The Rape of Democracy, Liberty & Justice

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/30/the-strange-case-of-julian-assange/ The strange case of Julian Assange Bernard Keane | Nov 30, 2015 1:10PM It’s become clear that the Swedish and UK governments will do virtually anything to ensure the investigation of Julian Assange never proceeds. Julian Assange faces very serious allegations, politicians like to say. That was the description from UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s office three years ago, defending the UK’s determination to extradite him to Sweden. And that was the description early this year from then-UK deputy PM Nick Clegg, too — “he should go to Sweden to face very serious allegations and charges of rape,” said Clegg, not long before leading his party to annihilation in this year’s general election. Clegg, of course, was peddling the oft-repeated lie that there are charges against Assange. But for very serious allegations – sexual molestation, unlawful coercion, sexual assault — the UK and Swedish governments have displayed zero interest in investigating them. In fact, the history of the case against Assange is a history of increasingly bizarre efforts by authorities to avoid questioning him. When Swedish prosecutors first examined complaints about Assange by two women in 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm dismissed all but one of the allegations, including the accusation of sexual assault, saying “there is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever”. After speaking to prosecutors, Assange remained in Sweden for another week to be interviewed about the one remaining allegation (of molestation). However, after an appeal by former Swedish politician Claes Borgstrom, another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reopened the whole case. Assange remained in Sweden and offered to be interviewed again, but, in the first of what would turn out to be a long litany of excuses, was told Ny was ill and unable to speak to him. Ny’s office then told Assange’s lawyer he was free to leave Sweden, but once Assange did so, an arrest warrant was issued for him. Assange then offered to return to Sweden to speak to Ny and gave her a full week of dates in which he would do so. These were all rejected. This was all despite Swedish police having access to the texts of one of the alleged victims of Assange saying she “did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him”, that she was shocked when he was arrested given she only wanted him to take an STD test, and that “it was the police who made up the charges”. Ny’s unwillingnness to interview Assange would become the pattern for the next five years: Assange repeatedly offered to speak to Swedish authorities by phone, by videolink, or in person at the Australian embassy. The Swedes refused all opportunities to do so and demanded Assange return to Sweden, issuing a European arrest warrant for him. Eventually the EAW would be upheld by British courts under UK laws, which since then have been amended. Under current British law, a similar case to Assange’s would now be successfully appealed and the EAW rejected. Once he had sought refuge in the Ecaudorean embassy in 2012, Assange continued to offer Swedish authorities the opportunity to speak with him, and they continued to reject them. But while they regularly rejected Assange’s offer to be interviewed, other suspects were treated very differently: during the last five years, the Swedes have on 44 occasions asked to travel to the UK to interview, or asked British police to interview, other people in Britain in relation to allegations including violent crime, fraud and even murder. Assange, however, couldn’t be treated the same way — he had to go to Sweden. In fact, so absurd was Ny’s refusal to question Assange that in November last year, a Swedish court found she had breached her duty in failing to progress the case. With Assange’s Swedish arrest warrant in danger of being quashed due to her inaction and the expiry of three elements of the investigation looming due to Sweden’s statute of limitations, Ny then performed a sudden about-face — she said she would question Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy, as requested by Assange and Ecuador for years, and contacted UK authorities about the process for doing so. But Ny still had a card left to play: despite her saying in March that she would do so, she never contacted the Ecuadoreans about the interview — in fact, eventually she admitted that she hadn’t bothered contacting the Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry in Quito until “a late stage” — just five days before a scheduled interview with Assange in June. When the Ecuadoreans said they wanted diplomatic staff present during the interview given the country had given him refuge, the Swedes called the interview off and blamed the Ecuadoreans for failing to co-operate. Ny had managed to avoid yet another interview opportunity. The refusal of the Swedes to interview Assange seems to give credence to Assange’s fears the Swedes’ priority is to get him in custody not so the now one remaining allegation of sexual assault can be progressed, but so he can be extradited to the United States under the