Mitigating the Damage Caused

By 5 November 2017KEY ARTICLES
mitigating-the-damage-caused-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Mitigating the Damage Caused ±

Published on 5th November 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
302

A number of my articles on LinkedIn discuss historic events, and their impact on the present. The reason that I am taking this course of action is to explain the underlying situation that I find myself in thanks to the various frauds of persons and organisations around me.

The purpose of these articles is five-fold:-

(1) There is a phenomenal amount of unique forensic evidence arising from criminal attacks against me, relating to law enforcement and defence, which most Linkies would not see in their daily activities. An excellent example which contains IRREFUTABLE FORENSIC EVIDENCE is this article:-

Jamming

I am sure my peers in the AU Australian Signals Directorate ("ASD"), UK Government Communications Headquarters ("GCHQ") and US Central Intelligence...

(2) If I am aware of legitimate issues beyond my control that impact upon commercial operations and ultimately prevent me and/or entities discharging liabilities in a timely fashion, that someone of my intellect and resources would usually be able to in an academic fashion, then I have to advise clients and suppliers of such issues so that they are fully aware of the position. An excellent example of Perversion of the Course of Justice is this one:-

Per Legem Terrae - Perversion of the Course of Justice via Political Psychiatry

20171026 UPDATE Under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, it is IMPERATIVE that ALL ACTIONS performed in the target country FULLY COMPLIES with...

and the aggressive steps that are being taken to ameliorate the situation:-

Australian Regularisation

Background As many of you know Tania Marie de Saram ("TDS") took over various entities in July/August 2016. The appointment was formalised in...

(3) That the days of the various perpetrators of the various frauds, are numbered, and to take the steps to shut the door on innocent dissemination by donkeys who have to much time on their hands:-

Birds of a Feather

"Frauds of a feather, f*#k together" - JSR DS Introduction Today's article is about Common Interest Privilege, and the many pitfalls associated with...

(4) That the many facets of the Psychiatric Fraud, which suggest that:-

‘Joe can be a criminal and not know it’

is a completely bogus and fabricated position by the perpetrators themselves, to try and confiscate assets, reverse the burden of proof, and Pervert the Course of Justice by preventing my active involvement in a matter that they cannot possibly win when my forensic evidence is adduced to the case 🙂

THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THAT I CONTINUALLY RELY UPON MY FORENSIC BASIS (THAT IS THE BEHAVIOUR OF AN AGGRIEVED PARTY), BUT

DUE TO THE PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD IT IS APPARENTLY A FIXED DELUSION 🙂

DESPITE THE FACT THAT I HAVE FORENSIC EVIDENCE, MY OWN LAWYERS ARE NOT EVEN INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT IT – THE REASON IS BECAUSE…

IT COMPLETELY QUASHES THE ‘FIXED DELUSION / CONCRETE THINKING’ LABEL THAT HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO ME FRAUDULENTLY.

Psychiatric Fraud - Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" and "ignorance of law excuses no one"...

(5) To confirm to legitimate bodies that their Prospects of Success in relation to a case against me is ABSOLUTELY ZERO.

Destruction of Evidence and Perversion of the Course of Justice

20171006 UPDATE - FORENSIC EVIDENCE CONFIRMING THIRD PARTIES Notwithstanding the FACT that parties had OBVIOUSLY entered my house, and had stolen...

and

I obviously cannot disclose assets readily if the accounting and legal materials have been taken:-

Destruction of Evidence and Perversion of the Course of Justice

20171006 UPDATE - FORENSIC EVIDENCE CONFIRMING THIRD PARTIES Notwithstanding the FACT that parties had OBVIOUSLY entered my house, and had stolen...

POCAhontas 2002

Just like the long-haired bird in the cartoon above, I was asking my local tree about 'my path and how am I ever going to find it'. The tree responded...

IN FACT THEIR PROSPECTS OF FAILURE ARE GUARANTEED AS EVERYONE HAS BOUGHT INTO THE LIES OF THE PERPETRATORS AND NOW THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO AGAINST FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THAT WHICH ACTUALLY OCCURRED 🙂

Mitigation of Damages

In tort cases, “mitigation of damages” refers to the rule that an injured plaintiff is expected to keep the costs of her injury from expanding as much as she can. Running up costs that the plaintiff could have prevented is known as “failure to mitigate damages.” If the defendant can prove the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, the court may reduce the amount the defendant is required to pay the plaintiff if he is found liable for her injury.

Read more

View all legal library categories

Negligence law recognizes that, as a rule, people are expected to act with reasonable care when dealing with one another or sharing public space with one another. If a defendant’s negligence, recklessness, or intentional act causes a plaintiff’s injury, the defendant may be liable for damages to the injured plaintiff. Even if the defendant is found responsible for the injury, however, the plaintiff is still responsible for taking care of himself.

Mitigation of damages isn’t usually an issue in injury cases, since most injured people seek medical care automatically after an injury. The defense comes up more often in contracts cases, where one party breaches a contract and leaves the other in the lurch. For instance, suppose that in a breach of contract case, the plaintiff manufactured one thousand widgets to sell to the defendant for one dollar apiece, or $1,000 total. The defendant, however, backed out of buying the widgets at the last minute, leaving the plaintiff out $1,000 with 1,000 widgets she can’t use.

In this case, the plaintiff has a responsibility to mitigate her damages by selling the widgets for whatever she can get for them, then suing the defendant for the difference if she wishes. For example, suppose the going market rate for widgets is fifty cents apiece. The plaintiff who mitigates her damages sells the 1,000 widgets the defendant didn’t buy at the market rate, making $500, then sues the defendant for the rest of the $1,000 he was supposed to pay under the contract but didn’t. If the court finds the defendant liable for breach of contract, it will likely order the defendant to pay the $500.

However, suppose that the plaintiff does not mitigate her damages by selling the 1,000 surplus widgets. Instead, she sits on her 1,000 widgets and sues the defendant for the entire $1,000 she lost. In this case, even if the court finds that the defendant is liable for breaching the contract, it will still likely order the defendant to pay only $500 – because the plaintiff could have mitigated her damages and gotten $500 by selling the widgets, but she didn’t. That extra $500 is the plaintiff’s responsibility.

In both contracts cases and personal injury cases, the purpose of the mitigation of damages rule is to recognize that injured people (whether injured physically or financially) have a responsibility to take care of themselves, and their responsibility to themselves does not evaporate merely because another person is responsible for injuring them in the first place….

This VERY INTERESTING CASE continues…

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
RHODIUM GROUP