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


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

Published on 4th February 2018

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

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.


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 🙂


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.



"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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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!


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


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 (JSRDS)

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

Birds of a Feather ±


Birds of a Feather ±

Published on 3rd July 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Enter more text here

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


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:-

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.


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 (JSRDS)

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

TressCox Lawyers


McLennan Ross LLP

Clayton Utz – Karen Ingram and Danielle Briers

Holding Redlich


Are You Actually Being Served? ±


Are You Actually Being Served? (x±)

Published on 17th June 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

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 🙂


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 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?


Procedure for Service

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


Articles in this series:-


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Litigation Protocols and Procedures ±


Litigation Protocols and Procedures (x±)

Published on 6th June 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

20170617 Entities Domains E-mail

The following screenshots have been obtained from 20170617 Entities Domains E-mail.pdf and are self-explanatory. This pdf supersedes the below text, though the latter is maintained for reference to the original article.


Legal Resolution (“LEGRES”)

My colleagues are handling the resolution of outstanding matters as the various parties in Australasia seem to be [deliberately] unable to follow extremely straightforward procedures.

As I have stated repeatedly, delays in attending to matters have been caused by Tortious Interference and Injurious Falsehoods – inciting violence against me and the infliction of serious criminal injuries naturally takes time to overcome. Considering the hacking and spoliation of evidence as well, external factors beyond my control are clearly to blame.

I note quite a number of UK parties have become embroiled in the mess and I look forward to dealing with all and sundry in the manner which most befits them.

With a view to ‘dumbing down‘ systems to the level of the ‘highest common factor‘, the level of which is quite low:-


[DRAFT] Specific E-mail Addresses Must be Used [to be notified next week]

In an attempt to reduce the impact of fraud which seems to pervade this part of the world, new e-mail addresses have been set up.

The e-mail address is in the format of [email protected] where the X is either the domain or the actual e-mail address of the party. The correct domain will appear here and is simply an example.

For example if the sender domain is then the e-mail address for communication on the LEGRES system would be .

If the party were an individual whose e-mail address was [email protected] then the e-mail address on the LEGRES system would be .

If those e-mail addresses are used to communicate then any e-mails sent from either the domain to [email protected] or the [email protected] e-mail to [email protected] will be successfully delivered on the system.

JSRDS.Legal / Rhodium.Legal

These two e-mail addresses have been working perfectly and were set up to expedite litigious issues. The purpose was to specifically whitelist ‘important’ e-mails so that they would not be joining over 10,000 incoming per day which would be extremely difficult to process due to limited Human Resources.

However as of 16 June 2017 any e-mails sent to the above addresses will be automatically rejected and the sender will be notified accordingly of the new e-mail addresses. Remember to check junk mail folders.

[DRAFT] Service of Process (Non-Personal)

E-mail systems have been enhanced to ensure that there is a full demonstrable audit trail which can be presented as evidence in judicial proceedings.

Accordingly NON-PERSONAL SERVICE IS ACCEPTED BY E-MAIL providing all the following terms 1 through 13 are complied with:-

