fifty-shades-of-gay-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin-featured

Fifty Shades of Gay

By | KEY ARTICLES
fifty-shades-of-gay-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Fifty Shades of Gay (±x)

Published on 4th August 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
704

Congratulations are in order for the United Kingdom’s MI5, for being the ‘Gayest’ Employer. An excellent result, especially as they had to come from behind! Hopefully there will be more spies than voyeurs…

Enter more text here

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

Joe’s Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation √

By | KEY ARTICLES
joes-rendition-was-a-military-intelligence-operation-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

Joe's Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation √

Published on 28th January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
919

It was clear that after the exfiltration of data in December 2014, there would be some attempt to bypass the Fundamental Human Rights of Joseph de Saram. Joe’s unusual background has always put him in the enviable position of identifying military intelligence operations at the very early stages, and enables him to devise hardcore strategies before his adversaries are properly able to mobilise…

[THE REALLY ODD THING IS THAT I WAS ALREADY RELOCATING TO THE UK, HAD LOOKED AT PET TRANSPORTATION PEEPS AND HAD SET UP THREE NEW UK COMPANIES.

Q SO WHY THE IRREGULAR RENDITION TO A COUNTRY I WAS ALREADY GOING TO?

A SO THAT MY ADVERSARIES CAN DESCRIBE THEIR MALICIOUS ACTIVITIES AS LEGITIMATE AND TALK UP THEIR ‘CHASING/EVASIVE THEME’, WITH A VIEW TO ‘OPENING MORE DOORS’ AND [FRAUDULENTLY] OBTAINING MORE ‘EX-PARTE’ APPLICATIONS.]

Background

I was a client of Peter and Peters, an excellent UK Law firm that I had been dealing with since 2009. I had been using them specifically in the Bahamas in 2010 as my ‘other work’ often creates issues for parties who fail to interpret it correctly.

Dude, Where's My Laptop?

20171101 UPDATE I am finally about to re-write this article so please have a look at the old version before I do so. Quite interesting how people call...

As such there is always a risk of issues because of the nature of my ‘other work’ rather than anything to do with illegality of such work.

'IT/Management Consulting'

This post is about an excellent article At Booz Allen, a Vast U.S. Spy Operation, Run for Private Profit written by Matthew Rosenberg which appeared...

As such there is always a risk of issues because of the nature of my ‘other work’ rather than anything to do with illegality of such work.

Following theft of my data in December 2014, a process engineered by UK parties:-

UK IP 193.129.103.99 - A One in 3.7 Billion Fraud

IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE, THE USER OF IP ADDRESS 193.129.103.99 APPEARS TO BE GOWLING WLG, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE KNOWN AS 'WRAGGE LAWRENCE & GRAHAM'...

specific cryptographic patents were missing. I was instructing Peters and Peters in relation to ongoing matters of freight in Singapore as well as covert surveillance in Sri Lanka from early 2015 onwards.

Joe's Rendition was a Military Intelligence Operation

First and foremost, when before the suspension of my LinkedIn account, this article was one of the most viewed one. Additionally inferences can be dawn by the named organisations reviewing it…

Joe's Linkedin (524 views)

Tania's Linkedin (91 views)

Even Tania’s contacts were interested:-

Analysis

I knew that the dim analysis of my [exfiltrated] materials would probably result in a pseudo-extradition request being made, or at the very least information gathering under an MLATand/or MA.

However as 2015 went on I identified a definite military intelligence theme to the nonsense around me.

By 23 September 2015 I had identified body-worn IMSI catchers as well as cellular jammers.

Body-Worn Surveillance Equipment Doesn't Come in Childrens' Sizes

23 September 2015 - BODY-WORN IMSI CATCHER EXPOSED Similar to, if not Gamma Group Equipment Model 4062 Surveillance Image Following on from other...

Eight Days Before 23 September 2015:- 15 September 2015

I refer to the invoice from Peters & Peters which I received in October 2015:-

Page 01

Page 04

which refers to a call on 15 September 2015. As can be seen the invoice is issued to my old Bahamas address from 2010 which does confirm my 2010 location as stated in this article:-

The 'F-Word'

This article is primarily about Fiduciaries and Defense Contracting and their relation to [Irrevocable] Trusts, although Fraud, Fools and Finance are...

After the Psychiatric Fraud I found that this call between Jenny Barker and I had been wiped from our systems for some reason.

Destruction of Evidence Facilitated by Psychiatric Fraud

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

However I recovered it and it is obvious why it was wiped…

20150915 145351 Call with Peters & Peters

 

20150915 145351 01 Peters X2 CELINT Hi Joe It's Jenny Barker

The call is self-explanatory, but there are some key aspects…

The first thing is the hissing noises at the start of the call – that is generally a sign of call interception in the key exchange / decryption phase – but I knew anyway from the commercial software installed on our mobile phones.

Note how my initial ‘Hello‘ is missing…

JB – “Hi Joe! It’s Jenny Barker here,”

and in what scenario do we see calls with lawyers intercepted?

UK admits unlawfully monitoring legally privileged communications

Intelligence agencies have been monitoring conversations between lawyers and their clients for past five years, government admits...

* * RENDITION SCENARIOS * *

Rendition-type Issues

Please add me to your connections and read other unusual articles relating to Information Security, Forensics, and Fundamental Human Rights...
20180201 JDS LinkedIn Rendition-type Issues
20150915 145351 02 Peters X2 CELINT Hi Jenny How's It Going

JDS – “Ah Jenny! How’s it going?”

[HISS] – artefact of cellular interception

20150915 145351 03 Peters X2 So Many Security Issues

JB – “Okay, how are you?”

JDS – “No too bad, I haven’t spoken to you for a while, um, I’ll give you an update on a few things, have you got time?”

JB – “Hmm, [yes]”

JDS – “Perfect, now the first issue is that there are so many security issues here, that have been caused by tortious interference, defamation, everything by Margaret [Cunniffe], David [Brown], everybody else, okay?”

JB – “Hmm [Yes].”

20150915 145351 04 Peters X2 UK Government Hacking Systems Evidence

JDS – “But today and yesterday, I’ve actually got evidence  of parties in the UK trying to hack my systems.

[THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE CONFIRMED THAT THE NUMBER OF HACKS OVER THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS WAS AN ASTONISHING 2.1 MILLION ATTEMPTS AGAINST A HARDWARE FIREWALL. THE TRICKY PART OF ANALYSIS WAS WHEN THE IP BLOCKS WERE BEING ROTATED TO OBFUSCATE THE ROUTING, BUT MY WIRESHARK EVIDENCE REMOVED ANY DOUBT.]

JB – “Okay.”

JDS – “And I don’t know whether it’s a UK Governmental organisation, I think it is, and I’ll probably send you an e-mail if I may, with some information, with the screenshots and that information that you’d need [for judicial proceedings].

