Exception to the privilege rule

By | KEY ARTICLES
rhodium-reiderstvo-grabbing-assets-instead-of-pussies-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Exception to the privilege rule

First published on 16 December 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
660

The iniquity exception to privilege, also known as the ‘crime-fraud exception’, is venerable, dating at least to R v Cox and Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153. The description of this rule as the ‘crime-fraud exception’ is misleading: first, because it is not restricted to criminal or fraudulent activities, and second because it is not an exception to privilege, but rather a situation in which privilege does not arise at all.

I refer to the this article about exceptions to the iniquity rule:-

Exception to the privilege rule

Dmitry Feoktistov, deputy director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and co-chair of the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, attends the briefing 'The Fight against Corruption on the G20 Agenda'...

Longmore LJ in Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (No 6) [2005] 1 WLR 2734 summarised the exception, saying that where a person consults a solicitor in furtherance of a criminal purpose then, whether or not the solicitor knowingly assists in the furtherance of such purpose, the communications between the client and the solicitor do not attract legal professional privilege.

While this is a good starting point for understanding the principle, it does not reflect the principle’s breadth.

The exception has recently been applied in JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov & Ors [2014] EWHC 2788 (Comm). That case is due before the Supreme Court in March. Despite its usefulness, this remains an underused principle. The principle generally – and the upcoming decision in Ablyazov in particular – merit litigators’ close attention.

Criminal conduct is not required

This principle is not confined to abuse of the client/solicitor relationship for criminal purposes, but extends to civil fraud or other equivalent underhand conduct, which is a breach of the duty of good faith, or contrary to public policy or the interests of justice.

For the purposes of its application in the civil litigation context, it is vital to remember that fraud or criminality need not necessarily be provable in order for the principle to apply. To reflect this, the term iniquity exception has been used in place of crime-fraud exception and is preferable (see Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607, per Bingham LJ and Ablyazov per Popplewell J at 68).

Popplewell J in the Ablyazov case summarised the basis for the exception in the context of legal advice privilege in the following terms:

‘If the iniquity puts the advice or conduct outside the scope of such [normal] professional engagement, or renders it an abuse of the relationship which properly falls within the ordinary course of such an engagement, a communication for such purposes cannot attract legal professional privilege.

‘In cases where a lawyer is engaged to put forward a false case supported by false evidence, it will be a question of fact and degree whether it involves an abuse of the ordinary professional engagement of a solicitor in the circumstances in question.’

Advice and litigation

The iniquity exception is most often used in the context of challenging an assertion of legal advice privilege, but it is firmly established that the principle applies also to litigation privilege (see Kuwait Airways (No 6)).

Courts guard privilege jealously and only in exceptional circumstances will it be displaced (see Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No.7) [1990] 1 WLR 1156 per Vinelott J at 1159). An application to the court under the iniquity exception is a step to be taken with the utmost care, and the party making the application should be in possession of, at the very least, strong prima facie evidence of iniquity if it is to have any prospect of success. The Supreme Court in Ablyazov might, of course, make fundamental changes to the exception, although in the context of such a well-established principle that seems unlikely.

In practice, the iniquity exception can prove useful in a variety of litigation contexts.

First, where there is prima facie evidence of iniquity, a pre-trial application for disclosure pursuant to this principle can give rise to material with which to defeat the claim at hand; and/or put the party making the application into a strong negotiating position.

Second, where a defendant believes itself to be the subject of repeated false claims by, for instance, members of a fraud ring, the value of material relating to one false claimant can prove relevant to identifying and defeating the claims of linked claimants.

Finally, material disclosed pursuant to the iniquity exception might be relevant to a claim against the solicitor representing a false claimant, pursuant to the principle in the Scottish case of Frank Houlgate Investment Company Limited v Biggart Baillie LLP [2014] CSIH 79.

William Irwin is a barrister at Temple Garden Chambers

Exception to the privilege rule

Dmitry Feoktistov, deputy director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and co-chair of the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, attends the briefing 'The Fight against Corruption on the G20 Agenda'...

the complicity of any or all of the tax, security, law-enforcement and judicial authorities,

[MEANING CRIMINAL FRAUD BY OFFICIAL STATE ACTORS]

  • and the

use of charges that are either freely invented or examples of the highly selective use of accusations that could have been levelled at many other business people but were not.

[THIS IS A MIXTURE OF STREET THEATRE, MOBBING AND ‘TALKING UP A CASE WHICH HAS ZERO PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS’. IT SERVES AS A TECHNIQUE TO ISOLATE THE TARGET AND DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE.]

  • Reiderstvo is made possible by corruption and contributes to market-entry barriers and the insufficient restructuring of incumbent firms. 
  • The lack of protection of property rights that makes reiderstvo possible is one of the risks that make investment in Russia less attractive than it would otherwise be. This contributes to the modest level of fixed investment as a share of GDP, to the net outflow of private capital in all post-Soviet years except in 2005–07 and to the weakness of competition. The disincentives to invest apply to foreign as well as Russian firms.

[ACCORDINGLY FROM 2009 IF NOT BEFORE ASSETS STRUCTURE WERE PUT IN PLACE IN ORDER TO WITHSTAND A WORLDWIDE MAREVA INJUNCTION. CLEARLY THAT PREDATES ANYTHING RELATED TO THE PRESENT OBVIOUSLY.]

  • Since early 2012 the phenomenon of asset-grabbing has been widely publicized in the Russian media, and calls to reform law enforcement and the courts, and to protect property rights have become commonplace.
  • Reiderstvo has elicited significant civil resistance. Business associations have played a role in launching counter-measures. The state has intervened to try and guide the campaign against reiderstvo but it does not monopolise that campaign as it does the broader, official ‘anti-corruption campaign’.
  • At the same time, developments over the amnesty for economic crimes, the role of commercial courts and the management of tax charges show just how powerful the forces ranged in favour of the status quo can be.
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

Joe Wants UK ILMET Case from 2000 Reopened plus a Public Examination

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
joe-wants-uk-ilmet-case-from-2000-reopened-plus-a-public-examination-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Joe Wants UK ILMET Case from 2000 Reopened plus a Public Examination ±

Published on 4th February 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
669

Enter more text here

I refer to 7983 of 2000 – which relates to I Love My Encryption Technology PLC (“ILMET” formerly Rhodium PLC). Due to the various lies propagated by Edward de Saram (“EDS”) as well the production of fraudulent medicals, UK parties may have been feeling aggrieved in relation to not being able to ask questions in a Public Examination.

BUTFOR THE PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION THAT EDS FORCED DOWN MY THROAT, I WOULD HAVE BEEN BACK A LOT SOONER. AND THERE WAS EDS CONTINUAL COERCION AND THREATS OF “I’LL CUT YOU OFF”.

It was 17yrs ago but I am more than happy to explore issues or provide interim depositions – unlike ShitLankansTM I am neither a fraud nor a coward. But my cryptographic stuff and clients is really quirky though I do bend the law and obfuscate sources 🙂

I CAN DEFINITELY ATTEND A PUBLIC EXAMINATION IF ANYONE WANTS – I HAVE PLENTY OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT NCIS AND HMRC WHOSE SAD FRAUDS CAUSED THE ISSUES.

Just Because You're Paranoid

Summary This article is about blatant Fundamental Human Rights violations. It centres around my absolutely correct identification of MI5 overseeing...

