United Snakes: Mongrel Capitalist Criminals Claim Global Jurisdiction

United Snakes:  Mongrel Capitalist Criminals Claim Global Jurisdiction SOURCE | New York Times Justice Department Opens Investigation Into Russian Doping Scandal By REBECCA R. RUIZ MAY 17, 2016 The United States Department of Justice has opened an investigation into state-sponsored doping by dozens of Russia’s top athletes, two people familiar with the case said. The inquiry escalates what has been a roiling sports controversy into a federal criminal case involving foreign officials. The United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York is scrutinizing Russian government officials, athletes, coaches, antidoping authorities and anyone who might have benefited unfairly from a doping regime, according to the people, who did not have authorization to speak about the inquiry publicly. Prosecutors are believed to be pursuing conspiracy and fraud charges. Federal courts have allowed prosecutors to bring cases against foreigners living abroad if there is some connection to the United States. That connection can be limited, such as the use of an American bank. [ ... ] The inquiry, which originated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would have to clear several hurdles before charges could be filed. Even if prosecutors are able to establish jurisdiction, securing the cooperation of Russian authorities in pursuing evidence and witnesses — and in ultimately delivering any charged defendants to the United States — would be all but impossible. It is rare for the United States government to take on sports doping cases. In February 2012, the United States attorney in Los Angeles, André Birotte Jr., dropped a two-year criminal investigation into Lance Armstrong and his Postal Service cycling team that had explored whether Mr. Armstrong and others defrauded sponsors by operating a doping program. [ ...] SOURCE | New York Times http://archive.is/G4egZ COMMENT Crooks.  Seriously.  These mongrel assh*les are criminals. Nuke 'em, Russia.  Please!!!!!!!!!!

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch Admits Ordering FBI Go-See re Global Warming 'Deniers' Censorship

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Senate Judiciary Committee admitted she asked FBI to examine if federal govt should take legal action 'climate change deniers' RON PAUL INSTITUTE Loretta Lynch Wants to Censor Climate Skeptics By Ron Paul   |   Tuesday, 15 Mar 2016 03:47 PM During her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that she asked the FBI to examine whether the federal government should take legal action against so-called climate change deniers. Lynch is not responding to any criminal acts committed by climate change skeptics. Instead, she is responding to requests from those frustrated that dissenters from the alleged climate change consensuses have successfully blocked attempts to create new government programs to fight climate change. These climate change censors claim that the argument over climate change is settled and the deniers' success in blocking congressional action is harming the public. Therefore, the government must disregard the First Amendment and silence anyone who dares question the reigning climate change dogma. This argument ignores the many reputable scientists who have questioned the magnitude, effects, and role of human action in causing climate change. If successful, the climate change censors could set a precedent that could silence numerous other views. For example, many people believe the argument over whether we should audit, and then end, the Federal Reserve is settled. Therefore, the deniers of Austrian economics are harming the public by making it more difficult for Congress to restore a free-market monetary policy. So why shouldn't the government silence Paul Krugman? The climate change censorship movement is part of a larger effort to silence political speech. Other recent examples include the IRS' harassment of tea party groups as well as that agency's (fortunately thwarted) attempt to impose new rules on advocacy organizations that would have limited their ability to criticize a politician's record in the months before an election. The IRS and many state legislators and officials are also trying to force public policy groups to hand over the names of their donors. This type of disclosure can make individuals fearful that, if they support a pro-liberty group, they will face retaliation from the government. Efforts to silence government critics may have increased in recent years; however, the sad fact is the U.S. government has a long and shameful history of censoring speech. It is not surprising that war and national security have served as convenient excuses to limit political speech. So-called liberal presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both supported wartime crackdowns on free speech. Today, many neoconservatives are using the war on terror to justify crackdowns on free speech, increased surveillance of unpopular religious groups like Muslims, and increased government control of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Some critics of U.S. foreign policy have even been forbidden to enter the country. Many opponents of government restrictions on the First Amendment and other rights of Muslims support government actions targeting so-called "right-wing extremists." These