TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  

March 18, 2015

Sweden / Assange - Many Investigation Irregularities Pointed Out by Former Prosecutor Hillegren


GOOGLE TRANSLATION
SvD OPINION
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/aklagaren-i-assange-fallet-bor-bytas-ut_4414639.svd
The prosecutor in the Assange case should be replaced

Marianne Ny has increasingly painted himself into a corner. Is it even possible to imagine that she, after completing interviews with Assange in London, concludes that the investigation should be closed down? writes former prosecutor Rolf Hillegren.
March 17, 2015 at 13:19, Updated: March 17, 2015 at 13:20 FOCUS | ASSANGE CASE
Rolf Hillegren

The prosecutor is solely responsible for the investigation is driven forward and his duty to be objective makes the task delicate.

Rolf Hillegren

On June 19, 2012 took Julian Assange refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London and on 16 August the same year he was granted political asylum in Ecuador. Since then, it should have been clear to most people except for the public prosecutor Marianne Ny Assange does not intend to voluntarily waive their asylum and go to Sweden where he since November 2010, detained in absentia for sexual offenses. The prosecutor has simply failed to act on the unique situation arisen with Assange's occupation of the embassy. She has consistently maintained that the only way to push the investigation forward is that Assange is available for questioning in Sweden.

The detention decision was appealed and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2010. In conjunction with the new appeal in November 2014 the Court of Appeal found that Assange would remain in custody but claimed that the prosecutor's failure to consider alternative ways not consistent with the obligation to pursue the investigation forward. This was ignored by the prosecution despite stating that the issue is continuously considered.

Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and 10 March 2015 requested the HD to the Prosecutor-General's opinion on the matter and in particular with regard to investigations and proportionality.

Then the prosecutor has suddenly changed her mind and already March 13, 2015 decided that the hearing be held in London. By way of explanation, she stated that some of the crimes approaching limitation but adds that the investigation loss of quality of interrogations held in London. Apparently, she has overlooked that even protracted investigations have negative effects.

For me who has been a prosecutor and has years of experience of listening to dubious corrections and afterwards constructions appear Marianne Ny explanation for its change of position as unconvincing.

Her lack of action over the past few years can only be interpreted to mean that she harbored the prejudice that further questioning of Assange could only lead to his prosecution. But then, a prosecutor does not behave.  [Uncertain what he is getting at.  That prosecutor biased in the belief that questions would produce a prosecution?  That only works if you actually believe that any of this is a genuine prosecution.  In my view, that resurrected (originally dismissed investigation) and conspicuous Sweden delay, both serve to keep Assange (and WikiLeaks) 'on ice' while enabling the US authorities to mount their case and extradition of Assange to the US.]

As prosecutors must act completely unbiased manner and constantly be prepared for all eventualities. It is very common - particularly in sexual offense investigations - that the investigation is closed down on the grounds that crimes can not be substantiated. The possibility seems prosecutor to have completely disregarded in the Assange case. This is especially remarkable as proof mode is rather doubtful, as those who so wish can state when the previous study is available online.

If the prosecutor acted in the only way that was it reasonable, she should have questioned Assange as soon as possible in autumn 2012. The most likely scenario is that she then found reason to discontinue the examination on the grounds that crimes can not be substantiated. As it stands, there are many indications that Assange has so far spent over two and a half years at the embassy in vain.

The thing is that it was quite possible to interrogate him in London long before he went to the embassy. This is not good enough as some assert that "he must blame himself."

The prosecutor is solely responsible for the investigation is driven forward and his duty to be objective makes the task delicate. It is equally likely that an innocent being unfairly treated as a civil party, it will be if the investigation is not conducted expeditiously.  [Not sure what he's saying beyond prosecutor's duty to be objective & push investigation forward.  Bad translation.  Maybe he's saying failure to conduct timely investigation = innocent party unfairly treated?]

Should the prosecutor, on the other hand, after questioning Noting that the prosecution shall be instituted had the problem persisted but the prosecutor's conduct would have seemed less culpable. Entirely unobjectionable, it had not been. I content myself here with a reminder that the matter quickly closed down by an experienced prosecutor in 2010 and I am convinced that the majority of the country's senior prosecutors would have done the same.