But beware I am going to be specifically information suppressed by Closed Material Procedures

'For Your Eyes Only' via Section 6 UK Justice and Security Act 2013

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...

and setting aside Public Interest Immunity certificates:-

The Matrix Revisited - Arms to Iraq in the 1980s v Weaponised Software in the 2010s

This article is about Matrix Churchill, a UK Aerospace engineering company based in Coventry, with expertise in both the design and manufacture of...

New Items Recovered

Today I recovered the fraudulent application that EDS produced along with Eversheds, which contains the fraudulent medical reports. I will provide the full document and analysis shortly but I wanted to publish a few of these documents as soon as possible.

THIS IS WHY ‘I NEED THE POLICE’ BECAUSE RENDITION IS EASILY FACILITATED BY THE EXISTENCE OF THE VARIOUS FRAUDULENT MEDICALS…

 

"I Need the Police" - Detectives Required

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...

I am more than happy to immediately answer any questions, and as I said I am relocating to the UK in a couple of months anyway.

Schizophrenia – how Blatantly Fraudulent Reports have come into Existence

I have NEVER had Schizophrenia or any ‘Schizo-affective’ disorders, period.

When my parents are either visiting or communicating with me there is usually some issue or another in Gordon Ramsay style. Tania and I have a bad reaction to their ineptitude and manipulative Narcissistic Personality Disorder issues continually.

The topic of Schizophrenia comes up because of a rather interesting situation in which EDS blatantly perverted the course of justice in the early 2000s.

Following the demise of ILMET, as a normal part of enquiries I had to attend for a Public Examination. At the time I was depressed because of the articles written about me in Google. My parents did nothing to assist and thereby maintained control over me.

THE SRI LANKAN CULTURE IS ALL ABOUT MONEY, POWER AND IMAGE – BECAUSE THE COUNTRY AND NO MONEY, NO POWER AND NO IMAGE. SRI LANKAN PARENTS ARE GENERALLY PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISTS.

It is important to clarify that it was the Google Articles and not any alleged irregularities with ILMET that I was concerned about.

On 31 December 2000 I had become very sad after receiving a nasty e-mail from Margaret Cunniffe. Our family was staying at the Kandalama Hotel. Upon receiving the e-mail I went and confronted EDS and PDS who were in another room.

EDS immediately assaulted me because PDS had been exposed as having a conversation with MTC and my parents are co-dependents. It became a serious fight between EDS and I. At one point EDS grabbed a small chest of drawers and tried to smash me over the head with it.

EDS repeatedly hit me in the face whilst two other parties (Anthony Alles and Vicki Alles) pinned my arms. My face was bruised and I had broken fingers as well.

EDS did exactly the same thing in 2015:-

20151217 – Evidence of Grievous Bodily Harm

EX-JDS-0001

Note the classic defensive injuries as well – fractures and dislocations at [proximal] interphalangeal joints (appearing as PIP and IP below):-

EX-JDS-0002

As I mentioned in a previous article, getting CHIS to breathe deeper and faster makes visual identification easier 🙂 Increasing tidal volume was my objective:-

EX-JDS-0003

and torture

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights

I went to bed early and I recall that EDS PDS thought that I had tried to commit suicide – as it happens that is not my personality type and they continually make incorrect assessments about me based on their low level conjecture.

The ILMET matters were progressing and I was clearly more depressed after these issues involving my parents. EDS had the fraudulent idea of drafting a document which was dual purpose – (a) the document would place blame squarely on me for the issues at the hotel in which I allegedly assaulted him (a complete lie) and the (b) describing that incident would provide EDS with a specific incident which was outrageous enough to ‘buy more time’.

By way of information EDS is someone who never addresses the issues head-on but prefers to manipulate others or in fact the scenery itself.

As everyone know I am someone who will fight any issues in no uncertain terms and really do not care what people think of me – I do not look for or require validation or adulation from third parties.

However, there was a hearing for ILMET scheduled for August 2001 from memory and EDS simply stating a diagnosis of ‘depression’ was not in EDS’ interest. EDS therefore asked various Sri Lankan Psychiatrist colleagues to produce reports stating that I was suffering from depression and/or ‘schizo-affective disorder’.

Using that phrase is how the whole ‘schizophrenia theme’ started.

Unfortunately for EDS et al, I did not have schizophrenia, and I had not seen Newton Ranasinghe, the doctor concerned since around early 2000 (a social setting), and was in Sri Lanka from 24 August 2000.

Accordingly I was not examined by HNR in relation to the production of various medicals and HNR is of course one of the fraudsters in the recent past:-

Psychiatric Fraud - Circumventing Informed Consent via Attacks on Mental Capacity

[UNLIKE EGON SPENGLER, I WAS NOT TERRIFIED BEYOND THE CAPACITY FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT - HA HA!] Leading with the Evidence Please refer to this article...

It was merely a doctor’s construct, akin to a lawyer’s construct.

As part of the fraud EDS then started prescribing me drugs for schizophrenia himself – it was unethical and blatantly fraudulent but it made the situation plausible to onlookers.

Prescribing me with drugs that I did not need was actually causing various symptoms of schizophrenia and I was mentally suppressed, fully under the control of EDS.I had various adverse reactions and a couple of times I was actually seeing hallucination such as ‘insects crawling over my body’. That is the effect of Drug-Induced Psychosis…

Drug-Induced Psychosis - 25i-NBOMe as used in Political Psychiatry

Background As I have recovered more forensic evidence I have been able to make a number of enhancements to previous theories. As mentioned in this...

As such it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only persons who knew of why the document was produced was Tania and I, who were both being unethically/unlawfully medicated by EDS, leading to loss of our credibility. PDS knew of course but is an agent of EDS and did ‘fuck all’ as usual.

But conveniently the drugs provided the symptoms and medical reports for the ILMET matter with the UK Department of Trade and Industry.

EDS was also worried about that which I would say in the enquiry because it would contradict any of his lies ‘designed to throw me under a bus’ and continued telling me that I was in massive trouble and would go to prison.

Given the work I had performed had varying degrees of transactional immunity, I had no concerns because I had to cover for the clients concerned. But my concern was in case I inadvertently exposed the defence contractors – and they had already threatened to kill Margaret in late 2000.

This was the complication:-

How I Met Big Brother - GeniusJoe v MI5

The UK Surveillance State The above video confirms the UK's obsession with electronic surveillance and human rights violations in the present. The...

I had wanted an independent psychiatric assessment then so I could stop the schizophrenia medication but EDS convinced me and Eversheds that it was not required.

The reason is because it would have demonstrated EDS’ perversion of the course of justice and also that I would have been able to say what I had wanted to because the unlawful medication would have stopped!

I have an excellent memory but sometimes I need specific items of documentation to complement the memory, especially if the opposition is relying on documents it is saying it has obtained from me or my locations – which is denied.

After a while EDS began bullying me into taking further drugs and accepting the reports, so as I was genuinely suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder I was unable to refuse EDS’ control.

I began suffering from Stockholm Syndrome in which I became willing to go along to prevent the beatings and abuse, and then even wrote e-mails unassisted believing that which I was being told without question. The story ‘Beauty and the Beast’ is the classic example of Stockholm Syndrome.

I genuinely believed because of EDS’ representations that there was an issue with me going to the UK and then EDS would point at that my confirmation of his statements and tell them that they were my own.