[IT WAS DEFINITELY GOVERNMENTAL AND I WAS TRYING NOT TO COME ACROSS AS OVER-CONFIDENT AT THE START OF THE CALL.]

20150915 145351 05 Peters X2 Cryptographic Technology Clients Accounts

JDS – “I think that my theory that, obviously my information, and someone has tried to given an amazing explanation for it, um I think that’s really where this is coming from… and I think, my information there’s nothing wrong with my information at all, simple explanations, or sometimes complex explanations… but I’m sure foolish people who have got  low level interpretation of what I do, cryptographic technology, clients accounts, all this kind of stuff, in the past and in present, is obviuosly trying to make a case out of something.”

20150915 145351 08 Peters X2 Evidence MoD DoD IP Blocks And Methods

JDS – “But this ‘cloak and dagger’ approach is actually damaging, causing massive amounts of losses… so I just wanted to touch base with you about that… the evidence I’m going to send you is very specific and very fresh, from within a 24-hr period from the time it was caught… so I think we’d need to… I don’t know, do we get an injunction, do we write to them and ask them what they are doing, or what do we do in a situation like this?”

[THIS SPECIFIC EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY DESTROYED BY THE PERPETRATORS FOR REASONS OBVIOUS ENOUGH AND I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECOVER IT FROM SCANNING DRIVE SURFACES SO FAR. THIS ENTIRE OPERATION IS A GOVERNMENT BULLSHIT.]

JB – “Well I need to see what it is first, so you think it might be a government agency?”

JDS –Definitely, MoD… MoD and Department of Defense, using different IP ranges.”

JB – “[How can] you establish that clearly?”

JDS – “The method and the IP blocks useds.”

20150915 145351 09 Peters X2 Financed By Someone Overseas

JDS – “And it seems that someone overseas, is financing this, and there is a lot of harassment, people accessing computers, and it’s quite easy to determine now who’s behind this.”

[MARSH & MCLENNAN AND/OR AUGUSTA VENTURES.]

JB – “Okay, well send it to me, send it to me and then shall I call you again tomorrow once you have sent it to me?”

JDS – “Yes, that’ll be good, so expect it around mid-day tomorrow if not mid-morning your time and then we’ll have a strategy.”

20150915 145351 12 Peters X2 Evidence I Send You Is Quite Convincing

JDS – “So that’s the, I think it’s a fishing trip it’s they’ve got important data, maybe, their obviously handling stolen items, I don’t know whether we, I’m sure they know that and they hand it back, but yeah the stuff I send you is quite convincing.”

[WHICH SPECIFICALLY CONFIRMS THAT EVIDENCE EXISTED AT THAT TIME.]

JB – “Okay. Okay Joe, well send it to me then and I’ll given you another call tomorrow.”

JDS – “That’s perfect.”

20150915 145351 13 Peters X2 I Feel A Lot More Confident A Lot Better

JDS – “Apart from that, how are you, are you keeping well Jenny?”

JB – “Yeah fine thank you good, and you?”

JDS – “Yeah I’m alright actually.”

JB – “Are you back in health?”

JDS – “Yeah, trying to go on a diet, but no, I feel a lot more confident, a lot better… and my calls are less wordy which is a good thing as well.”

JB – “Yes!”

JDS – “Perfect! Well that’s just what I wanted to give you an update and I’ll send you some stuff through it will be with you tomorrow morning… obviously it’s not coming encrypted or anything, but it doesn’t matter… I don’t care anymore. Cool! Well, we may need to start batting down the hatches and preparing for something, and we’ll take it from there once you see the evidence, okay?”

[ONCE AGAIN I CORRECTLY DETERMINED WHAT WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN – AND OF COURSE IT DID GET WORSE, EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED.]

JB – “Okay thanks Joe, I’ll speak to you tomorrow.”

JDS – “Take care, bye.”

I Have a Cunning Plan

Timeline

20150915 – Call with Jenny re MOD / DOD

20150923 – ShitLankansTM farting around with rucksacks

20150925 112008 – Ian Jones re SAS

This part would have been fun. Jones (who was another mole) had been desperately trying to tell me that the activities in Sri Lanka had nothing to do with the UK. So it made sense for me to use him as a conduit for the dissemination of information.

In the following recording I have asked for support from ex-SAS soldiers. The brief to Jones was that they would be merely dealing with ‘Dim LankansTM’. However I was really interested to see what would happen if a party with direct and classified connections to the MOD were put into a scenario in which the adversaries were ultimately military intelligence – MOD/DOD 🙂

I WAS RUNNING SOCIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS AT THE SAME TIME 🙂

As can also be heard I specifically ensure that they are licensed to carry firearms – unlike my adversaries I comply with the legal doctrine of ‘clean hands’ 🙂

I had really wanted to meet with them, gather intel from them and then send disinformation upstream. They would obviously not be loyal to me. Though I was hoping that it would be like putting two male Siamese Fighting Fish in the same tank!

Stress Triggers Psychosis in Individuals Vulnerable to Schizophrenia

The below audio recording was made on 18 December 2015 when I unlawfully imprisoned in the Psychiatric Facility:- A key statement I made is "If...

However I absolutely correctly identified the issues by mid-September 2015. This was 8 days before the videos of the ShitLankansTM with rucksacks.

As such I already had evidence and my evidence was NOT based on observations of people farting around – that was ‘street theatre’ obviously but I feigned my behaviour 🙂

But the following is the relevant equation:-

EXTRADITION x MILITARY INTELLIGENCE THEME = RENDITION

Joe’s Tactical Response

Once I had determined that, I arranged for Adrian the Cat to purchase the Cellular Jammer:-

The Right of Private Defence

THIS MUST SURELY BE ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE APPLICATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE THAT PEOPLE HAVE SEEN 🙂 I refer to the article by Preveena...
the-unalienable-right-of-private-defence-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin-featured

which gave this IRREFUTABLE FORENSIC EVIDENCE:-

Irrefutable Identification of Cellular Interception via Pure Forensic Analysis

The video above is by Annie Machon, an ex-Intelligence Officer who worked for MI5. Annie is one of the few of us left who actually have Brains &...
irrefutable-identification-of-cellular-interception-via-pure-forensic-analysis-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin-featured

When I correctly identified the issue, my adversaries were completely fucked, the very next day this happened:-

Dangerously Low Blood Pressure Deliberately Induced for the LK RTA Fraud

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

My blood pressure was deliberately dropped to a ridiculously low level:-

Time for Tea

Assassination is usually defined as politically inspired murder. The term is probably derived from the Arabic word for hemp (Hashish), which was...

and I was injected with drugs ahead of the rendition flight:-

Pseudo-Lethal Injections Ahead of Rendition

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

Absolutely disgraceful but:-

I have far superior intelligence and better experience of clandestine operations than my adversaries obviously 🙂

Joe’s Perfect Analysis of the Intelligence Gathered

BUT IS OBVIOUS THAT MY ANALYSIS OF THE SCENARIO WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT AND NO ‘MENTAL PROBLEM’ WAS EVIDENT WHATSOEVER – THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT COVER-UP:-

'Paranoid Persecutory Delusions' Label in Military Intelligence Operations - the Martha Mitchell Effect

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

This interesting case continues…

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

For Your Eyes Only via Section 6 UK Justice and Security Act 2013

By | KEY ARTICLES
for-your-eyes-only-via-section-6-uk-justice-and-security-act-2013-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

'For Your Eyes Only' via Section 6 UK Justice and Security Act 2013 (±x)

Published on 18th January 2018
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
680

Enter more text here

“James Bond Agent 007 is assigned to hunt for a lost British encryption device and prevent it from falling into enemy hands.”