fair-weather civil liberties defenders are the mirror image of conservatives who support restricting the free speech rights of Muslims in the name of national security, yet claim to oppose authoritarian government. Defending speech we do not agree with is necessary to effectively protect the speech we support. A government that believes it can run our lives, run the economy, and run the world will inevitably come to believe it can, and should, have the power to silence its critics. Eliminating the welfare-warfare state is the key to protecting our free speech, and other liberties, from an authoritarian government. This article first appeared on the Ron Paul Institute website. Ron Paul is a physician, author, and former Republican congressman. Paul also is a two-time Republican presidential candidate, and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in the 1988 U.S. presidential election. His latest book is “Swords into Plowshares." For more of Ron Paul's reports, Go Here Now. © 2016 by Ron Paul Institute http://www.newsmax.com/RonPaul/Loretta-Lynch-Climate-Global-Warming/2016/03/15/id/719204/ Freedom of speech restrictions an issue at universities March 7, 2016 EXTRACTS The 501(c)(3) is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that defines nonprofit institutions, including most public and private colleges and universities, as tax-exempt. Taxpayers essentially give financial benefits to schools based on the educational value they offer. “Institutions often cite their tax-exempt status to justify banning political activity by students on campus or forbidding them to use university resources, broadly defined, for political purposes,” Catherine Sevcenko, director of litigation for Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said. The IRS has concluded that the restriction on political activity does not apply to individual academic community members, Sevcenko said. Since FIRE’s founding in 1999, the organization has won 385 cases for students and faculty at 250 colleges and universities, advancing freedom of expression for over 3.5 million students. Private universities are not the only higher educational institutions that have attempted to impose limits on speech. Private universities have no legal requirements for freedoms, but public universities have a legal obligation to allow students to speak freely. That’s because the First Amendment refers only to government suppression of speech. The University of Oklahoma sent an email to its community during the 2008 election cycle stating that personal university email accounts “may not be used to endorse or oppose a candidate, including the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” OU President David Boren revoked the email after extensive criticism. ... [Princeton Open Campus Coalition] Zuckerman founded the coalition to maintain Princeton’s vibrant culture after Princeton students led by the Black Justice League occupied President Christopher Eisgruber’s office in November and issued demands, including creation of cultural spaces on campus and cultural training. ... EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL HERE http://flyernews.com/freedom-of-speech-restrictions-an-issue-at-universities/ ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT And why would the US tax office be policing the political freedom of expression?  That's an abuse of powers:  it's not their role to limit criticism of politicians pending election, so they're exceeding their function. It looks like they've since ruled that they cannot limit the expression of 'individuals' on campus, but I take it that means politically based groups on campus remain subject to on-campus censorship? If they have altered their position on political censorship on campus, look what it has taken:   385 winning legal cases.  That's enormous. Too bad if you cannot find legal backers to protect rights. Two hundred and fifty educational institutions tried to censor and deprive students of their rights.  That's also massive. The US Attorney General sending the FBI on a mission to find a pretext to censor global warming 'deniers' is scary.  What a totalitarian state.

Two-faced, deceitful, shameless, undemocratic Saudi Arab butt-kissing British government scumbags

ꕤ LONDON:  Saudi Businessman Cleared of Rape 'Tripped & Fell into Rape' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P51OP7cATPc LONDON: "A SAUDI millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he may have penetrated her accidentally when he fell on her. Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of attacking the 18-year-old as she slept on his sofa after a night out. " CONTINUED http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6807564/Saudi-millionaire-cleared-of-charges-after-claiming-he-accidentally-fell-on-victim.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- The tripped-and-raped in London guy came up today as a footnote to an RT News article I quickly skimmed ... and I initially mistook Sheikh Walid Juffali for the tripped-and-raped Saudi guy.  Oops. Sheikh Walid Juffali  has been appointed UN envoy figurehead of a Caribbean former British colony's  maritime organisation of some description, which is rather handy now that the Sheikh can invoke diplomatic immunity to sidestep beating off  the ex-wife's lawyers in a British court.   