[DRAFT] Document Mechanics and Procedure

  1. Service can only be effected by the litigant or its lawyer – no third party service (howsoever associated) is accepted;
  2. Documents must be in Adobe Portable Document format (“PDF”);
  3. Documents must be colour scanned at 300 dpi, or a pdf generated from a source document;
  4. Court Stamps, signatures and page numbering must be clearly visible;
  5. All pages must be numbered sequentially;
  6. Each e-mail message (including PDF attachments) can not be larger than 5Mb in size, so any large pdfs will need to be split accordingly to meet the 5Mb message limit, which means the PDF size would be around 4Mb;
  7. Around 250Mb spread over multiple messages would be acceptable;
  8. Only an absolutely minimal amount of text should appear in the e-mail body (preferably none) as the system is designed to strip attachments and store them safely on multiple systems for processing by lawyers;
  9. Publicly verifiable digital signatures should be embedded and used wherever possible, though not essential;
  10. The document must be complete and no further communications and/or discussions should be required to deal with the matter. Should additional materials be required then they will be requested within 48hrs of receipt;
  11. When e-mails are successfully accepted by the e-mail system for processing, an Autoresponse confirmation will be provided to the sender, which will confirm the current date and will include the words ‘SERVICE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION’. The confirmation would be sent within a few minutes of the sender’s e-mail;
  12. Within 72hrs of the SERVICE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION autoresponse message, a PDF will be e-mailed to the sender, containing the words ‘SERVICE ACCEPTED BY XXX YYY’ in which XXX YYY is the name of the entity being served;
  13. Should the ‘additional materials’ referenced in 9 not be provided within 72hrs of the SERVICE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION autoresponse message, then the ‘SERVICE ACCEPTED BY XXX YYY’ pdf will be provided only upon the provision of the outstanding items and instead a pdf will be e-mailed to the sender, contained the words ‘SERVICE DEFICIENT TRY AGAIN’.

[DRAFT] Service of Process (Personal)

PERSONAL SERVICE IS ACCEPTED BY E-MAIL providing all the previous terms 1 through 13 are complied with, together with 9a through 9c.

After stage 9 above:-

9A The actual litigant or their lawyer would need to make a contact request to Skype ID XXX;

9B Contact Request Acceptance would occur within 12hrs and the video call would be scheduled within a further 24hrs;

9C The video call would need to be recorded by both parties, and the litigant or their lawyer would need to hold their Photo ID up to the camera, as would I.

[DRAFT] Replacement 10 for Personal Service:-

Within 24hrs of the conclusion of the call, a pdf will be e-mailed to the sender, containing the words ‘SERVICE ACCEPTED BY JOSEPH S R DE SARAM’ together with the date and time of the call, together with a URL from which the recorded audio/video may be downloaded. I would also require the video recording made by the other party.

[DRAFT] Technological Resources

The following is software which will assist in the various processes above, though no liability is accepted and the decision should be made by the server only.

Splitting PDF files –

Skype Call Recording –

this is DRAFT – still determining protocols and procedures.


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Smoke Without Fire is EASY ±


Smoke Without Fire is EASY (x±)

Published on 30th August 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

‘There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind.‘ – Napoleon Bonaparte

Chemistry 101

The reaction equation between ammonia (NH3) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) is written as follows: NH3+HCl=NH4Cl. Ammonia is a weak base that reacts with hydrochloric acid, forming a compound called ammonium chloride.

During this chemical reaction, hydrochloric acid donates a proton to ammonia, meaning the former compound acts as a Bronsted-Lowry acid, while the latter is a Bronsted-Lowry base.

Visually, smoke is produced but there is no fire!!

The Classic Phrase(s)

US – “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

UK – “There’s no smoke without fire.”

This is the meaning:-

There's no smoke without fire

uk saying us where there's smoke, there's fire ​ If unpleasant things are said about someone or something, there is probably a good reason for it: She says the accusations are not true, but there's no smoke without fire.....

People go around feeding off the negativity of the lies that they themselves have created to attempt to destroy everything. People in the US/UK/HK must be wondering how grotesquely stupid people in LK/AU/SG are. However after a while they too would be getting concerned and that means the Tortious Interference and Injurious Falsehoods would be working because of the [flawed] ‘No smoke without fire’ concept.

But the jurisdiction of the UK is enlivened which clearly helps my causes since I do not need to work with retarded and/or two-faced lawyers in Australasia!

The Actual Position

As my evidence on LinkedIn demonstrates, my line of work plus the messes adversaries get into means they have to file perjurious affidavits, bogus ex-parte applications and engage in smear campaigns.

It is clear that these are simply Argumentum Ad Hominem attacks to cause massive commercial losses as well as to pervert the course of justice.

I have information confirming that Melbourne Fraudsters and Edward de Saram are behind this since the very early evidence demonstrates it was their fraudulent foundations. Sure they have now recruited fools to their ranks and it is the fools (law enforcement included) that have been manipulated and this is how it appears ‘official’ and ‘genuine’.

I can even demonstrate that forensically too and virtually every call I have these days is about the fact that either (a) my parents are ‘good’ people or (b) everyone telling me ‘you don’t have evidence’ 🙂

Actually I obviously have evidence which is why my own confidence is rising rapidly despite heart issues, so I welcome the mercury rising. All the parties covering each other irrationally confirms how deep this goes!

Adversaries Need the Veil of Secrecy

The modus operandi of the parties is to produce unchallenged statements – that means circulating propaganda, stealing evidence modifying it and then placing their dense/fraudulent interpretations with it.

Producing misleading affidavits for courts which are unusually emotive in nature or just being hostile (because that is the agreed Lawyer’s Construct) is blatantly fraudulent. But the ‘story’ reads well, just like Star Wars or Harry Potter.

When parties demonstrate this unusually hostile behaviour, all at the same time and using the same signature themes (which are all flawed) then they only link themselves to their fraud and each other, and their conspiratorial nature is patently obvious.

Science Homework

This reminds me of the time that I deliberately made a mistake on my own science homework in Mr Wilson’s class in January 1983 (I was 10yrs old). I then provided my exercise book (if you remember what they were) to one classmate who bullied me for it. The bully assumed that I would not make any deliberate mistakes and therefore since I was invariably getting straight As, my template was solid,

When Mr David Wilson returned the books after marking, five people had the identical incorrect answer for one of the questions (!) and in fact the identical incorrect answer was nothing close to the correct answer.

Mr Wilson did not inform my peers in Elements ‘A’. At the end of the class he privately asked me why I had made a deliberate mistake and I responded ‘I wanted to see how lazy and desperate my classmates are’ 🙂

Stealth Mode

But the really interesting thing is that whilst I have elucidated what is going on from forensic science, I have not been provided even with one document containing the [latest] lies. Of course I have previous documents.

The perpetrators need the ‘cover of darkness’ in which to propagate their garbage. Their ‘veil of secrecy’ is their most powerful tool because if they cannot get their lies in at the start and obtain an unfair advantage that way, then they will be certainly exposed and obviously finished at a later point in time.

Demonising me as a criminal serves to give them a ‘cloak’ but actually since there is no criminal case that can possibly succeed it is nothing more than ‘wind and piss’.

Furthermore schadenfreude (the deriving of pleasure from the misfortune of others) gives them a sense of elation and all the fools who are part of their cabal are actually on the receiving end of litigation and/or pending litigation from me.

Additionally any privilege which they believe arises from their ‘common interest’ is easy to set aside on the basis of their perversions of the course of justice and criminal conspiracy. And the more parties are part of the conspiracy then it is easier to identify members of the cabal and make one or two ‘flip’.

Joe is Open and Transparent

Unlike the perpetrators, I can be Open and Transparent because I HAVE EVIDENCE and I AM RIGHT. Many of my articles on LinkedIn go to the heart of that which I am being accused of or unfounded allegations made against me.

I have elucidated these from examining forensic evidence and observing that which is occurring around me. My conclusions are NOT derived from mens rea or a guilty mind. In fact if I were guilty of something then I would not be prejudicing my own case by drawing attention to my ‘crimes’ on LinkedIn 🙂

Spectacular Injurious Falsehoods and Parallel Constructions

As such they are not concerns and this entire matter is one of defamation in which a criminal slant is produced in order to try and recreate the mess that journalists caused me in 2000.

Perhaps the fools think that their attempts to isolate me will make me more vulnerable – actually they have done me a kind of favour as I am shielded from parties who do not have my interests at heart. It has pushed me to get my head down and focus on data recovery – which I have been working on of course despite serious heart issues.

