [baddass] police station, the [baddassery] Bureau of Investigation, the [badder ass] police station and the [baddest of all asses] police station. He was ejected from the [badder ass] police station. In addition to the police failing to investigate the matters he has reported, [Boethius] has justified cause to believe that the police is planning to murder him due to the reports he has filed. The investigations against [Boethius] himself are groundless and caused by the reports he has lodged. The police, prosecutors and judges are covering up corruption and are thus involved in the offences, such as money laundering and corruption. In addition, [Boethius] suspects that police documents are being edited and/or deleted. In his emails, [Boethius] mentions by name [Beevus], [Butthead] and [Squeebo], among others. — prosecutors in my country

Appears in a document I got access to through a request for information. Where I live, once a case is closed, you can get all the documents about it.

This particular document is a decision to not investigate further, but only on a very limited scope of jurisdiction (that did not include jurisdiction over the crimes mentioned in the first sentence, for example), and other prosecutors are currently reviewing those crimes.

I have pointed out to the current prosecutors that this paragraph, putting aside the fact it's an original decision in English for strange reason (direct contradiction of the language act in the jurisdiction concerned) and has simply false statements ... just states there's plan to murder me.

That in English grammar, you'd definitely want to use parallel structure to make sure it's clear the claim is I'm claiming this, which was not my claim (I just mentioned I feared police after being "ejected", or, assaulted as I had described it), but if you wanted to make the claim I'm claiming there's a plan to murder me, you'd want to make that pretty clear.

Now, since the months I keep pointing this out, I haven't even received any counter analysis, or just apology that omitting the words "claims he" (as in [boethius] claims he has justified cause ...), in this sentence that just says on the face of it I should believe police are planning to murder me.

So, clearly it's ambiguous at best (and easily disambiguated so can't blame me for assuming the sentence stands by itself when the author could have added two words to make the meaning clear, if indeed that was the meaning), but my reading is that the statements in the middle are clearly written, at least in English, to heavily imply it is the author making the statement, and not the author reporting what I'm reporting.

In particular, obviously prosecutors would have access to whether I was "ejected" or not from a police station, so the natural expectation if that claim is not a prosecutor claim that they would make that clear (that I'm claiming I was "ejected", not that they've confirmed that; especially as if I was ejected, and that was assault, then their statement appearing as confirmation of, in the least, a physical altercation is good evidence in, say, a law suite against police; so, one would naturally assume prosecutors would be aware of what evidential claims could arise from the statements they are writing and if they did not confirm I was indeed, at least, "ejected"--a word I never used, but rather assaulted--they would make that clear to avoid my using their statements in court as evidence), so it's not only ambiguous at best, but difficult to believe prosecutors would not disambiguate the sentence so it's meaning and weight in further legal processes isn't clear (obviously simply noting what I say isn't the same weight of evidence as offering independent confirmation that prosecutors are also saying it).

I also provided a possible motive of this ambiguity, as it would be quite important if the purpose is to further coverup police corruption and involvement in money laundering the statement "He has contacted the [baddassery] Bureau of Investigation's Financial Intelligence Unit last April, but did not receive any reply or enquiry regarding the evidence he presented," if understood as fact would explain not sending the evidence I provided to the Financial Intelligence Unit and obviously implies these crimes (that are outside the jurisdiction of this particular decision) seem to have, in any case, no evidence for them as the Financial Intelligence Unit did not react. If it did not appear as a independently verified fact, some other prosecutor may want to verify if it did indeed happen (obviously if I lied about sending things to the Financial Intelligence Unit or didn't really understand the interaction etc.) that maybe interesting for a prosecutor to look into, but if it appears as independent fact then seems all the t are crossed, whatever it is Financial Intelligence Unit has it and has deemed it unnactionable.

So, there is important functional distinction of the ambiguity, as interpreted the way it seems, that the author is claiming these things (that he could easily verify) are indeed fact and not claiming to just be reporting what I say and has not verified what he could easily verify, which would actually be very odd to add "according to [Boethius] " as that just begs the question of whether it really happened or not.

And why this is important is because the tons of evidence I provided that was outside the narrow jurisdiction of this prosecutor would be required by law to simply be sent to whoever has jurisdiction, which would obviously be the Financial Intelligence Unit when it comes to money laundering involving organisations (such as corporations).

And why making that impression would be so important, is because I never sent any evidence to the Financial Intelligence Unit, and I did receive a reply (I asked for the Financial Intelligence Unit to review the evidence as I did not consider myself competent to do and I would prefer not to be the judge of it, and they replied that I should get an attorney to review the evidence; which is very different from what is claimed above in this internal prosecution analysis ... that clearly I was not supposed to request access to), so both claims are simply false, but critical false claims to make the decision to not investigate seem to make sense. My argument was that if I present clear evidence to police of money laundering and they don't even investigate, and my accusation is they have helped coverup that money laundering (by committing plenty of clear crimes in themselves) that clearly it is relevant if there's evidence of money laundering or not, even if it's (otherwise) outside the narrow jurisdiction of considering police crime.

