Situation is that a Veterans Affairs Advocate has used a forged
medical report he says that he received from me by e-mail, so causing
chaos for me within Veterans Affairs and successfully denying my
claims to the extent that Veterans Affairs even use this bizarre false
information against me in court hearings.
I did not send the report, I was actually on my way home from visiting
the doctor specified at the time the report was sent by e-mail.
My old ISP has changed hands several times and the hardware concerned
is used for other purposes. The Advocate's ISP has referred me to
the Advocate whom I have required to request verification of receipt
from my ISP via his ISP, or subpoena action will be taken. I think
that the Advocate's ISP (very large) can only go on the sender's
e-mail address and not receipt of transmission from my ISP.
So I am in a fix as to disproving this very malicious act that
continues to cause me financial loss and acrimony, with severe court
embarrassment. Can you help solve please ? What proof action, if
any is available to me ? |
Clarification of Question by
inverchaolin-ga
on
06 Aug 2004 00:05 PDT
Tks for comment.
Yes, I do have a copy of the message the Advocate received, but even
under FOI have been refused certified true copy via Veterans Affairs
where forged e-mail was lodged; Advocate has also refused copy of
info. Further, DVA's Fraud Squad has been unable to get to the
bottom of it all, but that's nothing new !
Routing header shows From me and my then e-mail address (netaus); To
Advocate at his e-mail address (bigpond) + date time group, so
archives could be searched in bigpond as my ISP has changed hands 3
times and they no longer have hardware used at time of e-mail in
question - Nov 2000.
Yesterday an I/T specialist proved to me that by modification of
Account Details in Email Accounts anyone can use my e-mail address as
sender and using their own ISP send an e-mail to themselves - as if
that e-mail came from me, just as in this case !!!
I had suspected it but this was demonstrated to me yesterday and I
have hardcopy to prove what I have just said.
So, how do we solve the situation - whilst various court hearings have
taken place the next hearing is to resolve settlement offered by
Veterans Affairs and which settlement offer is affected by the rogue
and forged medical report !
I need all of the ammunition available, particularly as Veterans
Affairs top lawyer has advised that their Fraud Squad are about to put
a recommendation of findings to DPP AND you can never know the result,
even when the Advocate is known to have done something like this
before !
Hope you can help - I think that gives the picture. I also think my
best course from a non I/T specialist and non lawyer layman is to try
the subpoena route when I have an hearing date. Hoping that you
have other ideas.
|
Clarification of Question by
inverchaolin-ga
on
06 Aug 2004 00:13 PDT
Sorry - add
I am retired veteran with very few visitors and those only being
family and a close friend. No-one has access to my computer except
me.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
ephraim-ga
on
06 Aug 2004 05:41 PDT
Inverchaolin, I think you misunderstand what we mean by "Routing header."
When you read your e-mail, you frequently see fields that look like this:
Subject: Addresses and Wedding Dates
From: "John Smith" <johnny@smithy.com>
Date: Thu, August 5, 2004 9:34 pm
To: "Robert Brown" <bobby@brownies.com>
But the reality is that there are many other "headers" which can help
track an e-mail. For example,
Return-Path: <johnny@smithy.com>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.brownies.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A4750772B
for <bobby@brownies.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 06:37:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from laphroaig.gandi.net (redir-mail-telehouse2.gandi.net [80.67.173.4])
by mail.smithy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAB250771D
for <bobby@brownies.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hotmail.com (bay8-f115.bay8.hotmail.com [64.4.27.115])
by laphroaig.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BD5137D1B
for <bobby@brownies.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 08:37:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 5 Aug 2004 18:34:03 -0700
Received: from 24.190.56.203 by by8fd.bay8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Fri, 06 Aug 2004 01:34:01 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [24.190.56.203]
X-Originating-Email: [somebody@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: somebody@hotmail.com
From: "John Smith" <johnny@smithy.com>
To: bobby@brownies.com
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 01:34:01 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Message-ID: <BAY8-F115OJrzF44dfZ000006f3@hotmail.com>
While all of the above can be forged, it would take a much more
knowledgable and determined person to make it look "real." The
"Received:" headers provide information about all the mail gateways
the e-mail passed through on the way to you. You could attempt to
contact all these mail gateways and ask if they keep logs of the time
when the mail supposedly came through (they may or may not).