Sheikh-Your-Missus is aiming to rely on diplomatic immunity to sidestep having to address the British lawsuit mounted by pissed off (or maybe even relieved?) Wife No. 3, after the billionaire acquired a newer-model, Lebanese TV hostess, Wife No. 4.   Lawyers for the Sheikh argue that he is entitled to diplomatic immunity pursuant to: Article 15 of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015 Meanwhile, lawyers on the other side argue that he hasn't attended any of the 25 IMO meetings in the 19 months he's been in the post (Independent).  The chihuahua-sized British satellite Caribbean island reportedly informed the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) that it intends to permit the Sheikh to invoke diplomatic immunity  ... Once again, that spares the Sheikh's legal team having to fend off Wife No. 3's  lawyers in a British court. For its part, the British FCO assures the tabloid-reading rabble that all is above board,  proclaiming that this is not an abuse of privileges associated with the principle of diplomatic immunity granted by the British sidekick Saint Lucia government and, basically, that the tiny British sidekick has thought fit to knock back British request to waiver diplomatic immunity. In a nice little twist, 'diplomatic immunity' is something that the British keep invoking and treating as if it were the holy of holies to the British ... whenever politically expedient.  The British government reverence at the holy shrine of 'diplomatic immunity' is an especially handy resort, the British find, when the British must explain to a voting public concerned about Palestinian civilian deaths, why the British have repeatedly declined to arrest Israeli politicians for alleged war crimes. Despite the British pronouncements, it's plain to see that the British professed regard for 'diplomatic immunity' is selective and rather suspect when the two-faced, deceitful, shameless, undemocratic, Saudi Arab butt-kissing, British government scumbags have already threatened to raid the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012, and have thus threatened to violate Ecuador's diplomatic status: Source Sydney Morning Herald | here Source Sydney Morning Herald | here EXTRACT 16.08.2012 Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told a news conference that Ecuador had received a written threat on Wednesday from Britain that "it could assault our embassy" if Assange was not handed over. He said the threat was delivered to Ecuador's Foreign Ministry and ambassador in London. Any such incursion would be "without modern precedent" and could end up before the international courts, an Australian law expert said. Professor Donald Rothwell, from Australian National University College of Law, said the government's stance shows just how serious Britain is about extraditing the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden. "The Ecuadorian embassy enjoys protection under Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which precludes the United Kingdom authorities from entering the embassy without consent. Assange has enjoyed the protection of the embassy since he sought asylum there on June 19, 2012. "If the United Kingdom revoked the embassy's diplomatic protection and entered the embassy to arrest Assange, Ecuador could rightly view this as a significant violation of international law which may find its way before an international court." Source Sydney Morning Herald | here Extraordinary Diplomatic Stand-Off  My Ass  The Independent [Hope the above makes sense.  Brain is in go-slow mode.  Everything feels like it's taking a million years to do, and I can't remember what I'm doing, even as I'm doing it ... lol] ꕤ

Sweden Media & Sweden Politician Prejudicial Attack on Assange - 2012

ꕤ Article SOURCE - 2012 http://www.friatider.se/the-swedish-media-war-on-assange Archive https://archive.is/Ppbhi [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Media & Politician Prejudicial Attack on Assange #Sweden media. Deputy editor-in-chief Svenska Dagbladet, #Stockholm daily, Martin Jönsson called #Assange a "paranoid querulant" #WikiLeaks @Raw_Binary 3h 2012 Article Jakten på Wikileaks The Swedish media war on Assange - "Australian pig", "retard", "white-haired crackpot", "scumbag" Publicerad 24 augusti 2012 kl 08.00 Inrikes.Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has claimed that the media climate in Sweden has become so "hostile" against him that it may now jeopardize his right to a fair trial. These allegations have been strongly rejected by several Swedish officials, but a brief glance at recent Swedish media coverage on Assange seems to show that they are not entirely without ground. In a controversial statement last week, Swedish Minister of Social Affairs Göran Hägglund called Assange a 'coward' and a 'pitiful wretch' for taking refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Hägglund also alleged that Assange was afraid of having "his case tried by the court", even though Assange has not been charged with any crime and has not been summoned to court. He added that Assange was a "scumbag" if the accusations against him were true. Another official reaction came from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an angry attempt to explain why Assange cannot be questioned in London: 'You do not dictate the terms if you are a suspect. Get it?', the Ministry declared via its official Twitter channel. The bulk of