Every time I tried to ‘rebel’ I was told that I would be ‘cut off’.

By way of information EDS did exactly the same thing with Tania in that he made her feel worthless and then turned up with Prozac which he then used to control her further until she became addicted. In a signature manner EDS told her that she would be cut off if she did not comply.

CLASSIC COERCION

Coercive or controlling behaviour now a crime

Victims who would otherwise be subjected to sustained patterns of domestic abuse will be better protected under a new offence, which comes into force today...

A Non-ShitLankanTM Psychiatrist

Please consider a genuine medical produced by an Independent Singaporean Psychiatrist:-

How the Psychiatric Truth in Singapore Exposes the Psychiatric Fraud in Sri Lanka

Dr Ang Yong Guan is a Singaporean with Balls. He is also a brilliant psychiatrist who has experience of psychiatric medicine in the military, and is...

before reading the diarrhoea produced by ShitLankanTM Psychiatrists:-

Page: 01

Page: 02

Page: 03

Page: 04

Page: 05

Page: 06

Page: 07

Page: 08

Page: 09

Page: 10

Page: 11

Page: 12

Page: 13

I had to go into Mobitel myself and when I was walking in I noticed that the Small Guy had changed his position and was pointing his camera phone at me again.

Page: 14

As I mentioned in a previous article, getting CHIS to breathe deeper and faster makes visual identification easier 🙂 Increasing tidal volume was my objective:-

Page: 15

So I went down to confront him – two reasons for this – I wanted to get a better look at him from close up, and I wanted to stress him out a little bit, so that his breathing would be deeper and so that I could see whether he had a Body-Worn IMSI Catcher. He was already worrying 🙂

Page: 16

Template for Psychiatric Fraud

The shocking thing, is that the lies in the medicals in the 16-page document from 31 August 2001 are the template for the December 2015 Psychiatric Fraud as well as the Melbourne Fraudsters – donkey Australian and Singaporean lawyers have been repeating the same [false] signature themes, without knowing that they are actually fake.

So whilst the passage of time may be difficult for ILMET (three of my American handlers have since died although my memory is pretty good) the existence of the fraudulent concepts have caused criminal frauds against me in the present, by various parties including but not limited to EDS himself AGAIN!

Analysis

I will explain why the Medicals are fraudulent, as it may not be immediately apparent without context and clarification. EDS (along with the Melbourne Fraudsters) appears plausible but is actually a pathological liar.

December 2015 Fraudulent Report – Mitigating the Losses

I refer to the following Medical which is UTTERLY FRAUDULENT, and I will analyse it in a separate article:-

Diagnosis Card Front

Diagnosis Card Rear

Analysis

I have published a preliminary analysis over these three articles:-

Part 1

Exposing the Fraudulent Psychiatric Report from December 2015 – Analysis of Diagnosis Card

The most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations....

Aligning Themselves with the Fraud

Unfortunately fools in the present are simply accepting the fraudulent medicals as verbatim and either not taking me seriously or being hostile towards me thinking I ama criminal who is trying to evade culpability.

This is such a ridiculous situation but I am going to be clarifying who the actual fraudsters are – watch this space…

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

‘Rhodium Reiderstvo’ – Grabbing Assets Instead of Pussies

By | KEY ARTICLES
rhodium-reiderstvo-grabbing-assets-instead-of-pussies-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

'Rhodium Reiderstvo' - Grabbing Assets Instead of Pussies ±

Published on 31st January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
1340

Enter more text here

I refer to the this article about Rendition:-

Joe's Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...
Joe's Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation

Marking the Audio Track for Future Reference

As I have specified in previous articles that I used certain phrases to deliberately ‘mark the audio track’ with various parties. Given the call interception in these scenarios, having my concerns (at the time) recorded by the interceptors as well as me is perfect for evidentiary materials.

This single call is SO IMPORTANT because the entire call is essentially me marking the audio track ! No wonders the pricks deleted it !!

20150915 Call with Peters and Peters

In the above article I have used the phrase:-

JDS – “but this cloak and dagger approach is causing massive amounts of losses.

Bare in mind the preceding phrases in the conversation were:-

JDS – “Hmm I don’t know whether, um it’s a UK governmental organisation, I think it is, and I’ll probably send you an e-mail if I may, with some information, with the screenshots and the information that you’d need…”

Meaning this operation is either going to end up in a private prosecution or a crown prosecution, as it is pseudo official.

Obviously both would fail and I can collapse the case when I like, which is why I am writing about it on LinkedIn as it provides a unique opportunity to look at how

GOVERNMENTS REGULARLY ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL FRAUD BASED ON OPINION OF THE SHEEPLE, IF THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

UNFORTUNATELY NOT IN MY CASE BECAUSE I HAVE THE RECOVERED THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE FROM THE BALLSED-UP OPERATION THAT A GOVERNMENT WOULD SUPPRESS BY CLOSED MATERIAL PROCEDURES 🙂

JDS – “I’m sure foolish people, who have a low level interpretation of what I do… CRYPTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY, CLIENTS, [BANK] ACCOUNTS, in the past and in the present, is obviously trying to make a case out of something…”

The cryptographic technology is an interesting form of Asset. Clients are of course obfuscated but are not criminals (though everyone is interested) and Bank Accounts is the money laundering angle.

For money laundering cases work because the source of the funds, or the activities themselves are unlawful – in my case they are merely confidential.

Returning to this phrase

JDS – “but this cloak and dagger approach is causing massive amounts of losses.

Obviously means that:-

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE IS BEING USED IN INVESTIGATION LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES TO AHEAD OF A SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE CALLED:-

* * REIDERSTVO * *

WHICH IS CORPORATE RAIDING, RUSSIAN STYLE 🙂

No, not Gangnam Style – RUSSIAN STYLE !!

Getting closer:-

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE IS BEING USED IN INVESTIGATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES TO AHEAD OF A SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE CALLED

* * REIDERSTVO * *

What is Reiderstovo?

The substantive text below is from Chatham House

  • The illicit acquisition of a business or part of a business in Russia (known as reiderstvo or asset-grabbing) is widespread and one of the risks of doing business there.
  • The common ingredients of reiderstvo are

Meaning that:-

the complicity of any or all of the tax, security, law-enforcement and judicial authorities,

[MEANING CRIMINAL FRAUD BY OFFICIAL STATE ACTORS]

  • and the

use of charges that are either freely invented or examples of the highly selective use of accusations that could have been levelled at many other business people but were not.

[THIS IS A MIXTURE OF STREET THEATRE, MOBBING AND ‘TALKING UP A CASE WHICH HAS ZERO PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS’. IT SERVES AS A TECHNIQUE TO ISOLATE THE TARGET AND DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE.]

  • Reiderstvo is made possible by corruption and contributes to market-entry barriers and the insufficient restructuring of incumbent firms. 
  • The lack of protection of property rights that makes reiderstvo possible is one of the risks that make investment in Russia less attractive than it would otherwise be. This contributes to the modest level of fixed investment as a share of GDP, to the net outflow of private capital in all post-Soviet years except in 2005–07 and to the weakness of competition. The disincentives to invest apply to foreign as well as Russian firms.

[ACCORDINGLY FROM 2009 IF NOT BEFORE ASSETS STRUCTURE WERE PUT IN PLACE IN ORDER TO WITHSTAND A WORLDWIDE MAREVA INJUNCTION. CLEARLY THAT PREDATES ANYTHING RELATED TO THE PRESENT OBVIOUSLY.]