/ephraim
|
Clarification of Question by
inverchaolin-ga
on
06 Aug 2004 15:05 PDT
HHmmmmmm, TKS for your comment
Yes, I had misunderstood you and had forgotten about the routing
header details and no, I do not have them. Now,
Given that the Advocate who spread the forged document throughout Vet
Affairs and other Govt. Depts. "MUST" be "happy" that he received a
valid message from me. Also that to have taken the bizarre action
with a 4 page written claims of forgery and fraud against me to such
an extent in so many government areas. Then, it follows, that he
should be willing to provide the FULL Routing header details or,
ALTERNATIVELY, if he failed so to do, then any court and/or receiver
of his malicious lies should quickly change their attitude !!!
Would that be right in your view ?
Yes, maybe you are onto something here, or am I missing something ?
Seems to be 2 steps, 3 if you like, or even a 4th step on re-reading:
1. Require the Advocate to produce the routing header, but, I
neglected to mention earlier, the Advocate has used his
ex-serviceman's association letterhead to make his forgery and fraud
allegations about me, so
2. Require the ex-service association to deliver up the routing
header details, as they too must be equally "happy" with the message
the Advocate received AND they likely stand to lose far more than the
Advocate himself, who BTW happens to be the associations State Pres,
chief and State Advocate, Vet Affairs select committee member and
specialist training officer, so we are dealing with some big heads
here, particularly as the Advocate ingrtatiates himself with the State
Governor and wealthy citizens ! Yes, likely members of the
association's National Council and Grievance Committee who with the
association National President overlooked my early complaint may also
be interested in this, do you think ?
3. Should 1 & 2 draw a blank subpoena to those in the Routing Header
may just clinch the resolution of my longstanding problem - but I
would have to wait for an hearing date for that one.
4. Before 3 require that I be e-mailed the original message and
routing header - no maybe this is the way to tackle 1 & 2 above ?
Are we on good sound ground here - like your comment please ?
I think we are doing pretty well so far - TKS.
Oh yes, one other thing, two days ago I required the Advocate to
request his large ISP to provide verification to me that an e-mail was
sent by my e-mail address to his e-mail address at a specific date
time group from the address section, but this doesn't do the job does
it, but it should prime him when his association requires him to meet
step 4 above and perhaps I only deal with the association - yes ?
No, why not reveal this possible step to Vet Affairs Fraud Squad ?
Looking forward to the next step - TKS.
|
Clarification of Question by
inverchaolin-ga
on
06 Aug 2004 15:20 PDT
Sorry, one last aspect - the copy message that I have is a poor
photocopy of the document the Advocate lodged with Vet. Affairs and
other Govt. Depts.
Three other aspects about the copy message I was provided through
evidence from Vet Affairs:
1. When scanned I sought to print the scanned doc on A4 paper - would
not print properly, but it did so on Legal size - interesting and
meaning that the Advocate possibly used his legal mate's premises to
prepare the message ... cunning, or foolish ?
2. Secondly, when I increassed the size of the text of the message I
discovered that the letters waved in a sine wave up and down the line,
also that there were additional characters included in many sections
of the message - how relevant are these facts ? Does this help in
the overall situation ?
3. Lastly, the font used in the address is different to the font used
in the body of the message, indicating that he has gone to some
lengths in preparing the message, or is this normal ? Oh yes,
another unusual aspect of the message is that the address margin does
not line-up with the text body margin - any importance here ?
I feel that you may have the means "to cut the gaudian knot" !
|