the attacks on Assange, however, do not come from government officials, but from journalists and prominent intellectuals. The four major Swedish newspapers - Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Aftonbladet and Expressen - have all roundly condemned the Wikileaks founder, using very strong language. A number of examples are provided below to illustrate the general tone of Swedish media opinion on Assange. In Sweden's largest tabloid Aftonbladet, well-known columnist Oisín Cantwell characterized Assange as a "coward", a "creep", a "white-haired crackpot" and an "asshole" because he would rather request asylum from Ecuador than face extradition to Sweden. Cantwell's colleague at Aftonbladet, Johanne Hildebrandt, famous for her reporting from the wars in former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, chimed in. "He's a paranoid retard who refuses to come to Sweden", she claimed in a recent column. Also writing in Aftonbladet, prominent journalist Martin Aagård called Assange an "Australian pig". "There are many good reasons to criticize Assange. One of them is that he's a repugnant swine", Aagård elaborated. In Svenska Dagbladet, a major Stockholm daily, deputy editor-in-chief Martin Jönsson called Assange a "paranoid querulant" who is to blame for "letting Wikileaks fall into ruins". He described Assange's recent speech from the balcony of Ecuador's embassy as a "megalomaniac's circus". The same theme was echoed by an editorial writer in Sweden's largest daily, Dagens Nyheter, who also called Assange 'paranoid', and a 'querulant'. Jan Guillou, a well-known journalist and probably Sweden's most famous author, recently proclaimed in Aftonbladet that regardless of "whether Assange is guilty or not 'he's still an unprincipled disgusting little creep", adding "and now I'm holding back". Writing in Sweden's second-largest tabloid, Expressen, TV journalist and news anchor Jenny Strömstedt advocated that Assange should be put on display in a glass cage at Ecuador's London embassy for the next fifteen years "so that anyone willing to pay entrance can watch his aging struggles". According to Expressen's culture editor Karin Olsson, Assange is a "dodgy hacker" whom most Swedes view as "a paranoid chauvinist pig". "A year ago we Swedes hailed Assange as a James Bond of the net. Now he's seen as a pitiable, paranoid figure", she writes. Having previously been portrayed as a romantic rebel, Assange has now become the target of what can only be described as a vicious smear campaign. Legal experts commenting on the accusations against Assange, however, have usually been far from convinced that the prosecutor's case holds water.  For example, Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law, recently stated that the prosecutor would probably have to drop the case against Assange once he has been questioned, since "the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime". http://www.friatider.se/the-swedish-media-war-on-assange Archive https://archive.is/Ppbhi SUMMARY Göran Hägglund Swedish Minister of Social Affairs called Assange a 'coward' and a 'pitiful wretch' [comment:  for (rightfully) obtaining political asylum] Göran Hägglund Swedish Minister of Social Affairs prejudiced Assange legal standing & smeared Assange with allegations that Assange was afraid of:  'having "his case tried by the court"' ... yet Sweden has 'no case' to speak of Assange has NOT been charged with any crime & Assange has not been summoned to court Göran Hägglund Swedish Minister of Social Affairs Swedish Minister of Social Affairs asserted that Assange: 'a  "scumbag" if the accusations against him were true.' Key here is:  'if' Note:  Assange has not been convicted of any crime or even charged with one, as at the date of the Swedish politician making disgraceful, prejudicial public statements -- or since. Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Twitter 'explanation' for why Assange cannot be questioned in London: 'You do not dictate the terms if you are a suspect. Get it?' Sweden & UK Ministry of Truth TRUE CONDUCT & AGENDA EXPOSED [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Bulk of the attacks on Assange from journalists & prominent intelligentsia [comment:  because they do the dirty work of the state, & probably because politicians, mainstream journalists & intelligentsia rely on the patronage of the same elites] x4 Major Swedish newspapers condemned Assange: Dagens Nyheter (Sweden largest daily) Svenska Dagbladet (major Stockholm daily) Aftonbladet (Sweden largest tabloid) Expressen (Sweden second-largest tabloid) Oisín Cantwell Columnist Aftonbladet (Sweden largest tabloid) "Assange as a "coward", a "creep", a "white-haired crackpot" and an "asshole" because he would rather request asylum from Ecuador than face extradition to Sweden." [comment:  ie. compliant mainstream media reaction re:  politically persecuted Australian journalist obtaining (rightful) political asylum] Johanne Hildebrandt Yugoslavia & Afghanistan [propagandist scribe] Aftonbladet (Sweden largest tabloid) " ... chimed in.  "He's a paranoid retard who refuses to come to Sweden", she claimed in a recent column." [comment:  As pointed out by Assange lawyer, Sweden declined to interview Assange while he was in Sweden & subsequently failed to do so while he was in the UK (making an exception of him)] Martin Aagård prominent journalist Aftonbladet (Sweden largest tabloid) " ... called Assange an "Australian pig"." ""There are many good reasons to criticize Assange. One of them is that he's a repugnant swine", Aagård elaborated." Martin Jönsson Deputy editor-in-chief Svenska Dagbladet (major Stockholm daily) called Assange:  ""paranoid querulant" who is to blame for "letting Wikileaks fall into ruins"." "described Assange's recent speech from the balcony of Ecuador's embassy as a "megalomaniac's circus"." [comment:  it is interesting that the media circus is referred to here, when it is the Swedish authorities that leaked information to the Swedish tabloids in order to create this very media circus and press smear that Assange has been subjected to] Dagens Nyheter (Sweden largest daily) editorial writer: "also called Assange 'paranoid', and a 'querulant'." [comment:  LOL ... I think I'd be 'paranoid', too, if I had a 150-man US law enforcement team, the FBI, the US State Department, the US Department of Justice and various other US agencies intent on extraditing me re secret US Grand jury sealed indictment (legal accusation), confirmed January 2011 (here)] Jan Guillou well-known journalist Sweden's most famous author [in Aftonbladet (Sweden largest tabloid)] "... regardless of "whether Assange is guilty or not 'he's still an unprincipled disgusting little creep", adding "and now I'm holding back"." [comment:  Yep.  What a creep, exposing US (& Western) government wrongdoings & war crimes. How dare he seek to defend himself from dodgy legal assault aimed at US extradition, based on Sweden police flimsy and suspect  'allegations'! And, most of all, how dare the politically persecuted creep obtain political asylum from Ecuador?!] RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select:  'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Jenny Strömstedt TV journalist & news anchor via Expressen (Sweden second-largest tabloid) " ... advocated that Assange should be put on display in a glass cage at Ecuador's London embassy for the next fifteen years "so that anyone willing to pay entrance can watch his aging struggles"." [comment:  being the subject of intense media attention and assault, while imprisoned without charge on flimsy Sweden 'allegations'  (that come with plenty of mind-boggling regularities) is a lot like the glass cage this tabloid hack envisaged. Coincidentally, it's to this Sweden tabloid, Expressen, that the alleged Sweden 'complainants' proposed divulging information ... information for which they expected to be paid by some source (not clear to me who was expected to make such payment)] RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select:  'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Karin Olsson Expressen (Sweden second-largest tabloid) "Assange is a "dodgy hacker" whom most Swedes view as "a paranoid chauvinist pig"." [comment:  yaaaawn ... Did the Sweden government issue a press directive or something, seeing these tabloid hacks are echoing the same garbage?] ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- However, legal experts are not convinced by allegations of the Sweden authorities: [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Ove Bring professor emeritus of international law Sweden prosecutor is without sufficient evidence to charge Assange with a crime [ LINK Archive:  https://archive.is/6Ro7S ] Professor Ove Bring also refers to Sweden's reluctance to make an 'exception' of Assange by questioning Assange in London. However, this is not supported by evidence that has subsequently come to light. Sweden has an established practice of questioning parties abroad & has questioned 44 persons in UK alone, whereas it has refused to likewise question Assange in Britain. So Sweden HAS been making an EXCEPTION of Assange, by NOT interviewing ASSANGE in London, as it interviewed the other 44 persons in UK between 2010-2015.   What is this, if not more evidence of POLITICAL PERSECUTION? [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. We have subsequently learned Sweden declined to interview Assange in Britain for strategic reasons:  ie to prevent Assange being able to legally defend himself while they continue the political persecution offensive, and that this strategic legal manoeuvre that apparently disregards the principles of justice, has taken place with the full cooperation of the British and on advice of the British Crown Prosecution Service. The British Crown Prosecution Service also explicitly stated that proposed extradition of Assange is not being treated in accordance with the established norm for all others, ie "as "just another extradition request.' Once again:  political persecution of a journalist who exposed US and Western allied wrongdoings and crimes.  [CLICK image for clarity / enlargement] ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Abovementioned Swedish politicians are NOT the first to attack and legally prejudice legal proceedings against Assange.  Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt got straight into political interference in 2010  (here).  That's just off the top of my head.  