Various parties such as my parents have told me to ‘move on’ and ‘draw a line’ – these are merely diversionary tactics and fancy terms for ‘ignore the case against you’ and ‘do not pursue the perpetrators’.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

The source of the Big Lie technique is this passage, taken from Chapter 10 of James Murphy‘s translation of Mein Kampf:

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X [1]

Psychological Basis – The False Analogy

This must surely be a classic, two entirely different scenarios:-

(a) Payment Delays from 1998 to 2000, which was actually nonsense caused by HMCE who was on the wrong end of a case from me, and my involvement in clandestine work and Money Laundering Projects and Fake Banks;

(b) Payment Delays in the last few years, which are actually due to a SGD 27,500 operation in Singapore in 2011 for Obstructive Sleep Apnoea, Data Losses, Coronary Artery Disease and a Heart Attack on 18 May 2013, and of course the Tortious Interference and Injurious Falsehoods of the Melbourne Fraudsters, who are trying so desperately to further the fraud of their fraudulently-obtained judgement by recruitment of ‘witnesses’ who are not ‘disinterested’ as well as their smear campaigns.

The existence of ‘Payment Delays’ does not mean a ‘modus operandi’ and/or ‘prior criminality’, but the foregoing conclusions are completely incorrect and logically flawed.

The False Analogy works by ignorant parties reviewing the end result and determining that the causative agent and/or response to the causative agent was/is the same. The way to propagate the effect is to quickly get many people involved, and validate the purported facts against the statements of others who appear in the ‘same boat’ rather than independently ascertaining all the facts (including the actual ones from me) before attempting to conclude anything.

Psychological Basis – The Straw man

This is the easiest to effect – my legal arguments and life are extremely complex so the retards around me just need to open their mouths and incorrectly summarise complex matters so that they can process them, propagating their flawed conclusions along the way which then reinforce their plausibility.

This has happened repeatedly in various legal cases and reflects the lack of class by opposing counsel (as well as my own) because the latter are just not bright enough to understand BUT are too proud to admit it. If they had simply been honest with me about their ignorance then things would have been different and they would not be about to get sued 🙂

For ALL the cases going forward I will be physically present in court and then we can see the correct result.

Psychological Basis – The False Dichotomy

This is another classic which is prevalent in this part of the world. The [flawed] conclusion is based upon the inability of the viewer to allow two opposing concepts to co-exist.

What is Dichotomous Thinking's Link to Borderline Personality?

Dichotomous Thinking does not require a link to BPD as the prevalence of this type thought process in Australasia because of GroupThink autocatalyses and therefore exacerbates the flaw.

It works particularly well against me in my present location because of the Asian culture of ‘don’t question the parents, don’t question the teacher, don’t question law enforcement’…

The Dogs May Bark but the Rhodium Juggernaut Rolls On

So despite the actual perpetrators trying their hardest to break my spirit and win, it just will not happen for three simple reasons:-

(a) Investigations do not phase me and litigation is my favourite indoor sport – I have the intellect to identify and crush the perpetrators, having recovered around 15% of forensic evidence so far. As I have stated previously I can collapse the entire case against me forensically;

(b) The ongoing lies around me is akin to JTRIG operations and having identified PSYOPS very early such harassment has absolutely no effect, especially when I have already stated that long-standing Asset Protection Mechanisms are in place which can withstand Mareva Injunctions;


However in matters such as these I cannot sit around letting parties say what they like – in fact from 01 May 2017 there are new lawyers engaged to give these fools a good hammering 🙂


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Further resources

Happy Easter 2017 ±


Happy Easter 2017 (±)

Published on 16 April 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Enter more text here

Snopey the Cuddly Bunny from 2008:-

Hunting for Easter Eggs

An egg hunt is a game during which decorated eggs or Easter eggs are hidden for children to find. Real hard-boiled eggs, which are typically dyed or painted, artificial eggs made of plastic filled with chocolate or candies, or foil-wrapped egg-shaped chocolates of various sizes are hidden in various places. The game is often played outdoors, but it can also be played indoors.