But what about Joe de Saram Agent 001 and his encryption stuff? Ha ha!

Summary

CMP and PII relate to scenarios in which a government tries to get out of compensation claims for crimes such as kidnap, torture, unlawful detainment and rendition. It effectively means that evidentiary material is suppressed on the grounds of ‘compromising national security’. (whatever that means). Without evidence cases generally collapse.

Director of Public Prosecutions asks Foreign Office to withhold evidence in torture case - Reprieve

Britain’s most senior prosecutor has asked the Foreign Office to apply to withhold evidence from two survivors of a UK-US ‘rendition’, it emerged today. The move surfaced in a court hearing involving the 2004 rendition of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and his...

Q – But what happens if the victim bringing the claim has significant experience in these types of Military Intelligence / Law Enforcement (“MI/LE”) operations as well as Forensic Science, and has irrefutable evidence?

A – CMP is no longer relevant as a tool to suppress evidence, so Political Psychiatry comes in before the matter gets to court…

IT APPEARS THAT A MI OPERATION (UK-US-NATO, ACTUALLY APPEARS SIMILAR TO A FISA WARRANT IN FACT)

Listening In

I watched an interesting video of Tucker Carlson, in which he had Senator Jim Himes on his show. Senator Himes is a member of the Permanent Select ...

HAS PAVED THE WAY FOR A LOW LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATION, IN WHICH I WILL END UP FUNDING THEIR ‘COMPLETE BALLS-UP’, VIA POCA 2002 🙂

Jason and the Aldridgenauts

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

Background

When I was on Hong Kong SAR in June 2012 my colleagues provided me with the Justice and Security Green Paper which was quite interesting reading. Up to that point, I had not known about it as I had been out of touch with UK-related legislation. And I did not think about it further until mid-2015, for reasons obvious enough 🙂

Justice and Security Act 2013

An Act to provide for oversight of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters and other activities relating to intelligence or security matters; to make provision about closed material procedure in relation to certain civil proceedings; to prevent the making of certain court orders for the disclosure of sensitive information; and for connected purposes.

Section 6

Justice and Security Act 2013

An Act to provide for oversight of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters and other activities relating to intelligence or security matters; to make provision about closed material procedure ...

Specific Relevance to My Identification of Covert Surveillance

Please refer to this article:-

Evidence of 'Parallel Construction'

20180118 UPDATES I have cross-referenced a few articles which will make my 'adventures' easier to comprehend 🙂 20170324 INITIAL William Binney, an ...

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 🙂

Please refer to this article:-

UTTERLY RIDICULOUS

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.

How to Identify Cellular Interception via Pure Forensic Analysis

The video above is by Annie Machon, an ex-Intelligence Officer who worked for MI5. Annie is one of the few of us left who actually have Brains & ...
irrefutable-identification-of-cellular-interception-via-pure-forensic-analysis-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin-featured

How to Identify Cellular Interception via IMSI Catcher Failure

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

I know how this started and my forensics are better:-

UK IP 193.129.103.99 - A One in 3.7 Billion Fraud

IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE, THE USER OF IP ADDRESS 193.129.103.99 APPEARS TO BE GOWLING WLG, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE KNOWN AS 'WRAGGE LAWRENCE & GRAHAM' ...

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.

Specific Case of Relevance

The “uneasy” co-existence of public interest immunity and closed material procedure

CF v Security Service and others and Mohamed v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others [[2013] EWHC 3402 (QB) – read judgment The High Court has today made the first court ruling on the us…

CF v Security Service and others and Mohamed v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others [2013] EWHC 3402 (QB) – read judgment

The High Court has today made the first court ruling on the use of the Justice and Security Act 2013 in a civil claim for damages.

In a ruling on preliminary issues, Irwin J made a declaration that the government can make a closed material application to the court in this case. The Court also ruled on PII. The following summary is based on the Court’s press release.

Factual background

CF and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed are both British citizens of Somali descent. CF left the United Kingdom in 2009, Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed having left in 2007. They were both detained by the Somaliland Authorities on 14 January 2011. CF and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed were then detained until removal to the UK on 14 March 2011.

JOSEPH DE SARAM IS A BRITISH CITIZEN OF SRI LANKAN DESCENT. HE LEFT THE UNITED KINGDOM IN 2000. HE WAS TORTURED, KIDNAPPED AND UNLAWFULLY DETAINED UNTIL THE PLANNED 'IRREGULAR RENDITION'. HE WAS DETAINED IN A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY BY SRI LANKAN AUTHORITIES FROM 17 DECEMBER 2015.

Each claims that they were unlawfully detained

Extrajudicial Psychiatric Detention

Extrajudicial detention covers a wide range of situations in which the physical freedom of an individual is constrained or abridged by authority ...

tortured

Breaking Four of My Fingers was Textbook Torture v3

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

and mistreated during the period of detention in Somaliland.

What happened to me is a signature match in terms of techniques and modus operandi:-

Pseudo-Lethal Injections Ahead of Rendition

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

Procedural history

The process of considering an application to withhold information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest (a PII application), and the procedures laid down under the JSA were “very different”, and in their essence may be thought of as conflicting. In his leading judgment in Al Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 Lord Dyson described a closed procedure as “the very antithesis of PII”.”

The JSA permits the State to establish a regime, if the relevant criteria are established in the case in hand, allowing evidence to be adduced in private, under strict conditions which do not threaten national security. As Irwin J observed,

This can avoid the need for a concession which threatens or carries injustice for the State. It imports a corresponding risk of injustice to the claimant acting against the state, whose case will now be met by evidence he never hears and cannot answer.(para 18)

The judge concluded that the court could make a declaration, and adopt a closed material procedure, before disclosure had been given and without a PII claim having been made or determined. The question of whether it was in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings to make a declaration should turn on the specific circumstances of the case in hand, and could not properly turn on objections which would arise in every case, and which would therefore, if successful, subvert the intention of Parliament.

The pre-condition for a declaration set out in S6(7) of the JSA was agreed by the parties to have been fulfilled, since the Secretary of State had not merely considered whether to make a claim for public interest immunity in relation to the material on which this application was based, but had in fact done so before making this application.

