Conciousness of Guilt v3 ±

By 15 November 2016Z UNCATEGORISED

Conciousness of Guilt (x±)

Published on 15th November 2016

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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

Enter more text here

I read an interesting article today entitled Gowdy: Clinton should be prosecuted, written by Bob Montgomery and featured on GoUpstate. Ironically this follows up nicely on Grand Theft Data v3 and what the inferences can be drawn from the evidence. I am still writing this post as there is a lot of information…

Criminal Liability is usually proven from the combination of (a) an act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). Proving a state of mind is not as straightforward though there are many offences which do not need mens rea, such as a drunk driver killing a pedestrian or strict/absolute liability offences relating to corporate legislation.

In the above article, I make particular reference to the following paragraph:-

“There is sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial, upon which a jury could conclude an intent to violate the law. This evidence includes concealment of evidence, destruction of evidence and false exculpatory statements — all of which fall under the general heading of consciousness of guilt.”

Rather than provide the usual examples in case law, I would like to refer to evidence that we have obtained, particularly as each case turns on its own merits.

Sufficiency of Evidence

The ‘devil is in the detail’ as they say, and one of the issues that I am facing is that adversaries and their agents continually destroy my evidence against them. Concomitantly they produce false and perjurious affidavits and copious amounts of irrelevant self-serving paperwork which is easy to dismiss as I know the factual position. However their voluminous diatribes seem to attract gravitas from parties who make decisions based on incomplete evidence and of course no-one shares such evidence with me as I would simply destroy their arguments at an earlier point of time.

Concealment of Evidence

In the matters concerning David Brown / Margaret Cunniffe / McDonald Slater & Lay, concealment of evidence was one of the key features. The former had data and equipment belonging to Rhodium which was provided under the RHOAUS – Synergize Contractor Agreement, and we did not have our own copy after a data loss which occurred on 30 November 2012.

As part of discovery, the Browns possessed e-mails which incriminated them, but which we did not have at that time. They knew about the data loss and therefore CONCEALED them as the e-mails would have destroyed their entire argument.

The case turned upon a Purported Promissory Note (“PPN”) which I had provided to Brown – conditional upon my requirement of mutual acceptance though Brown was not interested and did not want to be bound by those terms. Judgment was fraudulently obtained against me, together with a fraudulent interest calculation.

An e-mail confirming that the PPN was additionally ‘null and void’ was withheld by the Browns:-

Following on from other articles in the CHIS series:-

Destruction of Evidence

Destruction of evidence can be demonstrated in three ways – (a) data is not viewable using normal file explorer type applications and only appears after a recovery process (b) there is actual evidence of parties colluding to destroy evidence, (c) there is visible data destruction either remotely or electromagnetically.

Destruction of Data occurs during Interception of Data, either lawful or unlawful. As can be seen here, my internet traffic is taking an abnormal route, which suggests modification and/or monitoring of the same:-

Traffic from Sri Lanka to the United States does not need to go back to Germany (Hop 10) once it is in the US, to then go back to the US (Hop 9). It is clear that there is re-routing occurring at Hop 11:-

and the collection is occurring at Hop 10:-

I will therefore use Pre-Action Disclosure protocols to obtain every packet, engineer, piece of equipment and piece of infrastructure used, to ascertain the correct position. Or should I wait for a case to commence and then get it (and therefore collapse the case) at that point?

In fact we will need to get court orders against every single hop in view of the copious amounts of unlawful acts occurring against me, and some of the hops may simply be nodes which containing nothing of significance.

Furthermore, I also note that our web-traffic analysers have picked up this block, and there is a direct correlation between the parties accessing our webservers during the course of visiting websites, as well as those accessing webservers without our authorisation. As such there is a requirement to uncover ALL traffic to our webservers as well, and we will obtain Norwich Pharmacal Orders as required.

Given the fact that there has been data exfiltration, it is clear that anything out of the ordinary MUST be immediately investigated thoroughly and considered as linked to the issue itself. I certainly did not authorise my data traffic to be intercepted. Should warrants allow the interception of such data then the authorisations for the same need to be examined in detail to determine how they came into existence and that which was used to obtain them, with particular reference to Full and Frank Disclosure in that process.

Furthermore, the burden of proof shifts to the interceptor of data to demonstrate that (a) it has the right to do so and that (b) it has not destroyed my data, and additionally they have the massive burden of providing ALL the individual packets of data in Discovery.