  • Since early 2012 the phenomenon of asset-grabbing has been widely publicized in the Russian media, and calls to reform law enforcement and the courts, and to protect property rights have become commonplace.
  • Reiderstvo has elicited significant civil resistance. Business associations have played a role in launching counter-measures. The state has intervened to try and guide the campaign against reiderstvo but it does not monopolise that campaign as it does the broader, official ‘anti-corruption campaign’.
  • At the same time, developments over the amnesty for economic crimes, the role of commercial courts and the management of tax charges show just how powerful the forces ranged in favour of the status quo can be.

Reiderstvo: Asset-Grabbing in Russia

Dmitry Feoktistov, deputy director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and co-chair of the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, attends the briefing 'The Fight against Corruption on the G20 Agenda'...

Royal United Services Institute has produced an absolutely excellent document in relation to this phenomenon.:-

201707 - rusi corporate raiding in russia lain

Occasional Paper Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Corporate Raiding in Russia Tackling the Legal, Semi-Le...

Corker Binning

Andrew Smith of Corker Binning has written an excellent article about this:-

The Vintskevich extradition and its implications for UK/Russian relations | Lexology

Last week 32 year old Maxim Vintskevich became the first person in a decade to be successfully extradited from the UK to Russia. The Prosecutor…

IN MY CASE IT IS NOT RUSSIA 🙂

Human Rights Issues are always a factor:-

“UK’s extradition courts refused these extradition requests on the basis of concerns that the criminal proceedings were politically motivated and that the human rights of the individuals sought would be violated, either in Russia’s prisons and/or its criminal courts. Extradition judges and lawyers became familiar with some of the common hallmarks of these proceedings, including zakaznoye ugolovnoye delo (“a criminal prosecution to order”), telefonnoe pravo (“telephone justice”) and reiderstvo (“corporate raiding”). “

“Moreover in 2012 there were 75 findings by the ECtHR that Russia was in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), the article that prohibits torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. These findings account for just over 25% of the total number of Article 3 violations found against all contracting states last year. “

“At the beginning of 2012 the ECtHR handed down such a pilot judgment in Ananyev & others v Russia. The Court described Russian prisons as a “recurrent structural problem” and annexed a list of 90 other judgments finding violations of Article 3, commenting that: “the set of facts underlying these violations was substantially similar: detainees suffered inhuman and degrading treatment on account of an acute lack of personal space in their cells, a shortage of sleeping places, unjustified restrictions on access to natural light and air, and non-existent privacy when using the sanitary facilities.” The Court then went on to say that Article 3 compliance required that: 

  1. Each detainee must have an individual sleeping place in the cell;

     

  2. Each detainee must have at his disposal at least three square metres of floor space; and

     

  3. The overall surface of the cell must be such as to allow the detainees to move freely between furniture. 

The relevance of the above text (which is the another nexus between the Rhodium Reiderstvo and the Psychiatric Fraud) is this recording:-

HNR – “Does he have his own room, there’s no issue with him going to the toilet is there?”

EDS – “At the hospital? Single room with air-conditioning, television… and his room is comfortable, almost like our lounge.

The real basis of the HMRC form fraud should be relevant now:-

The 'HMRC Form Fraud' and How a CHIS Obtained My Signature Through Deception

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...

the LK RTA Fraud:-

The Nexus Between the UK CHIS Fraud and the LK RTA Fraud

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...

Nick Sevdalis’ phone calls, as in this article:-

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...

One attorney is Nick Sevdalis and I have hundreds of calls with him spilling the beans and using signature themes which confirms his involvement as an accessory after the fact. His ‘reasonable assessment’ of what is actually going on derives from an associated party (to the fraud) informing him of the information:-

As I stated “Unfortunately my idiot parents have got themselves involved, and there is plenty of evidence demonstrating.. you know they’re saying that no-one else was in the house, and the stuff is missing so, ergo it’s them.

Sevdalis responds “That’s right, I understand that whilst you’re out they have been in there… and documentation or records is missing, which have been taken.”

He pretends he does not know anything [for definite], but confirms his own theory “If your parents came and did that.. organised it and probably really directed it.. they were trying to have you shut away.. and then are they trying to look at.. someone trying to get your records to try and see what’s going on, they’re not sure… they don’t know?”

[still writing this…]

This 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

Mitigating the Damage Caused

By | KEY 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
642

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

Serious Crimes and Assistance

By | CRIME
serious-crimes-and-assistance-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Serious Crimes and Assistance (±x)

Published on 27th September 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
625

Enter more text here

Background to this Article

I am in the process of writing two new articles referencing Forensic Evidence in relation to ‘Attempted Murder v Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent’, and need this article ‘Serious Crimes and Assistance‘ to refer to.

The following text is from the UK Crown Prosecution Service site.

Assisting or Encouraging Crime

Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates, at sections 44 to 46, three inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed.

These offences replace the common law offence of incitement for all offences committed after 1 October 2008. They allow people who assist another to commit an offence to be prosecuted regardless of whether the underlying substantive offence is actually committed or attempted.

Sec 50 of the 2007 Act provides a defence to the offences in Part 2 where the encouragement or assistance is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances the person knew to exist or he reasonably believed to exist.

Sec 51 of the 2007 Act provides a limitation on liability to the offences in Part 2 where the offence encouraged or assisted was created in order to protect a category of people and the person doing the encouraging or assisting falls into that category and was the person in respect of whom the offence was or would have been committed. This would cover for example a child who encourages or assists a sexual offence of which he or she was to have been the victim.

The offences

Sections 45 and 46 create offences of encouraging or assisting an offence or offences believing it, or one or more of them, will be committed. In determining ‘belief’ in Sections 45 and 46, prosecutors should refer to the case law on handling stolen goods as the test is similar.

Though section 46 allows for the belief by the defendant that one or more offence may be committed, where offences with a different maximum sentence are pleaded in a section 46 count, separate counts should be included on the indictment for each variation so the sentencing judge is clear as to the basis for conviction under section 46 (please see R v S & H [2011] EWCA Crim 2872 for further details).

Section 48(3) ensures that a person can only be found guilty of the offence under section 46 (encouraging or assisting offences believing that one or more will be committed) if the offence or offences that the jury find the defendant believed would be committed are specified in the indictment.

Sections 49(4) and 49(5) set out that a person who encourages and assists someone else to encourage and assist a third party to carry out an offence can only be guilty of the offence under section 44, which requires that they intend that the offence be committed. They cannot be convicted of an offence under either section 45 or 46, which require only that they believed that the offence would be committed.

Section 53 should be read in conjunction with schedule 4 of the 2007 Act. In broad terms, schedule 4 provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction where the defendant does an act capable of assisting or encouraging a crime but does not know or believe that the substantive offence will occur wholly or partly in England and Wales. The act itself may be done inside or outside England and Wales. In relation to offences to which schedule 4 applies, section 53 provides that the prior consent of the Attorney General must be obtained before initiating a prosecution.

The general jurisdictional rules of schedule 4 are without prejudice to any specific jurisdictional rules which already exist for certain offences. For example, offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 already have their own extra-territorial rules. Where this is the case, extra-territoriality is governed by the provisions of the statute which creates the offence, not by schedule 4 of the 2007 Act.

