Video Nailed the Radio Star (x±)
Enter more text here
20170225 UPDATE 2 – CRIMES ACT 1958 – SECT 85
I refer to Section 85 of the Crimes Act 1958
(1) Where an officer of a body corporate or unincorporated association (or person purporting to act as such), with intent to deceive members or creditors of the body corporate or association about its affairs, publishes or concurs in publishing a written statement or account which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, he is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).
(2) For purposes of this section a person who has entered into a security for the benefit of a body corporate or association is to be treated as a creditor of it.
(3) Where the affairs of a body corporate or association are managed by its members, this section shall apply to any statement which a member publishes or concurs in publishing in connexion with his functions of management as if he were an officer of the body corporate or association.
David Brown and Margaret Cunniffe are on the wrong end of Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd’s AUD 1.6 million in judgments in either mine, Daljit Gill or Rhodium Australia’s favour.
The following screenshots mean that it is really is gameover. These were obtained through our application of our Information Security Policies as part of the Rhodium Contractor Services Agreement.
This is the software used – Sonar Central
14 February 2013 is a direct credit from PayPal Australia of AUD 42.52
The PayPal account belongs to Brown, Director of Synergize, and even states Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd on it. There is no mistake as to the entity or the Brown:-
What further nails them is the Tax Invoice they issued from their Docklands Address. As Directors they had an obligation to notify the change of registered office address, but they did not do that either, as is their ‘selfish’ management style.
Note 2: Communications and notices from ASIC may also be addressed to the company’s contact address (see section 146A).
(2) A company must lodge notice of a change of address of its registered office with ASIC not later than 28 days after the date on which the change occurs. The notice must be in the prescribed form.
Note: If the company is not to be the occupier of premises at the address of its new registered office, the notice must state that the occupier has consented to the address being specified in the notice and has not withdrawn that consent (see section 100).
(2A) An offence based on subsection (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.
A Strict Liability offence is a criminal offence in which intent does not need to be demonstrated of proven.
Docklands is in Victoria of course, so there is no question of jurisdiction:-
Are there any lingering doubts now?
20170225 UPDATE – EVEN MORE PERJURY – PERSONAL SAFETY INTERVENTION ORDER
Joanne Cochrane sent a document to Margaret Cunniffe which exposed the various frauds that she and David Brown had been running. Their unbelievable response was a PSIO which was utterly vexatious and fraudulently-obtained as usual, by lying to the Police at their favourite station. These are the letters sent to them which also as usual, they never managed to come up with any evidence to support their assertions:-
20170224 Brown Lying to Dr Daljit Gill
This update is in relation to the e-mail of Dr Daljit Gill who was defrauded by the Cunniffe and successfully obtained a judgment against Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd with my assistance in 2014. That was before Rhodium Group acquired it in 2015 but up to that point Brown and Cunniffe were directors, despite their lies to the contrary.
Once again Brown has lied to someone else confirming in writing ‘nor was I a director of Margaret’s company Synergize Consulting Pty Ltd either’
As can be seen Brown is stating ‘Obviously her accounts have been hacked by Joe’ which is utter rubbish!! Rhodium has specific terms and can lawfully access accounts connected to our systems which I will expand upon later. Additionally Brown refers to me as ‘that psycho Joseph De Saram’ which is also defamatory.
However these two issues Brown has absolutely no defence to.. So what does their little band do? They involve Sri Lankans to provide fraudulent affidavit and fabricated evidence for their Lawyer’s Construct. The whole December 2015 fraud was about me having a mental problem and it was their fraud!! And before then, about a week after I issued proceedings around April 2015 for defamation, some fool calls me and tries to get me to commit a crime, which would give them a defence!
Brown Lying to Eversheds
When Eversheds wrote to Brown in early 2015 after Margaret Cunniffe and/or Simon Thompson had engineered the theft of data via Lasantha Priyadarshana, Brown just lied again to Eversheds in relation to disseminating defamatory material. Daljit’s e-mail above confirms that Brown is lying as usual!
20170223 Pure Perjury
One of the most bizarre Affidavits that I have ever seen is the Perjurious one that was produced by David Brown and Simon Thompson on 21 May 2014. They used it to fraudulently obtain Summary Judgment against me. I was actually in the Coronary Care Unit of Asiri Surgical on that day and having been diagnosed with Coronary Artery Ectasia was a massive shock to my system.
Virtually every single paragraph is false and around half or so meet the standard for perjury. Some of the more easier to understand false statements are listed here, so that ‘Linkies’ from different backgrounds can see the depth of Brown’s fraud.
Here are 3 videos and 4 audio recordings which demonstrate that Brown has deliberately lied in virtually every paragraph of his Affidavit. What’s good about this video is that Brown’s voice is quite clear, so his own words expose him. Regrettably my dulcet tones are on the laptop that Brown and Cunniffe were using (one of Rhodium’s) and they wiped the data before handing it back, despite specifically being told not to.
Compare the Pair
Brown’s says ‘in principle I am fine about the loan.. and the cash that I have got in the bank’ which are his opening statements:-
Additionally at about 26mins Brown says that he REALLY wants to be a part of my property projects. Brown was experienced and actually we would have both made a tonne of money as he stated, if not for Cunniffe getting jealous after her losing the limelight 🙂
However Brown’s Affidavit says the exact opposite, and is designed to portray me as a fraudster – this seems to be everyone’s favourite line.