The children typically collect the eggs in a basket. When the hunt is over, prizes may be given out for various achievements, such as the largest number of eggs collected, for the largest or smallest egg, for the most eggs of a specific color, consolation prizes or booby prizes.

Real eggs may further be used in egg tapping contests. If eggs filled with confetti left from Mardi Gras (cascarones) are used, then an egg fight may follow.

Eggs are placed with varying degree of concealment, to accommodate children of varying ages and development levels.

In South German folk traditions it was customary to add extra obstacles to the game by placing them into hard-to reach places among nettles or thorns.

Parallel Construction by Law Enforcement and Investigators

‘Hunting’ for Easter Eggs when you know where they are and/or you have planted them is a good way of describing what a parallel construction is 🙂

Evidence is placed with varying degree of concealment, to accommodate investigators of varying ages and development levels!!

Happy Easter to everyone from Shihara the Owl Cat as well

and especially my adversaries because I now have some eggsciting forensic evidence which will crack this case wide open – ha ha 🙂


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

The Untouchables ±


The Untouchables (x±)

Published on 26th March 2017

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Enter more text here

20170410 UPDATE – Forensic Evidence

Edward de Saram

I like to use actual forensic evidence to demonstrate my legal arguments because each case turns on its merits. As I have written below “material to demonstrate a propensity to lie” is a key determinant as to the suitability of a witness [and also in fact a Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS)].

To provide irrefutable evidence that Edward de Saram (“EDS”) is liar, it is vital that circumstances not involving Tania or I is used as evidence otherwise a defence attorney could muddy the issues somewhat or ‘come out with the usual diversionary tactics’.

The following recording features the further antics of EDS on 04 December 2015, around the time of him staging the crime scene and the fake probable cause. However they have nothing to do with me. All recordings were extracted from a Nokia N8 entirely lawfully and I will explain why in due course.

Banner Jones

The background to the matter is that Banner Jones (a law firm that EDS uses) had some property transaction agreement that needed to be executed in the UK. However EDS was in Sri Lanka running frauds against me and trying to kill Shihara the Owl Cat whilst planning Electroconvulsive Therapy treatment for me.

Whilst EDS could have easily provided a Power of Attorney which may have been lawful subject to the nature of the transaction (which he did not do either despite a number of conversations before this one, the recordings of which I have :)) the lack of boundaries and/or remorse is evident, and even the desire to operate within the law is entirely missing. All these are classic traits of Pathological Narcissism.

The phrase “I’ve sorted it out” said by Ann Gibbins (“AG”) means ‘I’ve forged your signature on a property transfer document’.

EDS responded with “that’s not very good” (in a jovial tone) but then confirms “right, okay”.

AG confirmed “I rung Praxy.. there was no other way”. AG confirmed signing and “Jean witnessed it”.

EDS states “I don’t want people to know that I have come to Sri Lanka as well so we don’t need to let the lawyers or Sandy.. or anybody.. only Jean knows that I am here”.

AG confirmed “I know that Edward and we are keeping it very secret”.

EDS responded “Anyway that is sorted out so that’s good then” and AG reconfirmed “That’s good”.

AG confirmed that “She [Praxy de Saram (“PDS”)] told me to go ahead and do it because I asked her”. EDS responded “Right, okay that’s fine.. so don’t repeat it.

EDS merrily confirms “You all are fraudulently.. criminal offence you have committed” in another joking tone.


AG has forged a signature on a document that needed to be witnessed – this would suggest a deficient execution of that document, as my article about David Brown discusses the concept.

PDS has instructed AG to forge the signature which confirms that PDS is an “Accessory Before the Fact”. JP has fraudulently witnessed the forged signature so that makes her an accomplice and AG is of course the perpetrator. EDS upon hearing about the crime conceals it which makes him an “Accessory After the Fact”. I do not know the UK terms for ABTF and AATF.

The purchaser has therefore been deceived into parting with money for something that he technically does not own. Banner Jones should have properly made enquiries into the veracity of the signature of EDS (notwithstanding the existence of a witness) as I am sure they would know what EDS’ signature looks like having worked with him for years.

