Kroll Corruption Exposed (±x)
Enter more text here
‘Never Forget the Lessons of the Past in the Quest for the Future’ – JSR DS
A few days ago on 10 March 2017 I spoke to one of my lawyers at Mishcon de Reya. He confirmed that he had tried to call me on my usual number as well as the number which was recorded by his phone when my message was left.
He confirmed to me that it was an 01753 number, and provided the entire number as 01753 447400:-
First and foremost 01753 447400 is not my number, and for it to appear on the lawyer’s phone (despite it being my voice) confirms call interception.
I am particularly annoyed that legal professional privilege has been eroded yet again, and for those that remember from late 2015 my cellular calls to Peters and Peters were being blatantly intercepted.
'Hadrian's Firewall' - JSRDS / Yet Another R.I.P. Off v9
Secondly I refer to this article from 02 November 2016:-
which confirmed that my data is being intercepted through Slough. Given the fact that my skype calls are data, then they would also be going through Slough, if my assertion about data interception was correct. So in relation to the area code of the mysterious number 01753, which exchange is that I wonder?
Lo and behold!
Pre-Action Disclosure and Norwich Pharmacal
PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
This is an excellent article:-
Read Overview Pre-action disclosure/Norwich Pharmacal
Pre-action disclosure—requirements and the courts' approach This Practice Note identifies when it is appropriate to make an application for pre-action disclosure under Rule 31.16 of the CPR. It also explains, by reference to key authorities including Black v Sumitomo and Bermuda International, the two-stage approach the courts take when deciding...
Data Protection Act 1998
Well it is not rocket science that an application under the Data Protection Act 1998 (if nothing else) in relation to judicial proceedings will confirm who is behind the number and the crime of data theft. See how I can easily identify the parties who are connected with the theft of my defence, and in particular my immunity agreements and patents?
So I will have the information unless of course, they make it a National Security issue like they always do when Joe de Saram is involved 🙂
It is easy to ask the party why they are intercepting my calls. We can ascertain if they are acting under an authorisation, and when that authorisation was provided. We can obtain a copy of the ex-parte application once we obtain the names of upstream parties, as well and review the affidavit material.
I know for a fact that the calls numerous people were having with me were deliberately designed to be used as [fake] probable cause and therefore would have been constructed to ‘tick all the boxes’ or to provide ‘suspicion’ – the investigation against me has been a massive perversion of the course of justice in every single area!
In fact I have already placed specific call recordings on LinkedIn which show that I am being framed as a CIA asset, or a terrorist – sadly I am not Tim Osman 🙂
However given the voluminous amount of forensic evidence that I have from the months before I was dumped in a Psychiatric Facility, during and months after, my assertion that I was put there to facilitate destruction of data including my defence is irrefutable.
In simple terms there is no other explanation that fits the facts as well as this.
I believe an application was made on or around XX September 2015 (to be confirmed). I noticed from traffic analysis that there were parties in the area of the Royal Courts of Justice. At the time my theory was that Margaret Cunniffe et al had taken photos and were just talking up their cases as usual and inciting violence.
Revisiting of Evidence
In relation to the call interception, I had already flagged FTI:-
though considering the signature techniques as well as overall ‘bullying’ poise I think Kroll is heavily involved.
I have had dealings with Kroll before and know the way that they operate. Their investigations center on Kroll’s size and Kroll’s credibility rather than providing wholly correct information and/or evidence to third parties.
I also know that Kroll erroneously believes that they are above the law as well as having a tight relationship with City of London Police because of CoLP’s penchant for financial investigations.
Furthermore CoLP are often instructed by Kroll (not the other way around) and CoLP merely go through the motions of law enforcement. This I have known for a long time, particularly when there was a senior police officer called (from memory) Tony Robinson around the time of the money laundering projects.
Furthermore review of data exfiltration suggests that the active operational locations of Kroll are New York and Singapore.
Back to the Past
This is where is gets messy, and ironically, referring again to my article about Slough:-
A particular section is:-
“This brings us onto Intent – often difficult to prove in a straightforward manner by direct means and this is where we have to rely upon circumstantial evidence, and really look at the big picture itself, essentially everything:-
(a) Seemingly unrelated unlawful acts occurring at the same time that would facilitate an Opportunity;
(b) Motives overtly/covertly demonstrated by seemingly unrelated parties.
On this point I can think of an excellent example – 9/11 . I was working on an Algorithmic Trading System (“robot trading”) for three specific clients in the World Trade Center, and my focus was the Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Planning (“DR/BCP”).
I can recall from direct experience that there was around 0.25 trillion dollars of financial instruments that were coming up for maturity and 9/11 conveniently forced the Securities and Exchange Commission to completely relax its anti-money laundering protocols so that funds could be mobilised with the absolute minimum level of identity verification :)”
Marsh & McLennan
The most ‘exciting’ of the ‘three specific clients’ mentioned about was Marsh & McLennan (“M&M”). I had an involvement as a subcontractor from around 1993/4, and that introduction came from an ex-colleague from a defence contractor called Martin Marietta (“MM”)
Rhodium PLC VAT Investigation in 1998
In fact I even confirmed this position on a recorded interview with HMCE and Tony Cotton and Richard Spotwood of the ‘Fiscal Investigation Team’. I voluntarily told them that I met my client when I was in Washington for my cousin’s wedding’ in the mid 90s.
By the time the tribunal came around they misrepresented the statement as ‘the party was a wedding guest’ but lying from dim civil servants is not a new concept. I was not formally cautioned during either interview so I said what I liked, as well as obfuscated the names of the clients which I do all the time.