The material advanced here was withheld in the control order proceedings pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. A PII application was made in these proceedings in relation to this material, although that application was now in effect superseded by the application for a CMP.

In respect of the application for a declaration for closed material procedures, Irwin J went on make the declaration pursuant to S6(1) of the JSA 2013 that a closed material application could be made to the court.

Public Interest Immunity

The co-existence of the JSA 2013 and PII was, in Irwin J’s opinion, “uneasy”. In his view

the description of the processes cited above as being “antithetical” is just. Moreover, in restricting the ambit of the JSA to material affecting national security, excluding material where PII may be sought on other grounds, Parliament has created problematic anomalies. If, as in this case, material is sought to be excluded on the ground of potential damage to the international relations of the UK, then to the extent that such an application is successful, that material cannot be introduced into a CMP which has been permitted pursuant to the Act. So if a declaration is followed by permission for a CMP, material which would have been excluded under a PII application on the (usually) more serious and pressing ground of potential damage to national security will be seen and assessed by the court; material excluded on the ground of potential damage to international relations cannot be considered either in the open proceedings or within the CMP.

Another anomaly is the restricted potential response by the State to an unsuccessful application for PII, based on the international relations ground. Usually, if the State is unsuccessful, the relevant Secretary of State has the choice to abandon the case or the issue in question, and by that means avoid disclosure. Where there has been a declaration, meaning that sensitive material can be considered, it is hard to see that as a practical choice, unless the issues to which the PII-excluded material relates, are quite discrete from the case which will be addressed within the CMP.

The Matrix Revisited - Arms to Iraq in the 1980s v Weaponised Software in the 2010s

This article is about Matrix Churchill, a UK Aerospace engineering company based in Coventry, with expertise in both the design and manufacture of ...

Article – by Jo Shaw

The question of what procedural fairness demands in the context of national security is troubling the courts.

Recent Court of Appeal decisions have highlighted the contextual approach taken by the courts to questions of fundamental fairness.

These questions are thrown into sharp relief by the procedural fairness question which lies at the heart of the use of the controversial Closed Material Procedure.

Kiani [2015] EWCA Civ 776 and Bank Mellat [2015] EWCA Civ 1052 were heard on subsequent days in July by the same panel. The Court of Appeal has now delivered opposing judgments as to when ‘A-type’ disclosure is required. In brief the answer is: ‘It depends on the context.’

A-type disclosure is so-called following the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in A v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 29, applied by the House of Lords in AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28.

These two decisions set down the principle that fair trial rights contained in article 6 required a ‘minimum standard of disclosure’ such that the appellant could provide instructions to the special advocate appointed to act in their interests in a closed hearing when fundamental rights were at stake. In the absence of A-type disclosure, the information provided to a litigant can be general in nature and extremely limited, to the extent that no detail of any kind is disclosed.

In Tariq [2011] UKSC 35, however, the Supreme Court concluded that while article 6 rights may be at issue so that the requirements for a fair trial must be met, applying the ECtHR decision of Kennedy (2011) 52 EHRR 4 article 6 did not inevitably require A-type disclosure or summary: ‘There are no hard edged rules in this area of the law’ (Lord Hope). The important consideration for the court was, looking at the proceedings as a whole, ‘was there a fair hearing?’.

Lord Kerr’s dissent strongly decried the contextual approach of the majority, describing Kennedy as an anomaly in the ECtHR jurisprudence.

Since these early decisions the courts have repeatedly been called upon to determine what circumstances require A-type disclosure, which leads us to Kiani and Bank Mellat.

Kiani

Like Tariq, Kiani related to employment tribunal proceedings after the appellant’s dismissal following revocation of his security vetting certificate on national security grounds. They both unsuccessfully challenged this revocation, and then sought to challenge their dismissal on grounds of race discrimination and religious discrimination.

The appellant in Kiani relied upon the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision of ZZ CJEU C300/11 04.06.13 to attack the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tariq.

In ZZ, a French-Algerian national successfully argued that EU law required a minimum of disclosure to be provided in a determination of the right of freedom of movement, thereby requiring the home secretary to give reasons for the refusal to allow him to re-enter the UK, notwithstanding the national security concerns said to be at the heart of the refusal.

Mr Kiani relied on ZZ, arguing that a summary amounting to an irreducible minimum was always required in any case to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights applied (unlike under the ECtHR), so as to enable him to give instructions to the Special Advocate. He was unsuccessful.

Lord Dyson’s lead judgment referred to the context-specific nature of the duty of disclosure drawing a distinction between cases involving free movement of persons, a fundamental right under EU law, and other types of case, such as those involving employment rights and protections. The ‘more demanding standard’ of supplying A-type disclosure was not to be required in all circumstances.

Thus an apparent difference of disclosure obligations between cases involving questions of EU law and the application of the ECtHR was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

Bank Mellat

The most recent Bank Mellat decision again held that context is all. The appealed interlocutory orders related to the disclosure to be provided in the context of the bank’s challenge to further directions made under schedule 7 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The bank primarily relied upon article 6 but, in the event that argument failed, relied on the EU law points advanced unsuccessfully in Kiani.

The court below had held that the AF (No 3) requirement of a minimum standard of disclosure applied, but then applied that standard restrictively, meaning very little information needed to be disclosed. The Treasury appealed the application of AF (No 3) and the bank cross-appealed the order requiring very limited disclosure.

The court found that the reasoning of the lower court had correctly interpreted the authorities as to the requirement for disclosure in financial restriction cases.

In so doing, the Court of Appeal referred to asset-freezing order decisions to which the A-type disclosure standard applies, as the restrictions on liberty caused by such measures are so great as to amount to an infringement of fundamental rights, whether the measures apply to a business or an individual.

POCAhontas 2002

Just like the long-haired bird in the cartoon above, I was asking my local tree about 'my path and how am I ever going to find it'. The tree responded ...

The ECtHR argument was sufficient for the appellants to win the day, so the possibility of a different EU standard indicated by the decisions in this case and that of Kiani did not need to be considered. The question of the level of further disclosure was also determined in the bank’s favour and referred back to the High Court for determination in the light of further disclosure from the Treasury.

Conclusion

The importance of these two decisions and the continuing absence of bright lines should not be underestimated.

The UK government’s starting point in such cases is that article 6 does not require disclosure and therefore the obligation does not exist in the particular case being litigated. The cases of Belhaj and Rahmatullah are before the Supreme Court this month, and Shaker Aamer’s recent release from detention may lead to litigation. If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision that state immunity and the foreign actions of state doctrines do not bar hearing the claims of UK complicity in torture and kidnap, as alleged by Belhaj and Rahmatullah, then at least two procedural questions will almost certainly fall for determination:

(1) does the case meet the requirements for a declaration under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 providing for a closed material procedure; and

(2) if so, to what disclosure, if any, are the claimants entitled?

