Eversheds Exposed in 'Destruction of Rhodium Evidence' Case (±x)
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…
20170613 updates in progress – watch the above video in HD…
In really simple terms, a SPECIFIC IP address
is associated with multi-million dollar frauds perpetrated against Rhodium and I from at least 2014 onwards.
On 04 April 2017 Eversheds Sutherland purported to complete the e-mail access authorisation form
using the same 184.108.40.206 – this ip address is not on Eversheds’ assigned IP block obviously.
On 10 April 2017, Eversheds requested access again from 220.127.116.11 which is in their assigned block.
Norwich Pharmacal Order
Eversheds is necessarily WELL AWARE of the identity of the user of 18.104.22.168 as they permitted that party to fraudulently obtain access to Rhodium Systems under the guise of Eversheds. That party could have easily made a request itself but Eversheds chose to assist them obfuscate their identity instead.
I have pursued every other avenue for 2.5 years but I do not have full identities of the perpetrators for their crimes against me. Accordingly Eversheds is in the position that they can provide the information and it is required in the interests of justice, both to sue the correct perpetrators of the original frauds against me as well as injunct parties who are furthering the fraud and causing me losses in the present.
Clearly it is the intention of the other party to be able to e-mail me/us but not reveal its identity. This basis is extremely foolish, simply because I have already established the various parties and if I saw the e-mail then I would know anyway 🙂
Or perhaps they think it is somehow ‘magical’ to serve me via my lawyer? Another ridiculous basis as I love litigation and will deal with any case that is provided to me. The party concerned has deliberately sabotaged my other legal cases by tortiously interfering with my existing peeps under the pretext of ‘justice’ and/or deceiving them about me. These interference have obviously caused me even further significant losses and it is a type of self-victimisation on their part.
One of the parties appears to be Gowling WLG in any event, but I would like it confirmed by Eversheds as there are a whole host of conspirators involved in this multi-jurisdictional fraud and the leads vary at different times.
In any event Eversheds is the FACILITATOR which confirms that it is not merely a witness – or is ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT the better term 🙂
Eversheds’ criminal intent has been to obfuscate the party concerned despite I advising Eversheds from January 2015 as to the fraud being perpetrated using that IP address. I now understand why the relationship changed in January 2015 when I instructed them to handle this matter.
The audio recordings alone from that time confirm a sudden and complete lack of interest to actually perform any useful work, though they were happy to charge for work that they simply had not performed.
In 2015 I thought Eversheds was merely negligent, but revisiting the facts in the light of new evidence demonstrates fraud. Even at that point they were continually defending the Melbourne Fraudsters and I found their behaviour ‘nauseating‘.
This feature of ‘lawyers lying to me‘ was something I noticed from mid to late 2015 but actually Eversheds was demonstrating this signature theme from early 2015 and were the first.
I am uploading evidence presently which demonstrates that Eversheds, then and now, chose to assist parties evade criminal culpability and various other deceptions which are evident from voice recordings.
In fact the data theft of 2014 laundered into the current case is known as Parallel Construction. Its purpose it to obfuscate the true methods by which materials were [unlawfully] obtained. As such the various ex-parte applications for search and seizure were deficient. And coming after the original theft in 2014, they were Lawyers’ Constructs – as I have been saying continually 🙂
Solicitors Regulation Authority
It is always disappointing when a UK Firm acts in this manner…
Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP
PS This must be a significant post – my LinkedIn account was suspended on Monday and then my YouTube account was suspended yesterday 🙂