As the years have gone by the prosecutor's prestige and passivity made her increasingly painted himself into a corner from which no honorable way back there. Is it even possible to imagine that she, after completing interviews with Assange in London, concludes that the investigation should be closed down? What criticism would she suffer? And what criticism would be directed against the Prosecution?

Given that the prosecutor so far demonstrated a lack of objectivity and pushed the investigation in violation of their duties and the usual practice is an imminent risk of a hearing in London will lead to her against his better judgment and reasons of prestige finds that the prosecution should be brought. Should this happen, there is still the possibility that HD highlights arrest in view of the proportionality principle and the realization that Assange did not get to go to Sweden voluntarily.

If the arrest on the other hand is not lifted learn Assange will remain at the embassy and the timing of the overall scandal of the judiciary will be further postponed.

Ideally, Marianne Ny himself realized that she should leave the investigation and that it should continue to be handled by someone who is completely outside her command of marketing. Realizes she's not there should Prosecutor-General acting and refer the case to a new prosecutor - preferably one with high integrity. It is also strange that a överklagare, which in this case after the decision to reopen the investigation itself chooses to pursue it further. It is not usual.  [överklagare could = 'over complainer' ... but I don't know what is meant by that.  Supervisor?  Maybe a supervisor.  So he's saying:  strange that a supervisor, after deciding to re-open the investigation, elects to pursue it further.  Hillegren says:  it is  NOT USUAL.]

No matter how the case will be terminated, it is evident that the case is already qualifies as legal scandal. Through its actions, the prosecution has produced a situation that is far more serious than the crimes for which Assange is suspected. And because the case attracted international attention, she has not only drawn ridicule Prosecution but also disgraced the country - a feat that few suspects usually succeed.

ROLF HILLEGREN
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/aklagaren-i-assange-fallet-bor-bytas-ut_4414639.svd
---------------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Another exciting article.  This one Swedish.  Written by a former prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren.

Too scattered to focus on this right now.  Check out the highlights.  Wow!
Been directed to a proper translation of the article:

The prosecutor in the Assange case should be replaced

ASSANGE IN SWEDEN

http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced/

Best to check out the good translation referred to above - here.  
Mystery solved:  that word was 'Chief  Prosecutor' (not 'supervisor', as I figured).

Regardless, it is referring to Ny, who resurrected the dismissed 'allegations' and then proceeded to investigate the matter herself:
"It is also remarkable that a chief prosecutor, after reopening a case that’s already been closed, appoints herself as its lead investigator. This is not common." [AiS]
It is argued that such a prosecutor cannot be an 'impartial authority', and I can see how that would be a strong argument given this scenario.  However, this is no usual investigation.  The Assange investigation is a highly political matter.

The series of uncommon features pointed out in relation to this investigation:
  1. I was a prosecutor for years, and have years of experience listening to questionable corrections and constructions after the fact. And to me, Marianne Ny’s explanation for her change of position is unconvincing.
  2. Prosecutors must remain completely unbiased and be constantly prepared for the unexpected. It’s very common – particularly in sexual offence cases – that the investigation is closed on the grounds that the crimes cannot be substantiated. The prosecutor seems to have completely disregarded this possibility in the Assange case. This is especially remarkable, as the evidence is rather dubious, as anyone can see, with the preliminary investigation available online.
  3. If Marianne Ny had acted in the only reasonable way, she would have questioned Assange as soon as possible in autumn 2012.
  4. The thing is that it was quite possible to interrogate him in London long before he went to the embassy.
  5. The prosecutor is solely responsible for seeing the investigation moves forward ...
  6. It is also remarkable that a chief prosecutor, after reopening a case that’s already been closed, appoints herself as its lead investigator. This is not common.
[Source: Assange in Sweden]
demonstrates a highly unusual pattern to a Swedish legal investigation that has snared a high profile whistle-blower publisher target who just, ummm ... coincidentally, happens to be the target of a major US legal and intelligence investigation.
'Bias', 'incompetence', 'prestige' issues, and so on, is just a smoke-screen for the ugly truth.














No comments: