Bored of the Fraud v2½

By 14 February 2017KEY ARTICLES

Bored of the Fraud v2½

Published on 14th February 2017


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

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with . Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE

(complete series at end of Article)


The following is self-explanatory.

Synergize Amounts (so far, relating to judgments only)

AUD 1.59 million is the figure rather than AUD 1.4 million. I apologise unreservedly for the fact that I used a lower figure :). Of these AUD 956,001.46 is directly claimable from David Brown and Margaret Cunniffe (“the Browns”), due to Rhodium Contractor Services Agreement terms as well as the usual ‘trading whilst insolvent’ issues of ‘unlawful preference’.

The remaining AUD 637,520.28 is directly claimable from Cunniffe and indirectly from Brown due to his agreements with me and the above of course.

Compare the Pair - these are their own opinions about themselves:-

2013 David Brown – watch in HD

2016 David Brown – watch in HD

2013 Margaret Cunniffe

2016 Margaret Cunniffe – watch in HD

E-mail Forensics confirming Browns-Synergize Fraud

Note the mobile screenshots from November 2013 (after the below ADs were sworn) which confirm that the Browns are making sales for VIP Club which is a Synergize project.

[insert mobile screenshot evidence]

Copy of Attachment sent to another particularly Negligent Lawyer Sam Samarakoon, highlighting the specific terms, which relate to Equitable Set-offs and a whole host of other things. These terms have been agreed by Synergize Consulting and therefore the Controllers are liable in a personal capacity, which is an agreed contractual term itself:-

Grand Theft Data v5

20161122 LATEST SERVER HACK FROM LITTLE BRITAIN Tania has been reporting a number of unauthorised accesses of her home computer (in Rotherham) over

I refer to further Perjury in other matters, in which the Browns are dissociating themselves with Synergize. The following are Affidavits filed in Court. A whole host of decisions went in their favour because the matters turned upon their very fraud. They then propagated Injurious Falsehoods and Tortiously Interfered with my suppliers and dim workers in Sri Lanka, inciting them to commit various atrocities against me.

Margaret Cunniffe - Perjury in Western Australia

False statements are always being made by Cunniffe and Brown, but a merely false statement is not perjury – a perjurious statement needs the case to be turned on that and associated points. The Control of Synergize IS a relevant point to perjury. However it does demonstrate that it is extremely easy for them to lie. As can be seen in P2 the claimant is only Rhodium Australia Pty Ltd but they have dragged Joanne and my name into this – they enjoy using Affidavits as marketing materials, and also letters to government and law enforcement organisations so that they can hype up their position.

Actually Cunniffe was not bankrupt at the time, although she may have not known. Once again this is not perjury. However ‘not a Director of any company’ is perjurious as she as the Shadow Director of Synergize.

‘Not been a director of this company since late 2009 is also perjurious as well as ‘when the defendant was a Director’ – Cunniffe still was and Synergize was a sham and/or facade for the Browns.

This confirms that the Affidavit was SWORN. Many decisions have gone against me/us because of these blatant lies. If the ‘connection and control’ of the Browns to Synergize is confirmed, then they are liable for millions of dollars – no wonder they perjured themselves and perverted the course of justice so spectacularly!

David Brown - Perjury in Western Australia

Similar P2 confirms non-independent AD preparation and collusion. Also false but not perjurious.

This is classic perjury – ‘a company called Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd’ – Brown has once again ‘forgotten’ the company he is the De Facto Director of? Brown also know that Cunniffe has not ‘ceased’ to be a Director in 2009.

And here is his signature confirming it was a SWORN document to which perjury would attach:-

Neither of them were listed on ASIC records but there were merrily issuing Tax Invoices to third parties in 2013, and even Rhodium Australia in 2012!!

They have not the remitted the GST to the Australian taxation office either. Rhodium Group acquired Synergize around February 2015 and have already obtained the ATO information that the Browns had filed.

[insert evidence of tax fraud]

Unfortunately due to an admin error, Synergize has become deregistered again by ASIC – it will be re-registered shortly as there are assets and liabilities.

Excerpts from e-mail of March 2015

As you are probably aware, Synergize and its Controllers, confirmed as:-

• Mr David Andrew Brown (“Brown”) – the De Facto Director;

• Ms Margaret Teresa Cunniffe (“Cunniffe”) – the founder and former De Jure Director / Shadow Director upon her Bankruptcy;

• Ms Sandra Lillian White (“White”) – the former De Jure Director;

provided key Accounting, Administration and Business Development Services to RHOAUS, Joseph S R de Saram (“JDS”) and various RHO entities for a number of years. RHOAUS was heavily reliant upon Synergize due to its limited workforce in Australia and many of you will recall that Cunniffe was frequently involved in our legal matters or liaised with third parties on behalf of ourselves.

We have attached the following items of information for reference:-

(a) EX-RHO-001a-001c – Three Judgments obtained against Synergize in favour of RHOAUS, Dr Daljit Gill (“DSG”) and JDS. There is a fourth judgment (not attached) although together they total AUD 1,353,289.84 with accrued interest of AUD 82,508.77;

(b) EX-RHO-002 – Resignation of the previous De Jure Director Sandra Lillian White which occurred on 01 April 2010 (effected by ASIC on 21 November 2011), after Cunniffe failed to process her resignation for 599 days;

(c) EX-RHO-003 – A Tax Invoice in the sum of AUD 3,492.50 issued to RHOAUS from Synergize dated 22 May 2012, produced by Brown and Cunniffe, and issued at a time when no directors were listed for Synergize on the ASIC register;

(d) EX-RHO-004 – Brown’s LinkedIn page from 24 January 2013, where Brown voluntarily confirms to third parties globally, that Brown is in fact the Director of Synergize – Brown’s page has since undergone radical changes triggered by RHOAUS’ commencement of litigation;

(e) EX-RHO-005 – A payment request in the sum of AUD 3,492.50 via PayPal managed by Brown and Cunniffe on behalf of Synergize;

(f) EX-RHO-006 – A screenshot from a RHO laptop provided to Synergize under their contract with RHOAUS, confirming that Cunniffe was managing the Synergize Bank Account at Bendigo Bank in February 2013;

(g) EX-RHO-007 – A screenshot from a RHO laptop provided to Synergize under their contract with RHOAUS, confirming that Brown was managing the Synergize PayPal Account in May 2013.

By way of information Synergize and/or its Controllers authorised RHO via the Rhodium Contractor Services Agreement / Rhodium Information Security Policy, to obtain information from RHO equipment and to access any resources connected to or accessed by RHO equipment. Additionally our terms make Directors personally liable when working under a ‘Personal Service Company’ vehicle such as Synergize.

In view of the foregoing it would assist greatly if you could provide us with any/all information about your dealings with Brown, Cunniffe and Synergize.

Interesting Isn't It?

It is not rocket science that the existing judgments and/or rights can be assigned from Rhodium Australia Pty Ltd (“AURHOAUS”) to me (and I am the largest creditor of AURHOAUS as well) and then I use them against the aforementioned parties.

Time to Stop Inciting Violence and/or Hatred against me perhaps? Negotiate Perhaps? Or do the Clowns prefer a Private Prosecution which results in a Custodial Sentence for them?

Contact me by phone if interested (because of e-mail hacking) – either way I am in the process of obtaining new representation and documents can be served on those attorneys since it is too hit and miss in Sri Lanka due to corruption.

I am therefore not hiding or being elusive – my position is unassailable. I have been seriously unwell since a heart attack in 2013 in particular, and delays are attributable to that as well as the Tortious Interference and Injurious Falsehoods of the Browns, as well as dense lawyers – all of which I am more than happy to sue :

20170214 Law Enforcement in Australia

I read an interesting article today, whilst I was in the midst of looking for material for a Pre-Action Disclosure against Victoria Police and/or the Australian Federal Police. This is the first part of my post highlighting the continual frauds of my own Lawyers, Law Enforcement and Brown & Cunniffe…

Victoria's political, police corruption ranked among worst in Australia

Millions of Victorian's tax dollars are lost to corruption each year. It is money meant for needy schools and more hospital beds and bus shelters, that invariably ends up in the pockets of department fat cats, only to be lavished on overseas trips, fine wine and parties.

