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