Further details of this rather technical and complex area of law may be found in Archbold 33-92 or Blackstones A6.1 and following paragraphs in both. The Ministry of Justice Circular No. 2008/04 covers part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 providing an overview of the offences and an explanation as to the implementation of sections 44 to 67 of the Act.

Incitement

Section 59 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 abolishes the common law offence of incitement with effect from 1 October 2008.

For offences committed before that date, incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence. A person is guilty of incitement to commit an offence or offences if:

a. s/he incites another to do or cause to be done an act or acts which, if done, will involve the commission of an offence or offences by the other; and 

b. s/he intends or believes that the other, if he acts as incited, shall or will do so with the fault required for the offence(s) (R v Claydon [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 20).

It is not a defence to a charge of incitement that the other person, for whatever reason, does not commit the offence, or commits a different offence to that incited.

The prosecution must show that the person accused of incitement intended or believed that the person incited would, if acted as incited to do so, do so with the mens rea appropriate to the offence.

Incitement is usually a common law offence but there are some instances where statute has created the offence: e.g., section 19 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Where a person has been charged with incitement, the venue for trial is the same as for the offence incited. Therefore, incitement to commit a summary offence is only triable summarily and incitement to commit an indictable only offence may only be tried on indictment. 

Attempting to commit an offence

A person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981), section 1(1) if s/he does an act which is more than preparatory to the commission of the offence with the intention of committing an offence.

The offence consists of both an act (actus reus) and a mental state (mens real).

In each case it is a question of fact whether the accused has gone sufficiently far towards the full offence to have committed the actus reus of the attempt. If the accused has passed the preparatory stage, the offence of attempt has been committed and it is no defence that s/he then withdrew from committing the completed offence.

An attempt is an offence of specific intent. It requires an intention to commit an offence to which section 1(4) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 applies.

Recklessness

There are certain offences where recklessness is sufficient mens rea for the full offence. However, for an attempt, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the intent to commit the offence.

For example, although the full offence of causing criminal damage to property can be committed either intentionally or recklessly, it will only be proper to charge a person with attempting to cause criminal damage with intent to damage property and not simply attempting to cause criminal damage by being reckless.

However, where recklessness as to other circumstances may suffice for the full offence, recklessness may also suffice for the attempt. For example, in Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1992 (1994) 2 All ER 121, on a charge of attempted aggravated arson contrary to section 1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971, it was sufficient for the prosecution to establish a specific intent to cause damage by fire and that the defendant was reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered. It was not necessary to prove that the defendant intended that the lives of others would be endangered by the damage (see further Archbold 33-128).

A similar situation exists in relation to attempted rape: R v Khan [1990] 2 All ER 783, where recklessness as to whether or not the woman was consenting was held to be sufficient mens rea for the offence of attempted rape, provided the prosecution could prove the intent to have intercourse. 

Statutory Restrictions

Under section 1(4) of the CAA 1981, there are a number of criminal offences that cannot be the subject of an attempt. These are:

  • conspiracy;
  • aiding and abetting; and
  • assisting an offender or concealing an offence (Archbold 33-120).

Although it is not possible to attempt to aid and abet, it is possible to charge the aiding and abetting of an attempt.

It is not possible by virtue of section 1(4) to charge an attempt to commit a summary offence, unless the particular statute expressly makes it an offence. For example, attempting to drive with excess alcohol is an offence contrary to section 4(1) Road Traffic Act 1988. 

Conspiracy

The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20.

Statutory Conspiracy

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 creates and defines the offence of statutory conspiracy (see Archbold 33-2). This offence is triable only on indictment, even if the parties agreed to commit a criminal offence triable only summarily. It is not limited to agreements to commit a statutory crime (agreements to commit the common law offence of murder are charged under this offence)

Common Law Conspiracies

It is an offence triable only on indictment to agree: 

a. to defraud, whether or not the fraud amounts to a crime or even a tort; 

b. to do an act which tends to corrupt public morals or outrage public decency, whether or not the act amounts to a crime (see Archbold 33-34).

The 1977 Act has no part to play in the prosecution of such offences.

An agreement to commit a crime involving fraud or dishonesty is both a statutory conspiracy and a conspiracy to defraud. Prosecutors therefore have a choice, which should be exercised in accordance with the guidance in section 6 of the Code(‘Selection of charges’).

See also: Attorney General’s Guidance on the use of the common law of conspiracy to defraud, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Conspiracy and Substantive Offences

The Consolidated Practice Direction IV.34.3 states that where an indictment contains counts alleging substantive offences and a related conspiracy count, the prosecution must justify the joinder or be required to elect to proceed on the substantive or on the conspiracy count.

Where substantive counts meet the justice of the case, a conspiracy count will rarely need to be added. However, it may be added where the substantive counts do not represent the overall criminality of the defendant’s actions.

One of the reasons care must be taken when deciding whether or not to charge conspiracy is the question of confiscation on conviction. For more information, refer to Legal Guidance on Proceeds of Crime – Confiscation and Ancillary Orders – Post POCA.

Conspiracy to Commit Offences outside England and Wales

A conspiracy may involve the doing of an act by one or more of the parties, or the happening of an event, in a place outside England and Wales which constitutes an offence in that other jurisdiction.

This situation is covered by section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Section 1A has four conditions, which all must be met if the section is to apply.

The wording of section 1A was amended from 1 February 2010 so that it now includes conspiracies in England and Wales to commit offences in Scotland or Northern Ireland. By virtue of section 4(5) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the prior consent of the Attorney General is required to prosecute offences to which section 1A applies.

In cases where parts of the offending occur in different jurisdictions, prosecutors need to determine whether section 1A is applicable.

In R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] EWCA Crim 631 [2004] QB 1418 the Court held that an English court has jurisdiction to try a “substantive offence if substantial activities constituting [the] crime take place in England”; or “a substantial part of the crime was committed here”. This approach “requires the crime to have a substantial connection with this jurisdiction”. It should be noted that there is no single verbal formula that must be applied: it is a question of substance, not form. Also, this approach to jurisdiction in respect of substantive offences was held to be consistent with the approach already established for conspiracy.

When deciding whether AG’s consent is required, prosecutors should consider the following matters:

  1. Identify the substantive offence(s) that would be committed if the agreement were carried out in accordance with the intentions of the parties.
  2. Are those offences, considered separately, triable here? Jurisdiction is basically territorial. But there are many statutory provisions that make extra territorial offences triable here. (For instance, s.20 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence if a person in the UK assists in or induces the commission in any place outside the UK of an offence punishable under the provisions of a corresponding law in force in that place.) Whether any such provisions apply needs to be checked in every case. In a case where no such statutory provisions apply, it may be obvious whether the substantive offence is domestic and thus triable here. If it is not obvious, then a helpful pointer is to ask whether, if the agreement were carried out in accordance with the parties’ intentions, a substantial part of the activities that would constitute the substantive offence would take place here: R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4).
  3. A substantive offence that is triable here should be tried here as that substantive offence, if at all possible.
  4. If a substantive offence is triable here but, by reason of the complexity of the conduct or because no substantive offence is actually committed or for any other reason it is not practicable to try it as a substantive offence here, then a charge of conspiracy may be used. The charge may be under s.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, or in a case of conspiracy to defraud or to corrupt public morals or public decency, at common law: Criminal Law Act 1977 s.5(1)-(3). Section 1A does not come into play because any substantive offence would be triable here.
  5. If the agreement, if carried out in accordance with the intentions of the parties, would result in the commission both of one or more offences triable here and one or more offences not triable here, then s.1A may be invoked. Whether the evidence relating to the substantive offence(s) not triable here should be led at the trial will depend on the facts of the case: is that evidence integral to, or in other words inseparable from, the evidence relating to the substantive offences that are triable here? If the answer is yes, then the evidence can be led, subject to usual safeguards such as s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If the answer is no, then prosecutors may either omit the evidence, or apply for AG’s consent under s.1A, to charge the conspiracy covering all the substantive offences, both those triable here and those not triable here. 