investigation into WikiLeaks’ role in the release of Chelsea Manning cables. We learnt in March that this US investigation is still on foot, despite Manning now being in the third year of her sentence. But if that seems like a conspiracy theory, it gets better: in October, it was revealed via freedom of information laws that UK prosecutors had urged Ny not to interview Assange in the UK, even before he sought refuge with the Ecuadoreans. “I suggest you interview him only on surrender to Sweden,” prosecutor Paul Close told Ny in 2011. He was concerned that the interview might suggest Assange was innocent. So despite the serious allegations the UK government said Assange faced, its prosecutors didn’t want him interviewed by the Swedes about them. Meantime, the Australian government had said nothing. Julie Bishop was happy to use Assange to criticise the Gillard government but since becoming Foreign Minister has barely mentioned him. If the plan was to use a sexual assault allegation — one prosecutors refused to investigate, one described by one of alleged victims as invented by police — to nullify WikiLeaks even if Assange avoided being extradited to the United States, it’s only partly worked. This year WikiLeaks has had its best year since 2010, releasing, inter alia, repeated iterations of chapters from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a vast accumulation of diplomatic cables from the monstrous Saudi Arabian regime, emails from CIA director John Brennan’s unauthorised personal email account, more revelations about National Security Agency surveillance targets, the text of the secret Trade In Services Agreement draft and details of the NSA’s massive spying on French presidents, which infuriated the government of Francois Hollande. Even so, Assange remains confined on the basis of very serious allegations, with the Swedish and UK governments apparently keen to ensure they are never properly investigated, while his own government would prefer that Australians forget about him entirely. http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/30/the-strange-case-of-julian-assange ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------     Totalitarianism, Empire & Poodles Soviet WWII Propaganda Cartoons Soviet WWII [Napoleon Tomb is funniest.] COMMENT The Rape of Democracy, Liberty & Justice Governments of morally 'superior' and 'democratic' nations of the 'emancipated' and 'enlightened' West, commit abuse of state power, as if the powers wielded by publicly appointed, and therefore representative and accountable assembled governments, were derived from their very existence per se, independently of their role as representative and public servant. Such governments behave as if they were the embodiment and representation of god, as were rulers of an age gone by, and thus entitled to  practically function as:  absolute, opaque and unaccountable authorities, without obligation to function in accordance with law, or in accordance with principles of democracy. Governments of the deceived West transgress against democracy, law, justice and freedom, in an enlightened third millennium, while holding position as:  intended democracies, by appointment and in the service of the emancipated. Yet a journalist performing a rightful & vital function in democracy, upon publishing evidence of war rimes committed by multiple states, has been undemocratically and unjustly entombed by those he exposed, as criminal, corrupt. As evidenced by: the political persecution of Assange (which includes a 5-year US 120-man taskforce investigation and closed-door US grand jury investigation in relation to non-US nationals, WikiLeaks and Assange, whereby: (i) the US is seeking to redefine journalism as 'espionage'; and  (ii) seeking to extend their national boundaries & jurisdiction across the globe, in efforts to: 1) to decommission WikiLeaks;  2) and, more generally, to eliminate all checks on government conduct and power & to eliminate potential exposure of state wrongdoings And therefore to: ELIMINATE restrictions on state power, moving from democracy to (open) totalitarianism. the 5-year detention of Assange, without charge; the astounding amount of money the corrupt state has spent subverting justice and democracy the last 3 years alone, detaining journalist Julian Assange (24-hour uniformed and plain clothes police presence / now less high profile, plain clothes surveillance): @ GBP £13-MILLION + @ USD $19-MILLION + @ AUD $27-MILLION + @ EUR €18-MILLION + https://govwaste.co.uk/ as well as extraordinary refusal of the British authorities to abide by international law and to recognise political asylum granted to Assange by Ecuador, pursuant to  such law; the vengeful state authorities (whose corruption Assange exposed), presently wield power that is absolutely illegitimate in functioning democracy. That state feloniously commits unlawful and undemocratic political persecution of a journalist and has exacted 5 years detention without charge, in violation of the core principles of democracy, and, otherwise, in violation of international law. We, the divested, are rendered subjects of an authoritarian state and a (usurped) power unto itself. We are passive, silent and complaint sleepwalkers in the face of totalitarian