Consciousness of Guilt and/or criminal intent is confirmed by (a) the desire to conceal the matter from third parties and (b) the mutual decision not to discuss the matter openly between the co-conspirators.

The resulting document comes under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the section are:-

1 The offence of forgery.

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

3 The offence of using a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

And parts of the The Fraud Act 2006.

So what should Banner Jones do? Contact the Purchaser and confirm the fraud (which would also confirm a liability upon themselves) or pretend that everything is just hunkydory 🙂

Perhaps this is the option:-

Margaret Cunniffe – material to demonstrate a propensity to lie

Psychological Projection

Sadly as I have stated before, the people around me are the ones running the frauds and I get blamed for their crimes all the time. This is Psychological Projection at its finest and the Melbourne Fraudsters are astonishingly convincing to most third parties. In fact Margaret Cunniffe forged my signature all the time and obviously without my consent.

20170326 INITIAL

The provision of Immunity Agreements is one that should not be taken lightly, and as can be seen the FBI of the present day is heavily policitised and lacks the integrity of old 🙂

The type of agreements I had from 1993 are primarily not for witness statements – they relate to projects in which there is an element of ‘technological weaponisation’ which is fundamentally different. Expert Testimony is more akin to usual types of Transactional Immunity, but mine were drafted in an extremely customised manner because I am not a US Citizen and the coverage was provided by a defense contractor with a number of intermediaries in between.

Dude, where's my Laptop?

[Sorry this is really badly written - so I am in the process of re-writing it :)] As many people who need to know, know, I have an interesting line of...

Choose Witnesses Carefully otherwise Cases Collapse

Parties with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (“NPD”) and Pseudologia Fantastica (“Pathological Liars”) are those who are able to easily deceive Law Enforcement and their Prosecutors into providing such agreements. However it is usually those parties who are responsible for numerous crimes as they appear extremely plausible. Providing them with IAs is merely narcissistic supply and as it confers on the them a sense of power and invincibility. And be mindful of the self-victimisation issues of NPD.

The Four Muskeeters

Having reviewed recovered and forensic evidence 4 individuals stand out:-

Margaret Cunniffe / Edward de Saram / Praxy de Saram / Iain Jones

as those who:-

(a) have Narcissistic Personality Disorder; (b) have Pseudologia Fantastica; (c) have or have had a very close association with me; (d) owe me sums of money, often significant, and are those whom I have assisted considerably; (e) are on the wrong end of litigation in progress or pending; (f) would ‘claim’ to have an in-depth knowledge of me and are very convincing; (g) know the limitations and time constraints I have; (h) strive for repeated validation and approval; (i) would be ‘genuinely happy’ (ie exhibit schadenfreude) if I were ‘taken down’;

Liars Can’t Be Expected to Tell the Truth

Denning LJ summed up such individuals nicely in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1

Prosecuting as a consequence of false evidence (from UK CPS)

31. An agreement is always made on the basis that the witness will provide truthful information or evidence. All notices of immunity, restricted use undertakings and written agreements with co-operating offenders should contain an express condition requiring that what the witness or intelligence source (as applicable) communicates to the prosecution is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Where subsequently it can be demonstrated (on the criminal standard of proof) that the evidence or information is false the agreement can be rescinded for failure of this condition. The agreement should state the consequences of such failure.

32. In addition, the giving of false evidence in court following a formal agreement may give rise to a prosecution for perjury or for attempting to pervert the course of public justice. When reviewing such a case in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, prosecutors should bear in mind that neither an immunity notice nor a restricted use undertaking will include immunity from, nor preclude the use of any evidence in, such a prosecution. Subject to the evidential stage of the Code Test being satisfied, prosecution will normally be required in the public interest. Any discount in sentence that has been obtained pursuant to formal agreement should also be reviewed using the power provided by section 74 of the 2005 Act.