If there is doubt whether the substantive offence(s) that would be committed are triable here, then prosecutors should seek the AG’s consent under s.1A.

The timely application for the Attorney General’s consent is critical in conspiracy cases, which are often complex and require significant time for the Attorney General’s Office to review. Furthermore, prosecutors are advised to be alert to the implications of section 1A issues at an early stage of the investigation and as part of the overall prosecution strategy. Early discussions with other prosecution authorities, such as the Crown Office and Police Scotland, may be considered as part of such a strategy in the event that acts are prosecuted outside England and Wales.

Advice can be obtained from the Attorney General’s Office in relation to procedure and the presenting of the application but advice cannot be given as to whether consent is actually required. For section 1A cases, a clear analysis of why consent is needed should accompany the application.

For further guidance on obtaining the consent of the Law Officers, prosecutors should refer to Consents to Prosecute, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

For further guidance on joint enterprise, prosecutors should refer to Joint Enterprise elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Evidential Considerations

The rule that acts and statements of one party to a common purpose may be evidence against the other is particularly relevant to evidential considerations for those charged with conspiracy.

This rule permits the actions and admissions of one party, A, to be used in evidence against the other, B. It is thus an exception to the general rule that B is not to be prejudiced by the acts or statements of another.

In order for the acts or statements of A to be admissible against B, this rule requires:

  • that the act or statement of A must be in the course and furtherance of the common purpose; and
  • there must be evidence adduced of the existence of the conspiracy and the involvement of both A and B.

Evidence relating to acts or statements by A that were not in furtherance of the common purpose is not admissible against B simply because they have been charged with conspiracy. Similarly, a confession after arrest by A, in which s/he implicates B, is only evidence against A as the common purpose has finished.

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

False Exculpatory Statements Confirm Consciousness of Guilt

By | EVIDENCE / CHAIN OF CUSTODY
false-exculpatory-statements-confirm-consciousness-of-guilt-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

False Exculpatory Statements Confirm Consciousness of Guilt (x±)

Published on 26th September 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
800

Enter more text here

What is a false exculpatory statement?

A person confronted by the police might make a statement that, on its face, exculpates him, but that is, in fact, largely untrue. A false exculpatory statement (also called an “inculpatory” statement) is admissible at trial as evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. The court may instruct the jury that it may infer the defendant is guilty based on this false statement

What is the impact of a false exculpatory statement on a jury?

In many ways, false exculpatory statements are stronger indicators of guilt than a confession. Skillful cross-examination of the detective who obtained a confession may undermine the detective’s credibility to such an extent that the jury may believe the confession was coerced or fabricated. However, jurors are likely to believe an officer’s testimony about a defendant’s untrue exculpatory statement. After all, if the officer was so intent on establishing the defendant’s guilt that he made up a false exculpatory statement, why would he stop there? Why not make up a full-blown confession?

Inculpatory Evidence

Inculpatory evidence is evidence that shows, or tends to show, a person’s involvement in an act, or evidence that can establish guilt.

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

Further resources

Birds of a Feather ±

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
header

Birds of a Feather ±

Published on 3rd July 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
763

Enter more text here

“Frauds of a feather, f*#k together” – JSR DS

Introduction

Today’s article is about Common Interest Privilege, and the many pitfalls associated with the same. It is quite easy for such privilege to be waived inadvertently by the parties themselves by the type and nature of their communications. And of course a court of competent jurisdiction can remove it for them for various reasons, in particular on the classic basis of ‘the furthering of a fraud’, which is the problem my adversaries are facing.

They’re caught in a trap… they can’t walk out!

Destruction of Evidence

In real terms, the party claiming the privilege is the one that needs to provide affirmative evidence as to why it should remain in place. However given the forensic evidence that I have recovered, I have decided to open up my own and adversaries’ lawyers like a tin of sardines, as I am terribly bored of being accused of matters which are not triable, often due to immunity in connection with my ‘naughty’ work.

And the legal basis by which I can challenge their various immunity agreements in any event:-

The Untouchables

20170410 UPDATE - Forensic Evidence Edward de Saram I like to use actual forensic evidence to demonstrate my legal arguments because each case turns...

Joint Privilege and Common Interest Privilege

Joint privilege exists where two or more persons join in communicating with a legal adviser for the purpose of obtaining the lawyer’s advice (ie two parties sharing the same lawyer), where there is a shared interest or mutual benefit to the parties.

Common interest privilege is a defence to claims made by opposing parties that privilege has been waived in relation to certain communications. It applies where the third party has a relationship with the client that creates a mutual interest such that the party to whom the communications are passed receives them subject to a duty of confidence which the law will protect in the interests of justice.

Herbert Smith Freehills – Maura McIntosh

The following article is excellent, and is worth reading in full:-

http://hsfnotes.com/litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/Common-interest-privilege_-common-misconceptions-_-Practical-Law-Dispute-Resolution-blog.pdf

Unfortunately as law enforcement and/or associated parties are the ones perpetrating the frauds against me, then fools who follow their instructions are ‘furthering a fraud’ and therefore privilege has not attached in the first place. The position is that the ‘interests of justice’ line that the parties are taking, is not in the interests of justice, and their evidence and collection methods is untested as usual.

Fake Probable Cause > Crime Scene Construction > Parallel Construction

As is evident from my various articles on LinkedIn I am more than capable of hammering those parties in a UK court, using the benefit of my superior intellect as well as forensic evidence 🙂

Conflicts of Interest and Vicarious Disqualification

Rhodium’s primary jurisdiction for intellectual property, patent-related and defense work is the State of California, and this is the jurisdiction that I am most familiar with. The following article explains the position quite well:-

“Even the most diligent practitioner is susceptible to post-agreement discovery of irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Indeed, conflicts as a result of a joint-defense agreement may arise through no fault of the conflicted attorney or law firm.

For example: Four clients and four law firms wish to enter into a joint-defense agreement. You and your firm diligently perform a conflict check and enter into the agreement. Members of the joint-defense group then share legal memoranda as well as key documents. Later, well into litigation, you learn that one of the law firm members failed to perform an adequate conflict check. Indeed, the other firm had a past representation of an adverse party in a substantially related matter. Under these facts, the firm’s disqualification is a serious risk. In fact, if tainted information was shared within the joint-defense group, disqualification of the entire group may be mandatory.