Odd that all the videos from 25 February 2012 and 29 February 2012 confirm the exact opposite and actually confirm Brown and Cunniffe as the fraudsters. Not sure how happy, smiling people are ‘uncomfortable’ as Brown states!!
Just Press Play
This is the actual recording from 21 February 2012. Brown has spectacularly made this up thanks to Simon Thompson’s Subornation of Perjury, all boxes are ticked, albeit incorrectly. In fact he has changed the order of the discussions because by doing so gives him an advantage. This is fact was the first discussion, then the video on 25 February 2012 and then the two on 29 February 2012.
29 February 2012
This call leads into the second and third videos above, which provides context.
01 March 2012
Once again just press play, and then read what Brown has sworn:-
Lawyer’s Construct as usual:-
BROWN HAS MADE THIS ENTIRE PHONE CONVERSATION UP!!
The Case for Perjury
I am so happy that Brown has referred used the words ‘Material allegations‘ because these nail him for perjury. The case turns on these points 🙂
P46 is discussed in relation to Mutual Acceptance – he [fraudulently] represented to me that he would sign the Purported Promissory Note so I handed it to him expecting it to be signed. This is discussed in detail here:-
A new e-mail that I just recovered a few moments ago is this one. Brown further confirms that the ‘agreement’ (ie ‘concordance’) is NOT the Promissory Note (ie ‘document’), as the ‘agreement’ was for a different Promissory Note to be sent prior to the transfer of funds.
Yes I do have a ‘great memory’, eidetic in fact and I reconfirmed the position at every stage and reconfirmed whether Brown was happy to proceed. An eidetic memory was very handy when Edward de Saram was gaslighting and Ray Callingham were running frauds against me in 2015, as well as identifying IMSI catchers and remembering car numberplates 🙂
As such Brown cannot possibly state in P46 that the Purported Promissory Note is valid (regardless of his other garbage, though I deny that) and then obtain a judgment with it. This is the third e-mail which incriminates Brown which he has suppressed from discovery.
P47 Brown specifically states ‘Joe asserts that he has paid me other amounts in addition to the repayments I refer to above. I deny Joe made any such payments. The allegation is made up‘.
Notwithstanding the fact that there were rental arrears as well as payments to third parties that I paid following his instructions and/or those of Cunniffe (which we are currently quantifying), Brown’s travel agent has charged AUD 5000 to my credit card for his cruise.
If that does not come under ‘other amounts to Brown’ then what does? If Brown has charged my credit card then I have made a payment to him !! Duh !!!! What so he did not know he went on a cruise? Ha ha!
He owed me plenty of money from his trips to Singapore around March 2011 as well as September 2011 and I paid for their hotel and he promised to reimburse me. These are all softloans which nor Rhodium-related.
So those amounts are clearly ‘other amounts’ he has enriched himself with so in fact even his opening position can be challenged. I reminded him of these in March 2012 and he promised to calculate and include them – he stole my money!
Furthermore his conversion of my assets AUD 3000 fridge, jewellery at around AUD 6500, Panasonic TV at AUD 9995 and instructing Cunniffe to put those sums into his bank account is (in law) another payment that I have made, albeit unwillingly. These ‘other amounts’ go to the heart of the judgment and Brown has nailed himself! Just these ones add up to AUD 25,000 !!!!
BSB 063000 12027627 is Brown’s Commonwealth Bank account and +61406002609 is Brown’s mobile.
These instructions were provided by Brown to Cunniffe on 21 November 2013 – Brown’s Perjurious Affidavit was sworn on 21 May 2014 so he was WELL AWARE of these amounts!
These sms were deleted off the mobile but I recovered them. They also confirm that Brown and Cunniffe destroyed evidence that was foreseeably required for judicial proceedings:-
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
(i) destroys or conceals it or renders it illegible, undecipherable or incapable of identification; or
(ii) expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorises or permits another person to destroy or conceal it or render it illegible, undecipherable or incapable of identification and that other person does so; and
(c) acts as described in paragraph (b) with the intention of preventing it from being used in evidence in a legal proceeding—
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum) or a level 6 fine or both.
and this is why I was struggling because of Brown’s Spoliation of Evidence – which is a crime of course in Victoria and elsewhere. Destroying evidence that would nail them is classic perversion of the course of justice and I draw an obvious parallel to their continual false exculpatory statements.
Simply inserting those amounts into Brown’s Bogus Interest calculation collapses the judgment on the basis of ‘fraud on the court’, notwithstanding that the Purported Promissory Note is not even valid!!
That’s really how easy to smash a fraudulently-obtained judgment in its entirety, and I needed to do so because my fraudulent attorneys were acting as gatekeepers and working in concert with the courts to deny me justice, and of course UK Police are heavily involved in perverting the course of justice by telling my own Australian attorneys to protect Brown and Cunniffe. Bad Move and I am drafting a document for the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Conflicts are being cleared at present, and then the new lawyers will wipe the floor with them 🙂
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)
Perhaps Praxy de Saram’s AD could have been drafted a little more succinctly but the points are definitely there – however the judge could not be bothered reading it and did not understand the points about the fraud because the words were longer than ‘cat’ and ‘dog’. I do need to write some complaints next week and will draft a new AD 🙂