I think there have been other prejudicial statements - eg:   Cecilia Malmström European Commissioner for Home Affairs 2012 Prejudicial Press Statement { USA link:   US attorney-general Eric Holder, co-author article } LINK  | Post Meanwhile, the array of compliant Swedish journalists and intelligentsia that yap at the heels of Assange in Swedish media, smearing him in an effort to shape negative public opinion, do the dirty work of the corrupt state that is politically persecuting a courageous Australian journalist, on behalf of their powerful US ally. The extent they go to smear and assault Assange would be laughable, were it not so serious a consequence for him. Take Martin Aagård, Aftonbladet, referring to him as an 'Australian pig' and thereby not only assaulting Assange, who is a target of US-Anglo led political persecution, executed by the state of Sweden, but it is also insulting all Australian nationals. Members of the Swedish mainstream press and their mainstream Swedish media publications sound like a bunch of pitchfork waving mentally challenged hicks.  But, of course, they're not:  they're just butt-kissing presstitute journalists doing the dirty work of the state, probably because they pretty much share the same elite patrons as the politicians that comprise 'the state'. Note also that this is the same Swedish press that ignores and helps cover up rape, gang-rape and mob rape of Swedish women by third world arrivals, that the Swedish and European politicians have imposed on Swedes and Europeans for decades now, in support of the agendas of their respective economic and power elites, on whose behalf the West has been (and continues to be) engaged in decades-long serial covert and open military interventions, in the Middle East and in Africa (although these interventions cannot fully explain the suicidal policies such politicians have pursued and imposed on Europeans). And it is the same press that is covering up murder of a teenager: Sweden Media Misrepresents Murder of Teenager in Swedish School European Media Remains Silent LINK | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ

British 'Justice' - Crown Prosecution Service - Former Labour MP Lord Janner cf. US Target Journalist Assange

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/15/greville-janner-child-sex-abuse-case-dropped BRITISH 'JUSTICE' Crown Prosecution Service ▼ Former Labour MP Lord Janner Charged with 22 Sexual Offences dating back to the 1960s MISHANDLED INVESTIGATION DROPPED PROCEEDINGS cf. US TARGET JOURNALIST ASSANGE Detained Over 5 Years WITHOUT CHARGE  "Greville Janner child sex abuse case: alleged victims damn decision to drop proceedings" (The Guardian) ▼ POLITICAL PERSECUTION ▼ ▼ RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select: 'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select:  'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/15/greville-janner-child-sex-abuse-case-dropped Greville Janner child sex abuse case: alleged victims damn decision to drop proceedings Rajeev Syal, Jamie Grierson and Ben Quinn Saturday 16 January 2016 05.29 AEDT Alleged victims of sexual abuse by Greville Janner have hit out at the decision to drop court proceedings against the late peer, saying it amounted to “an establishment cover-up from day one”. The case against the former Labour MP, who was charged with 22 sexual offences dating back to the 1960s against nine boys and men, was set to be heard in a trial of the facts from which Lord Janner would be absent because of his dementia. After his death last month, prosecutors suggested the trial could go ahead posthumously. But on Friday the prosecutor Richard Whittam QC told the trial judge, Mr Justice Openshaw, that the crown would not go ahead with the proceedings planned for the Old Bailey in April. A long-awaited independent report into why it took decades to bring Lord Janner to court to face child sex abuse charges is due to be published this coming week, sources have told the Guardian. The Crown Prosecution Service and Leicestershire police are expected to face severe criticisms from retired judge Richard Henriques for mishandling investigations into the late peer in 1991, 2002 and 2007. One solicitor who represents alleged Janner victims said the report could shed light upon claims that the police were pressured by politicians to drop their previous inquiries. One alleged victim said on Friday that the decision to drop proceedings against the former MP would increase suspicion of “an establishment cover-up from day one” that stopped Janner from appearing before the courts. The 54-year-old man, who has claimed he was abused repeatedly in a children’s home by Janner over several years, said: “I am really disappointed. He was already deemed unfit to stand trial and wasn’t going to be in court anyway, so his death shouldn’t have made a difference. “The fact that he kicked the bucket should not have mattered. For once, they should have thought about the victims and let us go to court and let the court decide if we were telling the truth.” The alleged victim’s case mirrors that of others who have said they were based in children’s homes in Leicestershire when Janner, the then MP for Leicester West, was introduced to them. The man’s account and those of other alleged victims were first given to the police in 1991 and were raised again with detectives in 2005. After a further inquiry in 2014, Leicestershire police said there was enough evidence to pursue a legal case against Janner. The alleged victim, a labourer, said the decision would leave many feeling abandoned by the justice system. “I was going to go to court and tell them what happened,” he