Forensic Evidence confirms that parties in Victoria are behind a lot of the nonsense I am facing, and as the preponderance of Fake Base Transceiver stations demonstrate in LK and AU, I am obviously someone who is interesting and they and/or their associates love to go around slagging me off to help them make a case. But as can be seen this evidence against them is pretty damning already 🙂

[insert evidence of police data destruction]

Contract Law Victorian Style

This a quick intro into Contract Law in Victoria and leads us onto the various frauds committed by David Brown / Margaret Cunniffe and the further frauds committed by Bill Orow, Nick Sevdalis and Katarina Klaric to facilitate the unlawful enforcement of a fraudulently-obtained judgment. I would further say their purpose it to cause financial hardship and to make to easier to accuse me of financial/accounting/tax fraud, which is the other garbage against me that I have identified via forensic evidence 🙂

This is being written presently and I am lining up new lawyers since the lies about me being a criminal and a paedophile are preventing my access to the legal system – all part of the Lawyers’ Constructs and of course how blissfully convenient and a way of preventing my evidence and intellect demolishing the opposition 🙂

I need to see all the documents being sent about me, so that they may be challenged. Otherwise I incur further losses which are completely avoidable. The statements of David Brown, Margaret Cunniffe and Simon Thompson are plausible but untrue.

And ‘drumming up support’ to help them obfuscate their fraud does not fool anyone with a half-decent brain. Unfortunately parties in Singapore, Australia and Sri Lanka do not have that benefit – and I prefer not to have to expose the UK Serious Fraud Office’s own fraud in evidentiary matters for their Unaoil case, the evidence of which I have seen in Hong Kong SAR 🙂


A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement. Contract is a branch of the law of obligations in jurisdictions of the civil law tradition and concerns the rights and duties that arise from agreements. A contract arises when the parties agree that there is an agreement. Formation of a contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a mutual intent to be bound. Each party to a contract must have capacity to enter the agreement. 

There are five essential elements necessary for legally binding contract formation:

  1. Agreement between the parties.
  2. Consideration (a bargain requirement: generally, the supply of money, property or services or a promise to undertake, or not undertake a particular act in exchange for something of value);
  3. Capacity to enter legal relations (e.g. of sound mind and legal age);
  4. Intention by the parties to enter into legal relations; and
  5. Certainty (the contract has to complete, certain, clear and binding).

The absence of any of these elements will signify that either (a) there is NO AGREEMENT IN LAW or (b) that the AGREEMENT IS UNENFORCEABLE.

Fraudulently-Obtained Judgment of David Brown – Perjury in Victoria

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 314 Perjury

Perjury S. 314(1) amended by Nos 49/1991 s. 119(1) (Sch. 2 item 59), 48/1997 s. 60(1)(Sch. 1 item 85). (1) Whosoever commits wilful and corrupt perjury or subornation of perjury shall be liable to level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).


Excerpts and evidence sent to my own lawyers, who merely acted as gatekeepers and did f*** all apart from cause me damage and deny me justice:-

We refer to the AD of Dr Praxy de Saram, which had been filed on 09 June 2016 with the attached 46A.

We refer to Pages 18-20 of the AD and Pages 55-56 of the Exhibits – these really are self-explanatory.

The Browns have asserted that the Promissory Note should be regarded as a Bill of Exchange (although this is denied by Joseph because there were conditions in relation to Mutual Acceptance, which required [Brown’s] signature). The PN was signed in Singapore not Australia which makes it a forum non conveniens issue although if the AU is considered then the PN is a ‘Foreign Bill’.

