Evidence of Parallel Construction

Evidence of Parallel Construction (x±)

Published on 24th 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

20180118 UPDATES

I have cross-referenced a few articles which will make my ‘adventures’ easier to comprehend 🙂

20170324 INITIAL

William Binney, an ex-NSA employee introduces the concept of Parallel Construction, in which information obtained unlawfully is ‘laundered’ into the case of law enforcement. It is blatant perjury and perversion of the course of justice.

This is the Reuters article that Bill refers to:-

Joe’s Articles

Many of my recent articles have been centered around the topics of:-

  1. [Criminal] Activity – ‘perceived’ activity on the part of the defendant, or actual criminal activity on the part of the prosecutors and investigators;
  2. Lawyers’ Constructs – entire fabricated cases which tick all the boxes in terms of pleadings or defence;
  3. Fake Probable Cause – staged situations in which multiple teams of parties working independently create crime scenes and evidence;
  4. Spoliation of Evidence – concealment, corruption and/or destruction of evidence;
  5. Data Exfiltration – methods by which data and evidentiary material, is removed or copied from its original location, to that of an adversary’s;
  6. Fraudulent Investigation – the process by which the knowledge base of one party is enhanced unlawfully and often to the detriment of the other, by the gathering of information, which with a view to determining strategic objectives;
  7. Perjury – the making of deliberate false statements, and affidavit evidence which has the intended effect of obtaining an unfair advantage in judicial proceedings; and
  8. Perversion of the Course of Justice – an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party.

A combination of items 1 through 7 result in 8.

Hadrian’s Firewall

On 14 September 2016 I commenced writing the following article, which subsequently included information on the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 via November/December 2016 updates:-

Section 56 of IPA 2016 and Parallel Construction

Prosecutors are able to build a parallel – or separate – evidentiary basis for a criminal prosecution, and present this false parallel case in court in order to conceal how the investigation actually began – we all know the Melbourne Fraudsters are involved 🙂

The above paragraph has the effect of ‘we don’t need to state where the information and/or evidence came from, we don’t need to verify the chain of custody, we don’t need to say when we got it, and we’re not going to answers any questions about it’


The primary method that prosecution evidence can be challenged now is the production of evidentiary grade forensic material which can stand alone, and which actively confirms the REAL methods that the evidence was unlawfully obtained. The production of exculpatory evidence by the defence in rebuttal does not require any answers from the prosecution.

Expert Witness

As parties know I am more than competent in writing Expert Testimony and gathering Forensic Evidence, and therefore I do not need another intermediary who will ‘hold my hand’ and ‘check my data for me’ before he ‘fumbles around and struggles to present it in court’.

Whilst my report would not be ‘expert testimony’ (because it relates to my own case), my material would certainly exceed the level of an expert witness so how it is labelled is unimportant if it achieves its objectives.

Furthermore, it would then be a case of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and others using MY evidence, which is not barred by IPA 2016.

In the case of Ian Puddick, it is clear that his adversaries wanted the ‘heads up’ before the matter progressed.

After the December 2015 Psychiatric Facility Fraud against me which led to around 10 terabytes of evidentiary data being stolen, I was completely on the back foot.

However the ‘clean-up operation by the perpetrators’ has not been as successful as they would have liked, as I have managed to recover at least 15-20% via scanning other drives surfaces and relying upon the concept of data remanence.

The steps they originally took to wipe data would have meant that I would not have been able to challenge their [historic] ‘chain of custody’. This is particularly relevant because of paragraph 04 of Section 56:-

which serves to legitimise all prior unlawful activity by the prosecution and its agents.

The massive problem with Parallel Construction is that it destroys the doctrine of ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree’:-

in jurisdictions such as the US in which there is an exclusionary principle in relation to evidence:-

whereas in the UK the result is worse.

The inclusionary aspect means that detectives and investigators have no real reason to ‘detect’ or ‘investigate’ any more – just grab a load of stuff (including theft) and focus on making it admissible. At the very least use it as a roadmap.


This is where the interpretation and ability of the investigators is the limiting factor as my data is ‘mysterious’ to most of the parties looking at it!

but they don’t know it because they are just not bright enough:-

My complex explanation is the only one that actually fits the facts perfectly – not just better.

Matters of Intelligence

"My personality is designed by me - my attitude is defined by you." - JSRDS This is an article about Intelligence and IQ, and the types of problems...

The Investigator’s Facts Now Fit the Case not the Case Fitting the Facts

As soon as the burden of proof is removed in this way, then it becomes theatrical. Prosecution Lawyer’s Constructs and Fake Probable Cause are essential ingredients, and Fraudulent Investigation sets in.

Facilitated by Psychiatric Fraud

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

Parties swear blind that item ‘A’ was found in location ‘B’ and it is much harder to dismiss copious volumes of perjurious affidavits.

Clearly I was in possession of significant amounts of evidentiary material, as I had been describing it in detail before the 2015 frauds against me. When it was taken and various drive surfaces wiped (albeit carelessly),

the mere fact that I managed to recover it confirmed that it had been deliberately wiped in the first place. This is blatant Spoliation of Evidence.