33. The fact that an immunity notice or a restricted use undertaking has been issued does not prevent the bringing of a private prosecution against the recipient of the notice. Nevertheless, the public interest in securing the cooperation of accomplices is such that it would seldom, if ever, be right to permit a private prosecution to continue in the face of an immunity notice or undertaking. While every case must be judged on its own merits, the Director of Public Prosecutions is likely to exercise his power under section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to take over such a prosecution with a view to discontinuing it.

Assessing reliability and credibility

11. A prosecutor should endeavour to assess, in cooperation with the investigating agency, the reliability and credibility of the potential witness. In doing so, prosecutors should consider, amongst other things, the following:

   a. the consistency and accuracy of the accounts provided (this should be assessed by analysing the debrief material against other available evidence, information and/or intelligence);

   b. the readiness of the potential witness to change their account (consider also the frequency of change and any explanation provided);

   c. any deliberate distortion of the roles of others;

   d. whether the potential witness is minimising their own role;

   e. the scale of Bad Character – have they led a ‘life of crime’ and is there material to demonstrate a propensity to lie?

   f. the honesty, motivation and demeanour of the potential witness (this should be explored in debriefing and the views of the investigator will be important in making this assessment);

   g. any tendency to confuse (although might this just be a consequence of the potential witness’ long-term criminality);

   h. any issues around the medical health of the potential witness, following any assessment made of their medical records.

12. In order to properly assess these factors, it will be necessary to establish the full criminal history of the witness, including full details of all his or her contacts with the police, whether or not these resulted in a criminal conviction. In addition, when appropriate, prosecutors should liaise with investigators to establish the medical history of the witness – in particular any mental health issues, substance abuse or other medical issues which might be relevant to the question of reliability and credibility. Whilst the presence of such issues may not necessarily, of themselves, mean a cooperating witness is not credible, it is essential that all relevant information is obtained by the investigator and considered by the prosecutor so that an informed decision can be made with regards to how to proceed with an offender who is prepared to cooperate.

13. The following factors will also be relevant:

   a. the seriousness of any offence(s) concerning which the evidence, information, co-operation, assistance or other benefit would be provided; as a rule non-prosecution agreements should only be considered in serious cases;

   b. the seriousness of any offence(s) which the potential witness might have committed, in comparison with ‘a’ above, including the extent to which the potential witness had coerced or incited another person to take part in the offence(s) under investigation.

14. In addition, prosecutors should assess the strength of the prosecution case with and without the information from the potential accomplice/witness and should be satisfied that the person is able and prepared to provide reliable evidence on significant aspects of the case. In making this judgement, some or all of the following factors may be relevant:

   a. the importance and value of the evidence, information, co-operation, assistance or other benefit to be provided;

   b. whether it is possible to obtain the evidence, information, co-operation, assistance or other benefit from another witness, or in another manner;

   c. the strength of the prosecution case without the evidence that it is expected that the witness can give; and, if some other charge could be established against the defendant without the witness’ evidence, the extent to which that other charge would reflect the defendant’s criminality;

   d. the impact of the evidence that it is expected that the witness can give on the prospects of conviction in the case taken as a whole (the prospects of the conviction may actually be reduced because of the bad character and lack of candour of the witness when giving evidence);

   e. whether there are other indicators tending to confirm that the evidence or information that the witness might give is true;

   f. the number of occasions and the circumstances in which any agreement has been made with the witness in the past; the expectation of a discount in sentence should not be seen as a licence to continue to commit offences;

   g. whether the interests of justice (including the protection of the public and the interests of the victim) would be better served by obtaining the proposed evidence, information, co-operation, assistance or other benefit; or by the conviction of the person with whom it is proposed to make an agreement.

Checking the Facts PROPERLY at the Initial Stages

Clearly the lies of the Melbourne Fraudsters have been used as the foundation without proper scrutiny – they are extremely plausible. I am not plausible and no-one believes anything I say but the forensic evidence that I have nails everyone and it speaks for itself!!

to be continued…


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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