Referring to the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 under Division 7 – Discharge of Bill Section 68 Cancellation it specifically states:-

Where a bill is intentionally cancelled by the holder or his or her agent, and the cancellation is apparent thereon, the bill is discharged.

The Act is from 1909 and has not been repealed or superceded, and in terms of ‘apparent’ further legislation and case law in AU which we have read does not specify exactly how this needs to be effected, since this law is over 100yrs old and communications methods are evolved and emails are binding without a signature of course.

Accordingly the PN is in fact ‘Null and Void’ and this is an irrefutable error in law/fact by the Judge.

We will now prepare a further e-mail in relation to the issue of Mutual Acceptance on which the PN was conditional upon, the failure of which results in ‘non-delivery’ of the PN, but for the moment:-

A promissory note is inchoate and incomplete until delivery thereof to the payee or bearer. 


We refer to the Exhibits as David Andrew Brown presented in his AD, which was used to obtain Summary Judgment.

Pages 10-14

Brown references the Purported Promissory Note – Joseph produced the document in a manner which required BROWN’S EXPLICIT AGREEMENT. One of the Conditions of ‘Delivery’ (ie Mutual Acceptance) was that it had to be executed and Witnessed in Singapore. The money was obviously received in Singapore, Joseph was in Singapore and the Browns were in Singapore. As can be seen the document is in the unique fonts that Joseph and Rhodium uses – they are not Times New Roman or Calibri. Additionally there is no ‘entire agreement clause’ because Joseph removed it.

The document was PARTIALLY executed by Joseph on 08 March 2012. Page 14 clearly demonstrates that Brown has NOT ACCEPTED THE TERMS – the document is therefore inchoate as Mutual Acceptance was a specific condition of Joseph’s. Brown had no intention to be bound by the Promissory Note. He was asked on numerous occasions in Singapore and over e-mail on 13 March 2012 to accept but Brown declined to do so and it appears in Brown’s affidavit unsigned. The original will also be unsigned and therefore non-executed.

Pages 15-16

The Collection letter dated 05 February 2013 was issued by Professional Collection Services (“ProfColl”) on the specific instructions of Brown, who were acting as his agent. The period of the debt is 29 June 2012 to the 25 January 2013. This is obviously not the period of 08 March 2012 + 90 days (06 June 2012). In fact the demand does not even cover the period relevant to the Promissory Note.

These dates entirely support Joseph’s contention that the Promissory Note was NOT the ‘Agreement’ (meaning ‘concordance’/’relationship’) or ‘Agreement’ (meaning ‘document’) between the parties.

If the Promissory Note was the entire agreement then at least the dates of the debt HAD to include 08 March 2012 to 06 June 2012. Brown has chosen dates outside the range because he is correctly referring to the correct agreement and KNOWS that the Promissory Note is null and void.

Furthermore Brown had unjustly enriched himself to a value greater than the amount being claimed so no payment was necessary. In any event the Demand did not relate to the Promissory Note since a demand for payment as referenced in 2.3 Place for Payment (Pages 10-14) had to be made by the Holder himself.

The debt being claimed is AUD 232,283.45

Pages 17-19

The Promissory Note has not been accepted and therefore the interest calculation collapses. In any event the calculation does not take into consideration softloans provided to the Browns which would also incur interest in Joseph’s favour plus Rhodium Australia’s Contractor Terms. Furthermore the debt on the calculation is not AUD 232,283.45 around the date of the 05 February 2013 Collection letter. These calculations are irrelevant in any event because Brown has chosen an interest rate on a document he has not executed and applied it to an irrelevant period.

Pages 08-09

Whilst not relevant to the Promissory Note, you will notice the SCANNED Stamp at the top left of the document. That Stamp is the unique work of Joseph, and it is not a stamp that can be purchased off the shelf. It was designed by Joseph in Singapore. As such the Bank would NOT have provided Brown with a copy of a document that had Joseph’s unique stamp. Accordingly this confirms that the Browns DID in fact have items belonging to Joseph/Rhodium in their possession and since their assertion that they do not have further items, then it suggests their destruction of evidence.