This scenario illustrates that each attorney member of a joint-defense group necessarily puts a great deal of faith in the other attorneys. So, if you are contemplating such an agreement, make sure you “know” the other attorneys well. One civil case, Essex, illustrates this point. There, a magistrate judge for the District Court of New Jersey issued an order disqualifying all of the law-firm members of a joint-defense group. The order followed the discovery that one of the firms had previously represented the plaintiff on related matters. After that representation, the firm was retained by one of the defendants to defend it in another action. The defendants and their counsel entered into a joint-defense agreement. As a result, the Court found that an implied attorney-client relationship was created between all of the attorney members of the joint-defense group and all of the clients. Moreover, the magistrate ruled that this relationship created an irrebuttable presumption that each firm was privy to plaintiff’s confidential information. Essex Chemical Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 975 F. Supp. 650 (D.C.N.J 1997) reversed by District Court Judge in Essex Chemical Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 993 F. Supp. 241 (D.C.N.J 1998).

Fortunately for the other law firms, the magistrate’s decision automatically to disqualify them was later reversed by a district court judge. The court ordered a hearing to determine whether confidential information was actually shared with the other law firms. While the other firms were given a chance to avoid disqualification, Essex nevertheless illustrates how far some courts may apply vicarious disqualification.

Unexpected Conflicts

Joint-defense agreements can give rise to unanticipated conflicts and vicarious disqualification issues. For example, most attorneys are aware that when attorneys change law firms, disqualifying conflicts can result when former clients of the attorney are adverse to the new law firm. See Frazier v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 4th 23, 29-30 (2002). But you might not be aware that joint-defense agreements dramatically expand this risk. Indeed, the risk is two-sided: a conflict can arise if a law firm party to a joint-defense agreement hires a new attorney who formerly represented a party adverse to a member of the joint-defense group. Likewise, if the new attorney, while at a prior firm, worked on matters involving joint-defense agreements, adversity between the new law firm and members of the attorney’s prior joint-defense group may result in a disqualifying conflict on other cases.

A recent case illustrates this scenario. At his prior firm, an attorney representing a party in a joint-defense group was privy to confidential information about a substantially related matter that his new firm was handling adversely to members of the attorney’s former joint-defense group. Although the firm erected an ethical screen to ensure that no information respecting the matter be exchanged with the new attorney, the trial court – applying the automatic-vicarious-disqualification rule (similar to the magistrate in Essex) – disqualified the entire law firm. Panther v. Park, 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 599 (2002), rehearing denied, review granted, review transferred to Court of Appeal, Panther v. Park, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656 (2003).

Fortunately for the new law firm, the Panther court reversed, holding that such situations merely create a rebuttable presumption in favor of disqualification, which can be rebutted – as was the case there – by a showing that the new law firm implemented effective screening procedures to ensure that confidential information would not be passed to the adverse attorneys. But Panther was de-published and, to date, no California state court case has squarely decided this issue in the joint-defense context. Whether California courts will apply the automatic-vicarious-disqualification rule to this particular scenario remains an open issue.

Prophylactic Measures

Law firms contemplating hiring attorneys should consider the following prophylactic measures to reduce the risk of disqualification. First, inquire whether the attorney has worked on any matters where a joint-defense agreement was in place. Second, acquire the names of all parties to the joint-defense agreement. Third, obtain a copy of the joint-defense agreement to determine whether it contains any applicable waiver provisions. Fourth, run a conflict check on the parties to the joint-defense agreement, including the firm’s past “clients.”Fifth, if the firm or the attorney is adverse to any of the members, analyze whether the matters are substantially related. If the matters are not substantially related, an ethical screen respecting that client is advisable.

Ethical Screen – Sufficient?

When a substantially related conflict exists, the situation is more complex and nebulous. Absent an effective waiver provision in the agreement, if the conflict initially goes undetected, it will likely result in automatic disqualification, because the new law firm will not have the opportunity to erect an ethical screen prior to the new attorney’s arrival. Moreover, if the switching attorney was directly privy to relevant confidential documents, it is uncertain whether ethical screens will be sufficient. See Frazier, supra, 97 Cal. App. 4th at 30. In such a situation, it is inadvisable to hire the attorney without first obtaining an enforceable conflict waiver from the client.

Preventative Clauses

Many potential problems can be avoided through careful drafting of joint-defense agreements. Clauses to consider include:

  • a disclaimer of any actual attorney-client relationship between an attorney and client other than the pre-existing client of that attorney, and that no such relationship will be deemed to arise by implication (Important to avoid future waiver of privilege)
  • a repudiation of the existence of any duty of loyalty (as opposed to a duty of confidentiality) between an attorney for anyone other than the attorney’s own client
  • a waiver of the right to seek the disqualification of the attorney members based on access to joint-defense materials
  • a waiver of the right to object to counsel for the other clients acting adversely towards them in this or other litigation
  • a description of the parameters by which joint-defense materials may be used by the group members and their counsel
  • a representation that the sharing of joint-defense materials is in the parties’ common interest reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which their attorneys were engaged (This is the triggering language for the joint-defense privilege)
  • an ethical screen limiting document access to only those attorneys actually working on the matter
  • a representation that all of the attorneys have performed thorough conflict checks (This reduces the risk of vicarious disqualification)
  • a method for clients and their attorneys to withdraw from the agreement and to provide notice to the other parties

And this is only to name a few possible clauses, as the particulars of each agreement will vary greatly depending on the nature of the case (i.e., civil or criminal), the facts, and the parties’ unique goals. Moreover, what you put in the agreement can significantly avoid the risk of disqualification. For these reasons, it is highly recommended that you consult with a practitioner experienced in crafting such agreements.

Careful Crafting a Must

Two federal criminal cases, Henke and Stepney, illustrate the importance of careful crafting of such agreements. United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633; Stepney, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1069. In Henke, the Ninth Circuit Court of found that: “[a] joint defense agreement establishes an implied attorney-client relationship with the co-defendant….[¶] This privilege can also create a disqualifying conflict where information gained in confidence by an attorney becomes an issue….”Henke, 222 F.3d at 637. In Henke, the agreement apparently did not contain a waiver of the right to seek disqualification of counsel or the right to object to the use of joint-defense materials. And, under such circumstances, the court found that information obtained by the defense attorneys resulted in a disqualifying conflict when one of the defendants elected to testify for the government.

The Henke decision, standing alone, is particularly troubling, as it could be argued that joint-defense agreements create a presumption of a broad implied attorney-client relationship that could result in an array of disqualifying conflicts. But such an expansive interpretation is not warranted.

Indeed, in Stepney, a February 2003 criminal decision, Judge Patel of the Northern District of California reached the opposite conclusion. The court held that joint-defense agreements merely create a duty of confidentiality, which is limited to information actually shared within the group, and that the agreement does not create a “true”attorney-client relationship, implied or otherwise, between the attorneys and the other group members. Indeed, the court expressly distinguished obligations created by joint-defense agreements with those created by actual attorney-client relationships.

Moreover, finding that there is no duty of “loyalty”in the joint-defense context, Judge Patel rejected the automatic-vicarious-disqualification rule, explaining that “no conflict of interest arises unless the attorney actually obtained relevant confidential information.” Id. at 1080-81 (emphasis added).

In Stepney, the court – taking a uniquely proactive stance 1 – required joint-defense agreements to be in writing and submitted to the court for review in camera prior to going into effect. Indeed, the court raised many issues sua sponte in an effort to control the docket by avoiding last-minute withdrawal or disqualification. To this end, the court reviewed existing agreements in the case, analyzed them and ordered revised agreements in conformity with the court’s ruling. Specifically, to avoid disqualification issues as in Henke, the court ordered that the agreements be amended to add waiver provisions, as well as clauses respecting the scope and nature of the relationship between the various clients and attorneys. Id. at 1086.