So, not only is it ambiguous (and easily disambiguated through parallel structure or some other grammatical device, or just saying "[Boethius] made the following claims), but there's good reason to purposefully imply these are now not reports of my claims but are independently verified facts about the status of evidence sent to the Financial Intelligence Unit.

Of course, if that was indeed the purpose, the author should have had the presence of mind to then switch back to clearly stating I'm claiming police are planning to murder me, otherwise it's entirely natural to continue with the interpretation that these are independently verified facts and the author is simply claiming the police are planning to murder me, or at least I should believe that. Which the author then does, feeling the need to disambiguate "In addition, [Bothius] suspects that police documents are being edited and/or deleted." which is not quite what I claimed, I claimed it was one explanation of several confusing events and statements, but maybe documents are there and I could therefore easily verify nothing has been deleted or modified if I am given a copy of my original reports and evidence I submitted to compare with my original drafts, to which this prosecutor said he would provide me a copy of these documents ... but then never did. So a little mystery of what the documents are now. But, what's more important to present grammatical exercise is clearly the author understands disambiguating what I'm saying from what he's saying is something that is required when writing in English and there's a deliberate choice in this sentence about the documents but not in previous sentences; further emphasising that if he wanted to say I "suspected" police are planning to murder me then he'd just say that, he's perfectly capable. And again, there is a functional difference, as it's important to leave it at just "my suspicion" and not claim himself to have looked into it verified my original drafts and evidence have not been deleted or modified

Now, my analysis has caused some problems for the prosecutors who are now reviewing the original police decisions about the original evidence about the original crimes, as I point out that until there's some reason to believe otherwise the statement there is a plan to murder me due to these reports (due to the evidence I possess and my witness testimony) should just be taken at face value and considered real until proven otherwise. Certainly, it's impossible to exclude that the prosecutor knew of a plan to murder me (as doing this favour for police would only work if I was no longer around to be able to provide the evidence of false statements, which is pretty clear and simple when it comes to claiming I received no reply from the Financial Intelligence Unit ... as it's a pretty binary thing and I just the email from the Financial Intelligence Unit to me, so it's honestly not clear what the plan is if I'm still around to say what actually happened with material evidence to backup my claims: prosecutor claims I received no reply, here's the reply").

In which case, the statement of fact there is a plan to murder me seemed find to the prosecutor because they knew it to be true. Classical example of confusing the false narrative with the truth narrative when embarking on a coverup of serious organised crime.

However, of course, as the forum well knows, I am as humble as I am open to learn, and so I have made clear that perhaps some English professor or otherwise better expert than me, as a native speaker, knows the rules of English grammar inside and out and can sign an opinion that the statement there is a plan to murder me is not ambiguous at all and no reasonable person would consider that even possible as an interpretation. "Nothing to see here," kind of thing (the problem the prosecutors have is that none of them are native English speakers so they can't just directly contradict me ... and of course, the problem wouldn't exist at all if the decision was written in an official language, as mandated by law, in which they would be experts and could easily tell me what it means and their word is final. But the problem in coverups is that it's often really messy and these sorts of mistakes happen. The reason to write in English is that without the ambiguity English provides in itself but also in making correspondence with the official law which is in another language, and also the fact other prosecutors wouldn't know English as well, the decision might just sound stupid if written in the official language with respect to the official law, as there's a bunch of other bullshit in the decision like claiming I did not want an investigation "enough" because I pointed out that money laundering is a crime against the state, it's in society's interest to investigate not necessarily my own interest, and from this )

After several months of receiving no such expert opinion on the English language to replace my current understanding, I think it's an interesting exercise for the forum to consider this grammatical exercise.

Definitely there are people who have more education in English than me on this forum and so I'd be curious to know, pending some expert opinion provided by the prosecutors, if there's merit to my interpretation of this sentence, which is just there's a plan to murder me because that's what the sentence says.

But, since I was clearly never meant to read this document, maybe I'm just overly concerned as the subject of the sentence in which is described the murder said subject as well as not a "team player" in making a fuss about it and also pointing out if it is meant to say I made this claim, not only did I not make this claim I even wrote a whole letter to explicitly say I'm not making such a claim (just I have rational fear, due to being "ejected" for exercising a right I verified I had before going; the reason for "ejecting" me is that I did not have a right to report crime in their police station, that if I had a problem with the other police station I had to take it up with them, which is simply not how the law works in this particular jurisdiction; one has the right to report crime in any police station in the country).

Anyways, if people are wondering what my day job is, it's dealing with this sort of madness.

Also, if you're wondering about the investigations into me. I report money laundering, I'm placed under investigation, and have been for 2 whole years without ever being questioned, much less charged with anything. I'm still under investigation right now, sometimes I go to the police station and say I am under investigation for crime, I want to confess the truth, take things off my chest, pay my debts to society, be held accountable, and they at first super alert ... then make a phone call ... then tell me to leave. Which is not only insane police refusing the confession of a suspect they are investigating (even if it was false, they would still record it and then investigate the fact they think it's false and charge me with making false statements), but the crimes I'm suspected of you'd definitely want me to admit this was my signature, I wrote this etc. and rule out forgeries (which, for all I know, the evidence is all forged, I've never been asked about it).