Letter of Demand from ProfColl

The letter is self-explanatory and simply reconfirms Joseph’s position and that which is in fact the true position – the Promissory Note (regardless of its obvious invalidity) is not the only matter for discussion. Joseph also confirms various set-offs which would not apply if the actual agreement (relationship) was the Promissory Note (document).

The bottom line is this – DAB had NO INTENTION to enter into the Terms referenced on the Promissory Note and even confirmed it was Null and Void.

The Judgment has been obtained through Fraud on the Court, for which there is no Statute of Limitations.

It is a well-known fact any judgment can be set aside at any time if it was fraudulently obtained – as such the Appeal process already traversed in Australia is irrelevant to this matter.


We refer to Joseph’s recent conversations with Nick and Bill.

We would confirm the following:-

(a)   Joseph is able to demonstrate evidence of data destruction by the Browns, in relation to data directly relevant to his defence. Whilst such behaviour is an obviously perversion of the course of justice in Joseph’s matter, it does give arise to a legitimate claim under the Rhodium Australia Contractor Terms which the Browns were bound to. In relation to whether an Expert Witness is required, Joseph himself is an Expert Witness and appears on the list associated with the Law Institute of Victoria. By way of information his credentials in this field put him at the top of the other parties appearing there. For the purposes of this matter, Expert Testimony is not required, and Joseph would be unable to provide material in the capacity of an Expert Witness since this case involves him. However, the standard of material produced by him WOULD be well above the standard of an Expert Witness. Should the Browns wish to challenge the veracity of any of the information provided then they are more than welcome to do so at their cost. ‘Destruction of evidence by Brown which prevented Joseph from litigating properly’ is certainly not ‘Joseph was unable to prosecute a matter properly because of Joseph’s own issues’;

(b)   The entire affidavit of Brown is essentially false and deliberately misleading. However there are specific areas in which the case actually turns on those points, including but not limited to the actual discussions which occurred in relation to representations apparently made by Joseph and upon which the Browns entered into the agreements with Joseph and/or Rhodium, and of course the massive interest component which accounts for around a third of the judgment awarded;

(c)    David Brown confirms a number of items via Margaret Cunniffe’s e-mail. In any event, apart from the null and void issue which is incredibly relevant, she refers to a verbal agreement. All verbal agreements whilst the Browns were in Australia have been recorded and transcripts provided. As such even if we are to pretend that there was another agreement which somehow ran parallel to the PN (which there obviously was not), then the only thing that they can claim for is the money actually transferred – AUD 200,000 since the recordings (which are lengthy and unedited to ensure full and frank disclosure).

(d)   Bill confirmed that a party’s inability to recall a conversation correctly is not fraud – that is quite correct. This would apply more relevantly to one or two conversations. However there are a whole series of conversations Brown is swearing occurred, when in fact they did not. Brown’s failure was MSL’s desire to produce the ‘perfect affidavit which ticked all the boxes’. Brown’s ‘recollection’ of that which occurred is continually nothing close to that which actually occurred. Purely from a statistical standpoint the only way that such a massive deviation from the facts could occur (via descriptions entirely helpful to his case) is through fraud;

(e)   In relation to the Transcript, it is imperative that Joseph sees otherwise Joseph would not be able to comment on matters of fact and or their relevance to law. Accordingly, Nick, please provide copies of the written undertakings you have provided to the Court. At no time did Joseph consent to not being made aware of the transcript. Joseph does consent to a long conference call with Nick over skype video in which the transcript can be read and discussed;

(f)     In relation to the Appeal process, the setting aside of a judgment through fraud is an entirely separate matter – Brown’s discussions with Joseph as deliberately misrepresented by Brown can be challenged because that which occurred is entirely different. There are other matters which Joseph can allege which would constitute fraud, and the burden of proof can easily be met with further ADs from other parties who were present in Singapore;