I envisage this to be in the order of hundreds of terabytes so I suggest parties do not bring a case against me unless they meet ALL my requirements for discovery – I will provide a long list shortly.

Additionally, I see that legal professional privilege has been removed in its entirety and that further compromises my ability to either instruct or receive instructions from my lawyers.

The French Connection 20161118

This is the first hop from LK today – very interesting, and I have actually seen this pattern before in an investigation that I was undertaking for a Russian client. In that particular assignment City of London Police were investigating my client for Money Laundering and Tax Evasion and had recruited two private teams to investigate. I also recall that Marseille connection, and I had a couple of pals who were at Interpol in Lyon, a few hours drive from Marseille. In that particular case CoLP failed miserably but it is always fun to see that lessons have not been learned 🙂

Investigations are an absolutely normal part of law enforcement and when parties such as Simon Thompson / Margaret Cunniffe produce convincing garbage, I prefer to sit back and watch parties spend tax-payer money in the pursuit of white elephants – or in my case Brown Elephants 🙂

Evidence of Parties’ Collusion

I will be focussing on (b) and refer to the following excerpts of recorded calls, obtained forensically and entirely lawfully, from the Nokia N8 of Edward de Saram. The whole Psychiatric Issue was a precursor/secondary fraud to the primary fraud of data exfiltration:-

EDS asks KSA Perera to go upstairs and delete the call recording. Perera knew very well that I was maintaining all calls to prevent exactly this issue. This is an excerpt focussing on the instruction to delete evidence.

In this follow-up call Perera informs EDS that I wanted Perera to call him, and EDS states that there should only be one call recording, and lowers his voice saying that I am recording calls. Well it looks to me like my concerns about the frauds the pair of them were running, were entirely justified 🙂

Perera asks if JDS has visited hospital – this is the whole scam about me requiring medication, fraudulently started by Margaret Cunniffe. EDS confirms that I am going to the UK in a few months. He draws specific attention to my files and their importance and how only I can look at them and how I need them, or words to that effect. Also Shihara the Cat seemed to be an inconvenience.

EDS and Perera laugh together about the fact that I suspected them, even those I was spot on in my assessment of the situation in which these clowns were destroying evidence. Did they both ‘forget’ about the calls in which they are agreeing to delete recordings?

Not sure why EDS is discussing my health issues with Perera, except to continue to plant the seed that I have a mental problem. Furthermore, it is clear that Perera has taken the keys to my house.

EDS repeats the theme of me having a mental problem, in the same way that Margaret Cunniffe goes around repeating the same garbage to all and sundry and engages in self-victimisation. All these themes are in the Supreme Court matter that we have against her and David Brown.

EDS states that I do not want to see a doctor and/or take medicine. Well if I saw a proper UK doctor rather than a co-conspirator then we would get the correct opinion rather than Sri Lankans and their smear campaign!

As can be heard EDS knows very well that I am recovering from a fractured neck and yet still wants to run his fraud regardless. This is quite sick, and all of course to get me out of the house so evidence could be stolen/planted! Who in the right mind would risk a transection of my spinal cord?

My neck was damaged further as a result of the 12/17 Fraud so the foreseeability of damages against EDS is not in question.

EDS states that because of my knowledge of the law he needs to cover himself, otherwise it would be a problem – well of course if he is planning a spectacular fraud against me that is entirely unlawful, he should be careful so he can evade criminal culpability!

EDS is defaming me every single time he is talking about a mental situation and repeating this theme to all and sundry does get a little tiring. However EDS confirms that Perera has told a lot of lies and taken a lot of money. Also this confirms EDS’ modus operandi of being two-faced and that Perera had the Means/Motive/Opportunity to take my data!

And once again EDS calls me paranoid, because I suspected him and Perera of colluding – once again I simply refer to the two phone calls here which confirms that they are colluding and therefore my assertion was entirely justified. It was obvious when the pair of them were conspiring in front of me in the preceding days!

And this entire scam was to steal evidentiary materials, symmetric one-time pads as well as the names of parties that I had Immunity Agreements with.


Unfortunately this is where fools in Sri Lanka have messed up the case entirely for their white overlords, and left me a massive audit trail to nail them and the real perpetrators when I am ready 🙂

Plenty more evidence is available so watch this space!

PS ‘Full and Frank’ disclosure is required, so remember to let your associates know about this post and in fact all my posts here, and all the websites that I publish materials on.

Further reading:-


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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