The contrast between Henke and Stepney dramatically illustrates the need for careful crafting of such agreements. Indeed, based on the Stepney court’s proactive ruling, the court apparently considers waiver provisions in joint-defense agreements to be enforceable notwithstanding the Henke decision. Thus, the failure to put a likely enforceable waiver provision into such agreements could be an unnecessary and fatal mistake.

Implied Attorney-Client Relationships & Privilege Waiver

But what happens if your client and another member of joint-defense group become adverse in litigation? One concern is potential waiver of the attorney-client privilege. For example, under the California Evidence Code, the attorney-client privilege is waived respecting communications and advice between co-parties of the same attorney or law firm. Evid. Code § 962. If a court decides that you represented the entire group, then your client may have waived the privilege as it pertains to future actions with other group members. On the other hand, if it is clear that each client is represented solely by its own attorney as should be explicitly provided in the agreement – section 962 will likely not apply. First Pacific Networks Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 163 F.R.D. 574, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1994) (under California law, the exception to the attorney-client privilege created by section 962 only applies to co-clients of the same attorney(s)).

To reduce the chances of waiver, the agreement should include a clause repudiating the right to assert such a waiver and an affirmative waiver of section 962, along with a recitation of its text.

Accidental Representation

In addition to characterizations and disclaimers, you have to avoid taking actions that can be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship. Indeed, even seemingly innocuous conduct might give rise to an implied attorney-client relationship. It is not uncommon for members of joint-defense groups to attend hearings on the other members’ behalf. But, however innocent, this can arguably create an attorney-client relationship. For example, at a case management conference, “counsel for each party and each self-represented party must appear personally….” Cal. Ct. Rule 212(b)(1) (emphasis added). If a joint-defense agreement does not expressly repudiate an attorney-client relationship, such an appearance might later support a motion to disqualify.

This is but another example of the need to carefully craft joint-defense agreements that expressly define the roles and relationships of the attorneys and clients.

Conclusion

The decision to enter into a joint-defense agreement should be carefully taken; the benefits, such as efficiency and information sharing, must be weighed against the risks of disqualification and privilege waivers. And the agreement must be carefully crafted to minimize risks and maximize benefits, all within the context of the client’s unique circumstances and goals.”

As such please do not get involved with the Melbourne Fraudsters and their cabal of merry fools – watch what I do to Eversheds and hopefully learn from that 🙂

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

TressCox Lawyers

Dentons

McLennan Ross LLP

Clayton Utz – Karen Ingram and Danielle Briers

Holding Redlich

Ashurst

Are You Actually Being Served? ±

By | Z UNCATEGORISED
header_new

Are You Actually Being Served? (x±)

Published on 17th June 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
1411

Are You Being Served? (originally styled as “Are You Being Served?” in quotation marks) is a British sitcom created and written by Jeremy Lloyd and David Croft (Croft also directed some episodes), with contributions from Michael Knowles and John Chapman, for the BBC.[1] Set in London, the show follows the misadventures and mishaps of the staff of the retail ladies’ and gentlemen’s clothing departments, in the flagship department store of a fictional chain called Grace Brothers.

Broadcast between 1972 and 1985 on BBC1, the sitcom itself spanned ten series totaling 69 parts – five of which are Christmas specials. Are You Being Served? was a great success in the UK and was also popular in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Israel. In the United States, it gained a loyal and enthusiastic following when PBS television stations began airing reruns of it in the mid 1980s, along with other British sitcoms.

In 2004, the sitcom was ranked 20th in the countdown of Britain’s Best Sitcom.[2] It is regularly repeated worldwide (PBS and BBC America in the United States; and BBC UKTV in Australia and New Zealand).

Australian Version

The Australian version of Are You Being Served? was nothing short of utter rubbish, and as I have found, the court system there is similar…

Primary Issue

The main issues stem from the fact that parties simply accept opinions as facts, and if more people appear to increasingly endorse them, the greater the ‘factual basis’. This phenomenon is know as the Bandwagon Fallacy:-

Make America Grate Again

The American Fake News and Anti-Trump sentiment is reaching fever pitch, and as these types of things happen to me all the time, I thought I would write a short article confirming the logical fallacies underlying this phenomenon and why things can escalate rapidly.

As such even before the matter is even ventilated, there is the predetermination of guilt, and a desire for judicial officers to align themselves with the ‘popular vote’ and/or ‘alternative facts’.
Secondary Issue

There is a massive element of ignorance and lack of general exposure to the real world. The courts and lawyers are of generally lower standard. When I correct them (especially in matters where there is a heavy forensic aspect) they just dismiss me without reason or brand me a trouble-maker 🙂

PUT IT THIS WAY, IF THEY WERE AS GOOD AS THEY PURPORTED THEN THERE WOULD BE NO 'TROUBLE' 🙂

There have been many cases which end up as ‘statistics for future cases’ where there has been a grotesque level of stupidity demonstrated by either the court admin staff or even the magistrates/judges themselves.

Additionally the decision-making and/or interpretation of the evidence is poor and most of the time it is the ‘tail wagging the dog’.

Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport

Historically, we have not commented on current or proposed litigation for reasons obvious enough. But when there is blatant Perversion of the Course ...

Actually I just looked at the above article from 09 August 2016 and the audio recordings relating to Bill Orow and Nick Sevdalis have gone, plus the YouTube videos!!

Yes my material is continually removed when I am spot on and my lawyers continually tell me that ‘you don’t have any evidence’ – of course I bloody do – just reading my LinkedIn articles alone confirm that!

And the latest Eversheds Sutherland stuff is priceless, because this is the signature theme of the lawyers in Singapore and Australia:-

Eversheds Exposed in 'Destruction of Rhodium Evidence' Case

20170613 updates in progress - watch the above video in HD... In really simple terms, a SPECIFIC IP address 193.129.103.99 is associated with ...

Specific Cases in which there have been Deficiencies Involving Service / Document Provision / Gross Negligence

(full evidence to being inserted)

Federal Court – ATO v Rhodium Australia won obviously, malfeasance by Moya Todd of the ATO as well as non-service of originating motion. A malicious Winding Up Petition,

County Court Victoria – DAB v JDS – an entire farce throughout replete with fraud – non-service of documents and I only found out by chance of the originating motion! In this case the Substituted Service, Security for Costs and Summary Judgment were all obtained fraudulently by Perjurious Affidavits!!

In any event contrary to the [fraudulent] belief, I am neither evasive nor elusive. These are just lies based upon incorrect Google Articles and it is simply not my personality type! As it happens I have spectacular evidence and that is why parties go to massive lengths to destroy it and even me 🙂

Perhaps if the Melbourne Fraudsters had not incited physical violence resulting in the infliction of criminal injuries against me then my timings would have been better?

I HAVE THE BRAINS AND THE BALLS TO DEFEND MYSELF AND WIN OBVIOUSLY. I AM HAPPY TO DO SO ALONE EVEN IF MY OWN PARENTS AND OWN LAWYERS ARE ANOTHER SET OF SAD FRAUDSTERS WHO IMPEDE MY PROGRESS AND DENY NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS 🙂

Procedure for Service

The following screenshots are from the document entitled 20170617 Entities Domains E-mail.pdf