The defendants’ argument is likely to be that liberty is not at stake, that these are damages claims only, and that therefore Kennedy and Tariq apply, meaning there is no requirement for A-type disclosure.

Bank Mellat is a welcome reiteration of the disclosure obligations in fundamental rights cases.

Nonetheless the question of what procedural fairness demands in the context of national security is likely to further trouble the courts, including allegations of torture and kidnap.

Abduction Ahead of Rendition

"I have a very particular set of skills, skills I've acquired over a very long career, skills that make me a nightmare for people..." Background As is ...

These decisions should properly be viewed in this gravest of contexts.

I will be referring to this article ‘For Your Eyes Only’ via Section 6 UK Justice and Security Act 2013′ in relation to various Fake Probable Cause / Destruction of Evidence articles…

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

How I Met Big Brother – GeniusJoe v MI5

By | KEY ARTICLES
how-i-met-big-brother-geniusjoe-v-mi5-joseph-de-saram-rhodium-linkedin

How I Met Big Brother - GeniusJoe v MI5 (±x)

Published on 18th August 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
1126

Enter more text here

The UK Surveillance State

The above video confirms the UK’s obsession with electronic surveillance and human rights violations in the present. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is illegal.

However as many people know, this obsession is not a new thing and it is in fact public knowledge that I was the first person to discover and publicly disclose the fact that

MI5 WAS SPYING ON UK CITIZENS

unlawfully obviously

I am sure MI5 would understand that my jokes about it in the present are just friendly banter. I have a lot of intelligence information in Hong Kong SAR that I could provide to MI5, obtained over 15yrs. I would do so with ‘no strings attached’ obviously as I am a UK Citizen and I do not need to plea bargain with anyone for anything:-

“I’M NO-ONE’S BITCH” – JSR DS

‘Boobs On The Ground’

I think it would be unfair to MI5, for me to only focus on the fact that ‘MI5 Put Me Out of Business’, because they had HM Customs & Excise / National Criminal Intelligence Service (“NCIS”) as a handicap:-

MI5 put me out of business

This is the Text of the article concerned, which appears as in a normal typeface. Our Analysis is presented in Bold:- MI5 put me out of business; Internet tycoon with GBP 1m debts blames spies as he denies fleeing his creditors FIRST AND FOREMOST JOE...
MI-5

Recovered Evidence – 600 Days On

Around the beginning of August 2017 I located some e-mails from the past and the astonishing thing is that I had not seen them for years. They appear to have been copied onto my systems, then wiped, and then I have recovered them looking for other items!

This is incredibly weird and it would suggest such evidence has been planted and then wiped after investigators recorded it, but wanted to ensure that I did not have use of it.

I would also state that these e-mails were solely contained on the USB drives that JV Lasantha Priyadarshana stole and the fact that they have reappeared again does re-confirm my evidence in relation to Parallel Constructions and grotesquely deficient and blatantly fraudulent warrants.

Evidence of Parallel Construction

20170324 INITIAL William Binney, an ex-NSA employee introduces the concept of Parallel Construction, in which information obtained unlawfully is...

Or another party involved in military intelligence and who does operate in Sri Lanka, who also ‘has my back’ from the old days has surreptitiously put them on our systems to give me a boost – so in the event that it is the latter I say ‘Thank Jew Very Much’ to them 🙂

E-mails between Greg Sinfield and Robert Hartley of Lovells and I from 2000

The following are various e-mails between Greg Sinfield, the UK’s top Indirect Taxation lawyer in the late 90s who was at Lovell White Durrant, and was handling an HMCE matter for me.

I understand that Greg is now a Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) but he was incredibly intelligent, a brilliant lawyer of course, and had the most fantastic sense of humour that I have ever seen from a lawyer!

Hogan Lovells hires QC as new head of indirect tax

Hogan Lovells has hired Michael Conlon QC as its new head of indirect tax in London. Conlon will join Hogan Lovells in July 2012. He replaces Greg Sinfield, who retired in January 2012 to take up an appointment as a judge of the Upper Tribunal (Tax......

Robert Hartley is also doing well at Mishcon de Reya and I last spoke with him a couple of months or so ago.

I have to say I had been missing these adventures with HMCE and it is so nice of HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) to keep me in their thoughts after all these years:-

How My Recovery's Coming HMRC

20170507 UPDATE - RAY CALLINGHAM HMRC FORM FRAUD EXPOSED / DONALD EVIDENCE OF 'DONALD' 20170503 INITIAL I have been scanning drive surfaces...

August 2000 E-mails

So as the following e-mails show, around August 2000 I was referring to “a great deal of harassment” and “dangerous driving by cars in pursuit”.

“Chasing me around airport” is when I had clowns with guns following me around Charles de Gaulle Airport (“CDG”) on 22 August 2000 – that is another episode entirely and a really meaty one in which Interpol got involved – I will publish that at some point SOON 🙂

Remember, CDG is an Airport, an airport has recorded video via security cameras, so just press PLAY if you want to SEE what happened!

But the bottom line is that I STILL need to bring a claim for damages against Customs, arising from various frauds that they were running. Maybe I should simply add it to my current claims as I am well within the 6yr statute of limitations even for the lower standard of malfeasance?

In the following e-mail, Greg advised me “you must obtain hard evidence, eg photographs, car registrations numbers, descriptions, names and addresses.”

Well that’s interesting, so me taking photos and tracking fools using car number plates in the UK at the time, (and Sri Lanka more recently) is actually advice from someone who is now a UK Judge?

Wow all this time I thought I was just a paranoid schizophrenic! Ha ha!

However Judge Greg:-

no I said Judge Greg:-

does confirm that:-

“More seriously, you do have rights to privacy and not to have your property interfered with unlawfully”.

Quite correct, Your Honour!

Greg continues “The coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000 can only help you in enforcing those rights and/or obtaining damages for any breach of them.”

You know, nothing says ‘Joe was right’ better than criminal convictions against the perpetrators and the awarding of massive damages in my favour. That’s MY focus!

The Elephant in the Room

Greg is hilarious when he states “although when walking in the bush we were chased by an elephant which looked suspiciously like Tony Cotton.”

Tony Cotton is of course the elephant who thought HMCE had a winnable case against me, and whose role has now been reprised by Simon Vincent Breguet Thompson, as the obsessive fool who goes around in his sad delusion of being part of a ‘big case’, yet concurrently completely ignoring the fact that my defense-type work in applied cryptographics gives rise to its own defences – meaning ‘quasi-criminal activity’ may have occurred but it is not triable! Duh!

Immunity Agreements are only provided when there is something ‘naughty’ that needs immunity from, so things will obviously ‘appear dodgy’ for that reason!

Should my adversaries still want to bring a case that has zero prospects of success, then I look forward to challenging all decisions made under Public Interest Immunity Certificates! MINISTERS BEWARE!!

My next e-mail is quite interesting – I do confirm that “We do have photos and allsorts”. The same applies to the fools in LK, SG and AU in the present of course.

As can be seen I raise the question “if it is not Customs then who could it be? I cannot see any other organisation who is ‘official’ and who is so clumsy.”

Step forward NCIS, the clumsy predecessor of SOCA who was the even dozier predecessor of today’s NCA.

However it is clear from the e-mail that I “will be back in the UK after my flotation is completed here”.

I was in Sri Lanka not because I was ‘fleeing’ – it was Public Flotation of Rhodium PLC which would have raised USD 40 million!

HMCE obviously did not want that to happen as then I would have hammered them even more.

And also the whole ‘Rhodium PLC Liquidation thing’ was bizarre because anyone with half a brain would have allowed a USD 40 million flotation to occur to settle GBP 1 million of apparent third party liabilities.

I do however, like the part I wrote of “PS Let me guess, the elephant who looked like Tony Cotton served a penalty notice for evasion of VAT on another elephant called Nellie who was thinking of joining a circus.”

We had fun times as can be seen, despite the extremely serious situation – none of us were fazed in any way! The same applies now to my current ‘issues’ 🙂

October 2000 E-mails

Greg states “Your story of harassment by MI5 and Customs is quite incredible”, meaning ‘Your account is hard to believe, but not necessarily false.’

As can be seen the MI5 issues were documented, in writing, at the time, and Rhodium PLC matters were progressing well, despite the HMCE bullshitters going around slagging me off 🙂

Confirmation of MI5 Involvement

As I have written “I have had it confirmed that MI5 got involved as a result of Tony Cotton and Richard Spotwood.” and also “they did not like the way I could keep financing our defence and therefore made up malicious rumours to discredit me and prevent another defeat.”

I see in 2017, that this signature bullshit has not changed 🙂

However note that I write “I have had it confirmed” meaning someone else has corroborated the position in relation to MI5. Given the fact that MI5 is Military Intelligence, then only another Military Intelligence organisation or a Government could confirm that irrefutably.

Remember a theory is not irrefutable evidence, and in fact a mere theory is not evidence at all!

Irrefutable Evidence

I also wrote “MI5 have been led to believe that I am some ‘underworld kingpin'”. My assertions are quite specific and such specificity could only come from rock solid evidence that I had been provided with at the time. When I was writing to Greg in October 2000 I was making factual statements, exuding confidence.

Such confidence only arises from the existence of robust evidence that can take down a Government – whereas in August 2000 (from the e-mails above) I was asking “if it is not Customs then who could it be?” – I did not know at that time for sure…

Even in 2017, my demonstrable confidence is a direct result of forensic evidence that I now have which can utterly smash a case, not just collapse it. I have not disclosed it though my earlier idea of using it as a ‘shield’ is out because I am now going to use it as a ‘sword’.

Even in 2000 I was talking about “harassment”, “Customs… engaged in criminal activities” and “in the circumstances we require full details of why such activities were sanctioned and who made the decisions.”

My legal basis was to quash authorisations after ascertaining the decision-makers. I already knew it was MI5 and so did not require the name of the lead organisation. I was however expecting the UK Government to rely upon Public Interest Immunity Certificates to prevent disclosure of this sabotage of Rhodium PLC.

Bare Denials

NCIS was already denying involvement and even denying knowledge of me when Sam Lister of The Times called them. In fact they were so cocky with their statements – we did not even get the usual ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response!

As in 2015 onwards, the 2000 warrants were fraudulently obtained (or non-existent) and MI5, MI6 and GCHQ were engaged in utterly unlawful behaviour towards UK Citizens themselves.

I had thought the journalists would be more interested in the Human Rights Abuses implication but they were apathetic to my situation, along with everyone else.

Greg also raises an interesting point of Human Rights when he states “The chairman became very excited at the prospects of a human rights argument based on the fact that this is a quasi-criminal matter and you were interviewed without being cautioned.”

Yes I realised that I was not cautioned when interviewed (twice in fact) so I gave Dot Cotton and Dick Cockwood something like this, in which I just obfuscated the names by choosing some contacts that Margaret already said would assist:-

Remember, changing the names of parties is not fraud – it would only have been fraud if there was no underlying transaction.

Actually I made some printable CDs called ‘The Usual Suspect’ with the audio recordings of the interviews – if anyone has them please send them my way 🙂

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

Unfortunately from 2015 my dozy lawyers have been asking me questions on behalf of law enforcement, and in fact acting in the capacity of agents of law enforcement, without me being cautioned.

Questions are being asked in this way to defeat my Human Rights, and more importantly to get a feel of that which I may or may not say at a later date.

However, even then and now, there is no quasi-criminal or criminal matter that would succeed against me because of that which I was actually doing at the time and subsequently, and if I am not formerly cautioned then I will say what I ‘bloody well like’ (say this in a Yorkshire accent!)

Interestingly this Human Rights issue is not related to the surveillance of theft of evidence in 2000, but it does confirm HMCE’s systemic deficiencies and inability then (and now) to act within the law.

Also, Sir Arthur C Clarke was getting e-mails from the UK government telling him that “[Joe] was a criminal and not to get involved in any business with [Joe].”

Does this sound familiar in 2017? Now you know where this dim strategy comes from 🙂

And as always there is the theme of ‘military grade cryptographic technology’ which my adversaries cannot design or lay their hands on.

Early version of Xencrypt Technology

Does this sound familiar as well?

Greg referred to one of my e-mails in which I had written “In terms of proof, I cannot reveal my sources, but they are British Government sources”. Greg continues “Customs have made so many mistakes and missed so many opportunities in your appeal.”

Greg also confirmed “With more focussed input and some evidence from you, you could have a reasonable chance of winning the appeal and recovering the unpaid VAT” – it was around GBP 300,000 that HMCE owed Rhodium PLC.

The thing is, I was TRYING to be focussed, but I had HMCE going around shitting everywhere – I was also working on my ‘naughty work’ at the time and the Americans were getting pissed with me.

Around GBP 7 million that was stuck with the Americans was the bigger issue that I was trying to resolve, and I had put around GBP 6 million of my own money IN to Rhodium to clear third party liabilities.

And HMCE were getting parties to steal my evidence and wiping stuff no end – their history of ‘boarding ships looking for contraband’ and the ability to issue their own ‘Anton Piller Orders’ has no effect on data in an information age. I recall Peter Knight of Vizards discussing the APO concept with me around May 1998 in fact.

MI5 Taught Me Alot

It is in part thanks to the same MI5 that I have become brilliant in Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures:-

MI5 Put Me IN Business

I read an interesting article today about Mass Electronic Surveillance and was pleased that a fellow Fellow Kevin Cahill FBCS CITP has the courage to...
MI-5

SO HOW DID JOE KNOW ABOUT MI5, NCIS and HMCE AT THE TIME?

The answer is astonishingly simple, id est the ‘naughty work’ in relation to Fake Banks and Trusts (meaning Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism) is this article:-

Dirty Cash!

This is the short version of how I became involved in designing financial systems for fake banks run by governments, which actually opened accounts

And in this article, the relevant text is:-

Just Because You're Paranoid

Summary This article is about blatant Fundamental Human Rights violations. It centres around my absolutely correct identification of MI5 overseeing...

Irrefutable evidence

I knew because the American agents I was working with at the time confirmed MI5’s involvement and there were tonnes of evidence that I was specifically shown by one of the former who visited me in Sri Lanka around September 2000.

It was therefore the factual position.”

Disclosure of Information

This is how it actually happened…

  1. NCIS/HMCE manually reported their information on UK Government databases;
  2. MI5 as the primary organisation responsible for UK Domestic Security, queried those departmental systems;
  3. MI5 provided the information (along with GCHQ’s) to external databases, such as those used by Interpol, and a different system shared with US Intelligence Agencies;
  4. US intelligence were querying those databases in realtime, and using them to update their own agency systems and watchlists;
  5. My colleagues were working with the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in relation to our Fake Bank projects, and had very limited authorisation on a reduced-access system. [By way of information City of London Police received updates on the Money Laundering projects] so they ALSO knew;
  6. Automated queries had been set up across numerous databases from around 1993. If my name was ever associated with a ‘military intelligence investigation’, I became a ‘person of interest’, or even if ‘my life was in danger’, notifications would be automatically triggered;
  7. After the Charles de Gaulle Airport incident on 22 August 2000, the cross-border request between UK and FR and Interpol‘s involvement caused my file to be written to, which then specifically triggered the notifications in 6 above;
  8. When this occurred I received a PERSONAL VISIT in Sri Lanka a week or so after arriving, from one of my defence contractor colleagues. He confirmed that NCIS had become obsessed with me, and HMCE had already filed at least one Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request with US Customs in New York (not US intelligence however, who would have told them to f#6k off);
  9. He also advised that it was HMCE/NCIS who sent a couple of officers to CDG Airport, one of whom was fat, glasses, wore a sad tweed jacket and had a sad moustache. I saw them obviously. They had requested Interpol’s involvement under another pseudo-MLAT which had led to the CDG Airport incident. There was also a ‘white guy in the light blue-checked shirt, fair hair, square haircut, glasses’, and his colleague an ‘Indian guy, short, smelly and wearing, a dark yellow checked shirt’ and they continued the surveillance from the departure lounge and boarded my flight to New Delhi. The Interpol officers were professional though, not like the UK ones who looked like ‘Fishermen from Kent’ 🙂

25 October 2000 – Greg Sinfield’s E-mail

So when I confirmed to Greg on 25 October 2000 above “In terms of proof, I cannot reveal my sources, but they are British Government sources”, the information was obtained via processes 1 through 9, and then provided to me…

The personal visit that I received in September 2000 shocked me greatly, and is why the e-mails in August 2000 express ‘an issue but not sure who it is’ which suddenly becomes October 2000’s ‘precise statements of fact’!

I had obviously seen the names of the parties in the UK who had written to the databases, but it was not they who provided the information directly to me, and I could not reveal the US connection because my immunity agreements were only valid if I complied with all the terms under them. And those were not with the US Government directly but a defense contractor’s intermediary. I am not a US citizen afterall.

The Importance of Immunisation

The most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations....

Also I did not want my head kicked in and they had already threatened to harm Margaret so I had no option but to comply.

Playing the Long Game

I therefore just had to wait, SIXTEEN YEARS IN THE END, until:-

THE UK GOVERNMENT THEMSELVES CONFIRMED THAT MI5 WAS UNLAWFULLY SPYING ON UK CITIZENS EXACTLY WHEN I SAID THEY WERE!

October 2016 – UK IPT

On 17 October 2016, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal

The IPT exists to investigate complaints about conduct by various public bodies, in relation to you, your property or communications...

CONFIRMED that which I had CONFIRMED to Judge Greg almost 16 YEARS TO THE DAY, EARLIER :-

U.K.’s Mass Surveillance Databases Were Unlawful for 17 Years, Court Rules

A special tribunal found that British spy agencies maintained secret databases of people’s private data without adequate safeguards between 1998 and 2015...

Remember:-

(a) the ability to maintain databases, means that data must have come from somewhere;

(b) unless there was a specific warrant signed off on or specific legislation in place (which there was not);

(c) then the collection and storage would have unavoidably been unlawfulwhich it was for me and thousands of other Brits!

First Among Equals

As usual I was the FIRST PERSON IN [SOMETHING], this time:-

TO DISCOVER AND PUBLICLY DISCLOSE MI5’S UNLAWFUL SURVEILLANCE

but covering for Americans meant that whilst I HAD seen forensic evidence, it was not disclosable. And NCIS was lying anyway so I knew that I would get nowhere at that time.

I ended up being labelled with Paranoid Schizophrenia despite being COMPLETELY CORRECT – so I kept my Aerospace & Defence work COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL ever since.

That is the reason I did not market myself or appear in newspapers subsequently, not that there was nothing interesting for me to talk about or I was ashamed of something – quite the contrary in fact!

And I never gave up hope that one day the UK government would finally confirm that:-

JOE WAS RIGHT ABOUT MI5!

However I want revenge – LEX TALIONIS – I am a UK Citizen and I am pretty pissed off, that every time my experience in these fields identifies Intelligence Agencies, it is I that has some mental problem!

PS I think the Interpol guy at CDG Airport was called Pierre Doucet or something – it’s been a while 🙂

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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

Just Because You’re Paranoid

By | KEY ARTICLES
Just Because You’re Paranoid

Just Because You're Paranoid (±x)

Published on 19 May, 2017
Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM
1161

Enter more text here

Summary

This article is about blatant Fundamental Human Rights violations. It centres around my absolutely correct identification of MI5 overseeing the unlawful interception and storage of my data communications by NCIS in 1999/2000.

I was branded paranoid at the time despite there being no evidence to confirm that I was actually paranoid. Of course NCIS denied my allegations and that was despite my forensic evidence, which no-one was interested in analysing and/or could understand.

Unfortunately similar events using IMSI catchers occurred in late 2015. After I correctly identified interception again, I was labelled with paranoid schizophrenia, assaulted, kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned in a Psychiatric Facility on 17 December 2015 by Edward de Saram and Praxy de Saram.

Edward de Saram, a UK Psychiatrist under a medical malpractice investigation at the time, had intentionally inflicted emotional distress a couple of weeks earlier. His fraudulent fabrication of the symptoms of schizophrenia, was in the furtherance of the overall fraud of destruction of evidence.

By leveraging upon the incorrect [yet plausible] articles on Google my Fundamental Human Rights were continually violated and no-one assisted me.