(g)   Joseph was unable to instruct properly at an earlier juncture – he was in hospital on 21 May 2014 for a Coronary Angiogram and that is the actual date of Brown’s Affidavit. Accordingly given the high burden of proof required to set aside a judgment fraudulently obtained, certain items of information which was provided incomplete at that time or subsequently was not sufficient. It was only around August 2015 that Bill, Joseph and Julian had the conference call about the setting aside of the judgment, which Bill felt would be an abuse of process given that the decision was being appealed. Additionally we must not forget the theft of data from Joseph’s apartment by Priyadarshana at the behest of the Browns. If information on demonstrating this is required then it can be provided;

(h)   Examining an e-mail in isolation or a transcript in isolation will not provide the correct basis. But examining all the information in parallel that we now have before us, and Joseph’s ability to instruct presently puts such information in an entirely different context;

(i)     And finally Brown’s Non-Execution of a written agreement which clearly required his signature to avoid being inchoate, coupled with (c) above demonstrates his INTENTION NOT to be bound by the agreement and or terms referenced in 2012. In 2014 Brown’s contention in his AD that the PN is entirely valid despite his own behaviour and lack of execution at the relevant time is clearly fraudulent. The cases turns on these very points and it is clearly Perjury.

If Brown were to defend the matters we are confirming what would his defence be? That he has made a massive series of genuine mistakes on every single aspect of every single point on which the case actually turns upon? Even non-essential aspects are blatantly false and deliberately misleading. The Browns are currently involved in Two Supreme Court matters involving Defamation and Injurious Falsehoods – that in itself provides further contextual relevance. Two Defences have been filed against Joseph in his matter and two against Joanne. All four are deficient.

Our case is strong enough to proceed on its own merits and we do not need to worry about trying to avoid litigating because we are ‘trying our hardest to provide a defence to Brown or his associates’ whose other matters against Joseph would collapse with egg on faces allround :). Please do not dismiss Joseph’s arguments before ascertaining the position properly, either via strawman fallacies, argumentum ad hominem or mere misinterpretation.

AUD 11,000 has been provided to Bill in relation to reviewing the materials and our three-way conversations. If the position is still not immediately obvious from prior discussions and materials filed before the court then Joseph need to discuss this tomorrow, going through line by line Brown’s original AD if necessary. Joseph notes that Brown’s information has NEVER been tested, yet Joseph’s physical evidence and AD evidence that he can provide is IRREFUTABLE – that is the bottom line. Brown HAS NO DEFENCE.

Joseph would like the Appeal notice to be filed immediately, BEFORE 21days have elapsed, and a further AUD 22,000 would be provided to Bill to prepare the necessary documentation. Nick please confirm the Application has to be filed within 28days as confirmed by Bill rather than 21days.

Key points:-

(j)     Brown claiming AUD 285,000 via an AD when only AUD 200,000 was legitimately [ie by his fraudulent logic] owed, is fraud;

(k)   Brown confirming the PN is valid when he has himself stated it is null and void in writing (and giving his reasoning) is fraud;

(l)     Brown’s intentional non-execution of the PN and then relying upon it (regardless of the above e-mail) when the PN is clearly inchoate, is fraud.

As well as everything else 🙂 [such as taking monies massive amounts from me/us via Synergize etc which his fraudulent interest calculation does not show]

Time to Litig8

I now have recovered the information demonstrating the excellent attitude of my own lawyers towards me BEFORE the December 2015 Psychiatric Facility, and their bizarre, hostile behaviour afterwards. They have all just being going through the motions and have not interest in assisting me.

Yet the attorneys took my money and did f*** all 🙂 I needed to demonstrate Criminal Fraud on the part of the lawyers to confirm that is the reason that they did nothing whatsoever – otherwise my adversaries will say that (a) that I obtained legal representation and (b) that their advice was valid.

As can also be seen, I DO instruct properly and I AM able to make payments – what these fools are propagating is all one big lie, and a fraud to obfuscate another series frauds 🙂

When I insert Audio Evidence all three attorneys and Gopal Perumal will lose their licences to practise – I need to sue them in any event and will do so, so there is nothing malicious or vindictive here.