said. “I thought I was finally going to get some closure. Think what us, the victims, have been through. We were abused by a powerful man. When we plucked up courage to speak to the police, they didn’t believe us; decades later, we finally get near to a court and, somehow, he gets away with it and cheats the court because he dies.” The BBC, which has interviewed dozens of men and women who lived in children’s homes in Leicestershire in the 70s and 80s, reported on Friday that 12 former residents had claimed they were abused by Janner. The broadcaster spoke to council officials, social workers, police officers and journalists involved in investigating the case of Frank Beck, a notorious care home manager who was eventually convicted of child abuse. The BBC reported that lawyers were now representing at least 20 men and one woman, including the 12 residents of children’s homes, who say the former MP abused them and that police had said they had information from 25 alleged victims. Liz Dux, of Slater and Gordon, who represents a number of Janner’s alleged victims, said the claims against the former Labour MP were of the most “serious nature”. “My clients are absolutely devastated that they won’t give their evidence in a criminal court,” she said. “They totally understand the reasons why, but that doesn’t make up for the real travesty – that many gave their statements decades ago and have been denied justice through a failure to prosecute earlier when Janner was alive and well, and that’s something they can’t get over. “The next stage is the only opportunity for them to have their evidence heard, by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse led by Judge Goddard. We’re hoping there will be an announcement by the Goddard inquiry shortly. “I hope they prioritise the Lord Janner case and that they will hear my client in person and make findings of facts so there are judicial findings made and then made public. “What is very disappointing is there was a painstaking inquiry by Leicestershire police since 2013 with a lot of other witnesses’ evidence, who weren’t victims but who were there to corroborate what victims were alleging. That evidence won’t be heard either.” At the time of Janner’s death on 19 December, the prosecution had an application pending to introduce a second tranche of charges, which covered additional victims. Janner was subject to three police investigations between 1991 and 2007. The CPS had, in those inquiries, decided there was insufficient evidence to charge Janner as a result of two of the investigations while the police did not submit a file to prosecutors on the third one. In April last year, the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, said the evidential test was passed, but that “mistakes in the decision-making” were made by Leicestershire police in 2002 and the CPS in 1991 and 2007. The report by Henriques into the failures of previous inquiries last spring, which is expected to be released within days, will “go further” in its criticisms, sources say. The report’s findings will be closely examined by lawyers representing at least 20 alleged victims of Janner who are already pursuing civil proceedings against the peer’s estate. Some alleged victims have voiced suspicions that ministers and senior politicians from the Conservative party and Labour may have interfered in police inquiries. Peter Garsden, head of QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden, said: “I hope the Henriques review will elaborate upon whether the police were put under pressure by the government not to prosecute Janner, something which has long been rumoured. “The victims will await its publication with anticipation of it uncovering any cover-up which took place in the past. This has led to them being denied justice at a time when Janner was not lacking in capacity.” Another legal source claimed that the report could also lead to civil cases against the police or the CPS. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/15/greville-janner-child-sex-abuse-case-dropped ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Is this the same British Crown Prosecution Service that has deprived Australian journalist Julian Assange of his liberty for over five years (without charge), having advised their Swedish counterparts not to interview Assange in Britain, and therefore having denied Assange an opportunity to defend himself in relation to Sweden's dubious 'allegations' and strategically stalled 'investigation'? Oh, and are these the same British authorities that have now spent just shy of $20-million American dollars ($28-million Australian) detaining Assange at the Embassy of Ecuador, under 24/7 police-guard siege spanning in excess of 3 years, during which time the said British authorities have blocked his lawfully granted (and patently justified) political asylum, in violation of international law and conventions? Hmmmm ... I keep saying this and I'll say it again, because that's what it is:   political persecution. [Oooops ... Excuse the typos galore.  Hopefully all fixed now.] RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select:  'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT  RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select:  'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE Select:  'Open Link in New TAB' Use Magnifier tool for FULL ENLARGEMENT ꕤ