New York New York
I went to New York around April 1998 with Margaret Cunniffe, shortly after the VAT investigation started – I was summoned in fact and one of the meetings took place in the Crowne Plaza hotel room whilst I was watching American Pie. Margaret was drunk and asleep, and that was handy because her snoring is better than a white noise generator 🙂
In fact during the following year, in September 1999 I inadvertently met one M&M guy with his colleagues at the top of the WTC. Protocol dictated that we should never meet publicly.
Even Tony Cotton was trying to get me to agree that I had been to their office during the vat interview, saying that ‘you must have seen where the computers were’ – I said ‘no’. As it happens I only needed to know the nodes and can work remotely off schematics alone.
We had had just bought a pizza and I spoke to them for barely ten minutes. Margaret SAW the people I was speaking to and they SAW her – I would later find that that chance encounter meant that they would use her as leverage to collapse Rhodium PLC – I am sure they are trying it again in 2017 🙂
And when I returned to Margaret the entire pizza had been eaten!! I suppose you have to take the ‘rough with the smooth’. I recall a long queue for a further pizza so I left the WTC hungry in one sense but satisfied after the quick meeting.
I remembered however that M&M had around 300 workers in the building and there were always contractors leaving who seemed to be getting bribes to say nothing. Furthermore, there were a couple of UK guys working there so hopefully they can speak out on this issue.
Unfortunately M&M were laundering money, for their own and certain clients’ gain – I think the figure was in the hundreds of millions of dollars because even in the 90s their trades were unbalanced most of the time but no-one seemed bothered. M&M came across as legit but the raw financial data on the trading systems continued to flag alerts which were continually suppressed by senior managers.
I was in Sri Lanka on 11 September 2001 and when I saw the ‘planes’ hit the towers I just did not believe the tv news for one second. I think the explosions conveniently occurred where the main server rooms were.
I find it particularly distasteful that M&M was involved in something that directly led to the deaths of a significant number of their 300 employees.
Fast Forward to 2015 Onwards
The type of surveillance, bullying attitude, and slagging me off to all and sundry have the hallmarks of M&M.
So what is the nexus between Kroll and M&M? M&M acquired Kroll in 2004 and their senior people were responsible for a dynamic change in Kroll’s ‘do or die’ culture.
Given the fact that I have been involved in this area from 1993, I know the ‘tricks of the trade’ and the intimidatory tactics as well as harassment surveillance and their complete disrespect for the law. They protect their associates and tend to destroy evidence – sound familiar? But their cases end up ‘too perfect’ and that is their weakness.
I have written this article about Ian Puddick and UK Police Corruption. Given whom Ian was up against [Kroll] he has really got balls 🙂
An interesting article about Ian that I read today is this one:-
Interesting sections are:-
The catalyst was another common enough occurrence: Ian’s discovery of his wife’s long-standing affair with her boss. As Ian himself observes, had the affair been with the milkman or other plebeian, whilst he would have been similarly upset and his response little or no different, that would have been the end of the matter. But it wasn’t. His wife’s boss just happened to be a director of Guy Carpenter Ltd, the world’s largest reinsurance broker  and the company retained Kroll Associates UK Ltd – part of the worlds most notorious provider of privatized spying and covert intelligence/dirty tricks know-how to those with pockets deep enough to pay for it – for its risk management and mitigation needs.
Late June 2009: Ian received an anonymous telephone call from a man who told him: “you have no idea who you’re f*cking with, we have deep, deep pockets and we will f*ck you like you have never been f*cked before.” He did not know it at the time, but among the documents provided by the court discovery process in October 2009 was a statement by Kroll Associates UK Ltd Managing Director Ben Hamilton which, paraphrased says: “I got a clean phone, called Puddick and told him you have no idea who we are, we have deep deep pockets ..” – No foul language mentioned – naturally – but enough to positively identify the caller beyond reasonable doubt.
In the US, Kroll are known as “The Wall St CIA“.  Their profile in the UK is similar and they have a relationship with the City of London Police which might best be described as “cosy”. That relationship quickly became a major strand of Kroll’s “Risk Mitigation” work for Guy Carpenter Ltd. A narrative was constructed. It had Ian Puddick as a “threatening violent person”. It was a total fabrication with no basis whatsoever in fact, but coming from “The Wall St CIA”, it had a certain ring to it.
As I have confirmed on numerous occasions the issues against me are Lawyer’s Constructs. And of course the CIA angle 🙂
The narrative was constructed following a court order obtained through the good offices of Buckingham Palace Lawyers, Mishcon de Reya  on 19 July 2009. The application for the order was heard in secret and without the knowledge of Ian Puddick. It alleged that, in the context of aviation insurance, “persons unknown had contacted clients of Guy Carpenter Limited and made threats of physical violence” – in other words it pushed all the right buttons. The application was successful and Ian Puddick’s Bank account and telephone records, together with permission to monitor his telephones and those of his employees were handed to The Wall Street CIA – You couldn’t make this up could you?
On 12 August 2009. Ian’s home, his business premises and those of his accountant are raided by a team of armed anti-terrorist police under the control of the Counter-Terrorism Directorate of the City of London Police. All his personal and business computers, phones GPS’s, digital cameras etc are seized and sent to the high tech specialist crime laboratory for forensic analysis.
None of these issues faze me and I think everybody knows that Rhodium is an Iceberg, in which only 10% is visible above the waterline.
Just as my adversaries have ‘deep pockets’ Rhodium has financial firewalls in multiple jurisdictions plus extremely robust cryptographic software. As I have mentioned previously, it is ‘a game of chess’ – sure they have more pieces but it is I who is the better player 🙂
Also investigators in my matters have left a massive forensic footprint which I can use to nail them spectacularly!
Any action against Rhodium or I would only be temporary, and we would simply switch to ‘auxiliary power’ whilst ascertaining the position and then respond in no uncertain terms, when we determine that that time has come…
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)