However given the fact that I do not have paranoid schizophrenia I managed to get out lawfully thanks to the excellent work of armed officers of the Sri Lanka Police…

It took SIXTEEN YEARS for the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal to finally confirm in October 2016 that MI5 had in fact been UNLAWFULLY COLLECTING the data of UK citizens during the 1999/2000 period which specifically confirmed

I HAD BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG AND HAD NOT BEEN PARANOID

much to the dismay of all the many people who enjoy using the [bogus] paranoid schizophrenia theme as a method to discredit me and/or my forensic evidence in 2017 🙂

28 November 2000 – UK Daily Mail

I gave an interview to Richard Shears of the Daily Mail, following which an article appeared. First of all I NEVER owed GBP 1 million and I did NOT run away – that is garbage. The rest of the article is not too bad and my analysis is below:-

An excerpt from that article is:-

“Yesterday [Joe de Saram] claimed his expertise had made him ‘a thorn in Big Brother’s eye’. He said: ‘What I’ve developed will protect everyone’s personal emails. Can you imagine what this means to a Government which has just introduced legislation known as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act with the intention of ordering anyone and everyone to reveal their email password whenever asked?

But it goes further than that. We know MI5 is building a multimillion pound facility to monitor all email sent and received in Britain. With my technology they won’t be able to read anything.

Joe is British to the Bone

However being ‘British to the Bone’ apparently meant nothing if I am working on Weaponised Cryptographic Technology for Americans and Israelis – a couple of MI5 officers knew my work was sanctioned but they said nothing when others were helping NCIS make a nuisance of themselves.

Unfortunately it was always wheels within wheels. People laughed at me and were believing the lies coming out of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (“NCIS”) clowns who put ‘boobs on the ground‘ (ha ha) running the harassment surveillance along with HM Customs & Excise (“HMCE”).

Obviously everyone denied any involvement and that is when the name-calling started, as the parties running the frauds were more credible than I and of course they were ‘official’ which automatically meant I was completely wrong and should have known my place.

Logical Flaws

The first flaw in those type of arguments is simply because someone does not like me does not make my statements false. This is a classic Argumentum Ad Hominem attack.

The second flaw in those type of arguments is that governments lie all the time, using their credibility to further their frauds unchallenged.

Irrefutable vidence

I knew because the American agents I was working with at the time confirmed MI5’s involvement and there were tonnes of evidence that I was specifically shown by one of the former who visited me in Sri Lanka around September 2000.

It was therefore the factual position.

Unlawful Operations by MI5 on UK Citizens

Actually I did find it difficult to believe at the time since because ‘MI5 would be effectively carrying out blatantly unlawful operations on UK citizens with absolutely no oversight‘ and in fact I said those very words to my colleague.

He replied “they do it all the time Joe, and they don’t care, so I suggest you stop caring and live somewhere else if you want to work with us.”

Accordingly I specifically named MI5 because it was MI5 who were overseeing the technical aspects of the unlawful intercepts for NCIS.

Sure, it may have been NCIS with their Black Ford Focus cars and a few obsessed HMCE officers taking time off work to harass me in Eckington from early August 2000 (and actually around March/April 2000 too), but the buck stopped with MI5.

Listening In

It was my intercepted conversations that kept them interested – sound familiar from 2015 onwards? Ha ha. In fact I always provide disinformation to those around me and especially on the phone because it is hilarious to see where the disinfo turns up and then I can track the intermediaries 🙂

Law Enforcement should simply interview me under caution should there be an actual issue – I’ll remember to wear underwear however 🙂

instead of this sad cloak and dagger approach which is extremely nauseating and which gets fools in Australia, Singapore and Sri Lanka all excited because they are part of a mission 🙂

At the time I could have easily disclosed the evidence to restore my credibility but I am not a squealer when it comes to matters of national security and military intelligence, so it was I that took the hit, and Rhodium PLC too of course.

Questions That Were Never Asked

But something that everybody missed and never explored are these questions:-

(a) ‘How DID Joe know from the mid-90s onwards that MI5 was planning a facility to monitor all email sent and received in Britain?’

(b) ‘How DID Joe know MI5 was hacking his systems and intercepting his calls in the late 90s?’

Virtually everyone in the world (including my cowardly Sri Lankan parents) simply accepted MI5’s FALSE NARRATIVE and that was the end of that…

28 November 2000 – UK The Register

The Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) commenced strategies in the 1950s known as ‘Operation Mockingbird’ in which they manipulated the media:-

And of course JTRIG

Unsurprisingly it was not long before Kieren McCarthy of The Register wrote an inflammatory diatribe about me which was subtitled

‘Just because you’re paranoid’.

McCarthy’s ‘insulting piece of flawed bullshit‘ merely served to demonstrate the Igon Value Problem that many journalists suffer from, as well as the general lack of prescience about the real issues of Strong Encryption and Mass Electronic Surveillance.

After incorrectly labelling me with ‘Paranoid Schizophrenia’, McCarthy went onto the describe features of that label, and questioned the veracity of essentially everything associated with me.

I am really not sure how the fact that being right makes me paranoid, and that is more of the absurd logic that I see everywhere and it seems to be getting worse in 2017.

In any event I have dissected McCarthy’s garbage here:-

So Were Joe’s Theories About MI5’s Electronic Surveillance Right?

YES OF COURSE I WAS BLOODY RIGHT!

MI5 is the UK’s favourite homosexual employer, so each career starts with a BANG 🙂

No not Homer-sexual, but the picture is worth a thousand words 🙂

Joe’s Successful Strategies When Dealing With MI5 et cetera

(1) I focus my eyes on the target, rather than on my CO-WORKERS;

(2) I identify problems early and never COME FROM BEHIND;

(3) I go straight for the FRONT DOOR, rather they who enjoy DARK PASSAGES after using the TRADEMAN’S ENTRANCE;

(4) I enjoying keeping ABREAST of the situation rather than they who DELAY and then ENJOY HEAD on confrontations.

Eventual Release

When the following information CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET, it must have been a real BUMMER 🙂

“The investigatory powers tribunal, which is the only court that hears complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, said the security services operated an illegal regime to collect vast amounts of communications data, tracking individual phone and web use and other confidential personal information, without adequate safeguards or supervision for 17 years.”

Funny how the 17yrs before 17 October 2016 covers the EXACT PERIOD I was talking about!

“Humans are now merely objects of surveillance” – JSRDS

There are always Human Rights violations:-

GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 "unlawfully" collected data for over a decade

Perception Not Paranoia

So actually is it obvious that every time I get close to the truth and correctly identify covert surveillance, parties immediately circulate lies about me in a pathetic attempt to impede my progress and try to keep their DIRTY secrets safe.

The Psychiatric Facility Fraud of 17 December 2015 leveraged upon the 28 November 2000 article and so did some fake medicals that EDS produced against my wishes in 2001.

But thankfully I have Brains and Balls so ‘bring it on’ – because thanks to my memory I have plenty to say on those matters and it will be another humiliation for the agencies concerned 🙂

Further reading

Joseph-S-R-de-Saram

Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP

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