Analysis of the nature of the wiped items confirmed that the information was of extreme significance to the identification of the investigators via their logical and physical footprints.

It also CONFIRMED THE SIGNATURE ATTACKS used as well as CONFIRMED UK JURISDICTION via Covert Human Intelligence Sources (“CHIS”):-

Fake Probable Cause

I refer to the above article and in particular this text and video:-

“I like the way that the torch has been positioned along with a note that I deliberately wrote a week or so ago with the words ‘keep these safe’ and had put in my trouser pocket! So the note suddenly appeared on a table with some DVDs, Rhodium Letterheads, passwords, a USB drive as well as a Micro sd card.

I do not even arrange drives like that

It was set up in that way and photographed to try and obtain a search warrant for those items elsewhere – very sad and obviously fraudulent.

My stuff EVERYWHERE has been SANITISED so good luck finding anything.

If something has been obtained then there is an intelligent explanation that plebians would not be able to elucidate on their own.

Reviewing the EXIF information on those photos will reveal the same time period, as well as the time-stamp may be at night :)”

Significance of Artifacts

Rhodium letterheads – to create the impression that the following scene is ‘Rhodium-related’;

Torch – that I was paranoid perhaps? Or perhaps it was used by the investigators as they were coming at night;

Passwords – as it happened they have been used to reset various laptops and volumes and I presently cannot access them myself even;

DVDs / USB / Micro SD card – to demonstrate methods that my ‘classified data’ is apparently stored.

This set up is to facilitate access to other locations / facilities and is entirely fake. There are glaring errors and I will explain what they are…

Iain Jones – ‘CHIS’

From the following recording, the functional concepts are as follows:-

  • significant monies were tied up in technology / research & development;
  • items of value have been left in Hong Kong SAR in April 2014, a few weeks before a Coronary Angiogram diagnosed me with Coronary Artery Ectasia;
  • data consisted of technology, and bank information, schematics for secure key exchange communication, and other unregistered patents; and only I can be provided with the same;
  • Jones inquired “for my education” meaning for a search and seizure, and asks me to confirm the ‘type’ of intellectual property such as ‘cds, or information sticks or documentation.. how is it physically manifested; and
  • I confirmed that the data resided on four fingerprint-encrypted hard drives in Hong Kong SAR and that there are no further copies anywhere.

Back to the Staged Crime Scene

The crime scene of December 2015 has been set up to provide fake probable cause for items stored on ‘discs and memory sticks‘ – but this is a glaring error as investigators already knew from September 2015 that data was only in Hong Kong SAR on four fingerprint-encrypted hard drives.

Investigators knew from the above call monitoring at Jones’ end as well as call interception at my end, that there was nothing in Sri Lanka / Singapore / Australia.

However, they still faked a crime scene to make it look like items were in my property

Parallel Construction

I have already explained how a classless Sri Lankan named JV Lasantha Priyadarshana working at the behest of the Melbourne Fraudsters stole 4 usb sticks containing various items of data in December 2014. None of the data contained therein can actually cause a problem for me, but its absence is of course a commercial issue.

The data on the 4 usb sticks is not related to the data I am referring to as that on the 4 fingerprint-encrypted USB hard drives – they are fundamentally different in content.

Forensic data confirmed that parts of that data was circulated from January 2015 onwards so it was in their possession and/or under their control.

Investigators clearly feel that there is some useful material there, so they have concocted the entire fraud to ‘launder’ the previously stolen data and make it appear that it was located in my house.

And to make the fraud even more plausible they have the various constituent members covering for each other – that is laughable and easily detectable too!

Once again, the only copy of the data that was stolen is contained on the 4 usb sticks – so if such data has re-materialised then it MUST have come from the data theft in December 2014. And furthermore this is why the chain of custody is completely deficient.

USB sticks v Fingerprint-Encrypted USB Hard drives

Here are two images – spot the difference!

Additionally I noted that two gold USB sticks had been stolen – I know there were various conversations between third parties and I about their location and I stated that there was important information on them. However that usage of ‘important’ was simply to explain to simple people here that there was an urgency to locate them. Nothing of any significance on those either!!

Parental Fraud

The following recording completes the picture of the parties ‘on the ground’ who were acting in the capacity of ‘agents of law enforcement’ and were responsible for facilitating the staged crime scene and providing access to others.

Key concepts are:-

Praxy de Saram (“PDS”) phoned Edward de Saram (“EDS”) regarding me. She advises that ‘Joe is extremely paranoid’ despite having absolutely no basis to make such an assertion;

PDS further tipped off EDS by alerting him to the fact that I knew that crime scene construction was in progress, and that I cried over EDS’ attempt to kill Shihara the Owl Cat;

PDS states that ‘I need treatment’ – this is the classic criminal fraud in play by the two of them and was the precursor to their Psychiatric Facility Fraud

EDS expresses absolutely no concern and it is clear that he does not know what to say having been exposed yet again.

Further evidence of criminal fraud by Edward de Saram

Bill Binney linking Donald Trump’s Hacking


to be continued…


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

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