Now that I have recovered the first tranche of stolen data (via forensic scans of other drive surfaces) I am able to push the cases forward. The destruction of evidence by them and/or their agents in another crime:-

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 254 Destruction of evidence

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 254 Destruction of evidence (1) A person who— (a) knows that a document or other thing of any kind is, or is reasonably likely to be, required in evidence in a legal proceeding; and

False Exculpatory Statements Confirm Consciousness of Guilt

Any attempt to enforce the fraudulently-obtained judgment will be met with interlocutories as well as damages on a full indemnity basis. Brown should also bear in mind that we have claims against him and his daughters for the unpaid rent and utilities in which all rights are reserved, as well as another AUD 1.4 million against him and Cunniffe for their Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd fraud 🙂

In 2013 David Brown had been with Synergize for 11 months, and defrauded Rhodium Australia, Elixir Vitae, ACN 133, Joanne Cochrane and I:-

In 2016 David Brown has once again ‘forgotten the facts’ about Synergize no less:-

[insert brown perjury evidence re synergize consulting][insert brown perjury evidence re substituted service]

AUD 1.4 million in our favour which we will enforce against Brown and Cunniffe is clearly a larger amount than AUD 285k that Brown has fraudulently obtained, and all these frauds and lies against me are to prevent me getting legal representation and thereby denying me natural justice 🙂

And finally there is no Issue Estoppel either, as the Court itself prevented me from bringing a case to Set Aside the Judgement by its own farcical behaviour and its fraudulent arguments, so once again natural justice has been denied. The judge was not happy with my mother’s AD yet concurrently did not allow a short extension to file a properly-constructed AD. He also did not allow me to look at the transcript so how on earth can I instruct lawyer to appeal the decision? And my lawyers did not know that they had a duty of care to me either.

Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with √. Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE…

The AD was fine but the Courts in Australia and Lawyers generally operate at a very low level indeed.

The many fraud isssues of David Brown and Margaret Cunniffe have never been considered in any case so the time has come, now I have recovered some data of the data that was mysteriously wiped 🙂

Further reading

This interesting post demonstrates that Brown converted my assets and the proceeds were paid into his bank account directly by Cunniffe. I recovered these sms from the mobile phone after they had deleted them before giving it back to me.

378 Chappel Street is a Pawnbrokers – Did Kevin Dorey of Defteros who were the lawyers on record at the time do anything? No he too did f*** all although he was just negligent. Nick Sevdalis also did f*** all when I advised him in 2014 onwards.

My fridge was around AUD 3,000, my Jewellery (Cunniffe was using it but I had Retention of Title) was another few thousand dollars from memory, and there was even a Panasonic TV which was AUD 10,000. And there was a further AUD 5,000 or so Brown charged to my credit card for a cruise he went on.

What made the elucidation of figures impossible for me, is that Brown and Cunniffe were the parties handling the accounting for me and Rhodium entities – so they easily concealed their own fraud without little effort. The dim Court could not grasp this point either and especially the point about Brown’s lawyers MSL being funded with the proceeds of crime (ie my Converted Assets) !!

This is Classic Perjury as Brown knew that he had taken payments from me yet did not apply them to his interest calculation, even if that garbage were to be believed!! However on his AD he wrote words to the effect that ‘no further amounts had been provided by Joe’!!!

These payments that Brown has made on my behalf to his bank account (Criminal Conversion) also messes up his bogus and/or irrelevant interest calculation, which invalidates his fraudulently-obtained judgment quite nicely!

Gaslighting and Data Exfiltration v10

20161222 UPDATE – WHEN THE COPS ARE THE ROBBERS – SAD AND FUNNY AT THE SAME TIME! This photo was taken on 04 December 2015, during the time that Edward de Saram was playing his sad gaslighting games and telling me that there was no-one coming into the house, despite copious evidence to the contrary.


Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
© 2017-2020 JSR DE SARAM