injustice and abuse of power  -- a corrupted power that, in fact, derives from a public that is comprised of free men who must individually and collectively challenge injustice and perversion of democracy. The public remains misled by journalists, whose very role in a properly functioning democracy is that of guardian of liberty and democracy, and therefore voice against the abuse of state power. But the spineless, collective of emasculated lowlifes known as Western journalists, generally prefer to kneel and otherwise prostrate themselves in the service of the banker and corporate-serving, totalitarian (usurped) state, slobbering at the feet of corrupt authority. Not only do these contemptible cowards fail to challenge the corrupt state,  they perform the dirty work of that state by heaping smear and denigration on a politically persecuted and entombed journalist, who courageously defied corrupt authority and state might, to reveal the truth. A courageous Australian journalist and an outstanding Australian, who embodies the spirit of the Australian nation, is entombed in London. Nominally Australian politicians of the Antipodean colony that is Australia, shall, jointly and severally, be known by history for their role in the corruption and the rape of democracy, liberty, justice, and the betrayal of Australian journalist, Julian Assange. Julian Assange deserves fierce and unwavering national support, yet he has been abandoned by those appointed to represent all Australians. Politicians who remain silent and complicit in the face of abuse of power, corruption and violation of democracy that has robbed an Australian journalist of 5 years of his liberty and life, betray all Australians and make a mockery of sovereign Australian nationhood and a lie of freedom. Australians cannot continue to stand by and let this Australian journalist go unprotected and undefended, while the light that is his life is entombed and snuffed out by the lawless and corrupt state wielding undemocratic and, therefore, illegitimate power & a state that has so far spent: Over AUD$27-MILLION spent by Britain in 3 years blocking Assange's lawful political asylum ------------- 'STATE' refers to one or more of the following, individually and/or collectively:  Britain, Sweden, United States of America and Australia. AMERICA Managed Democracy. POLITICS DOMINATED BY ECONOMICS.  'Inverted totalitarianism'. Corporate Totalitarianism / Corporate State.  Extinguishes democracy.  Courts & legislative bodies, in the service of corporate power.  American 'Inverted totalitarianism' effectively seized all mechanisms of power to render citizen impotent.  Inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor.  Antithesis of constitutional power.  Show elections. Money has effectively replaced the vote.   FUNNEL OF POWER UPWARD.  Citizen of US Empire irrelevant spectator.  IMPOTENT CITIZEN. Misrepresentative or Clientry Government.  Corporate Power UNCHALLENGED Link | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Corporate State Capture Link | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Julian Assange Australian Journalist FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Collateral Murder WikiLeaks Iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 ꕤ

Corrupt Crown Prosecution Service Advised Sweden NOT To Interview Assange in 5-Year No Charge Trumped Up Holding Case

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://m.espresso.repubblica.it/internazionale/2015/10/16/news/five-years-confined-new-foia-documents-shed-light-on-the-julian-assange-case-1.235129 Five years confined: New Foia documents shed light on the Julian Assange case The role of the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers in advising the Swedish prosecutors, their comments on the extradition case as not being handled as just another extradition request, the questioning in the embassy that never took place. Files obtained by l'Espresso under the Freedom of Information Act provide a five-year account of the Swedish case against the WikiLeaks founder  di Stefania Maurizi  19 ottobre 2015 The Scotland Yard agents encircling the embassy and guarding Julian Assange night and day have been removed.  But the police siege which is estimated to have cost 12 million pounds over the last three years is far from over, as the Metropolitan police admits in its press release: Scotland Yard «will make every effort to arrest him», deploying «a number of overt and covert tactics». He has been confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge since June 19th, 2012.  Next December 7th will mark five years since the founder of WikiLeaks lost his freedom, ending up first under house arrest and then confined in the embassy in a roughly 20 square-meter room. «Despite the efforts of many people», wrote Scotland Yard last week, «there is no imminent prospect of a diplomatic or legal resolution to this issue». A clear admission that the judiciary case against Julian Assange has become a legal and diplomatic quagmire. L'Espresso has filed two comprehensive Freedom of Information Act (Foia) requests in Sweden and  Britain to access the Assange file and reconstruct the case. We have requested documents from the Swedish Prosecution Authority in Stockholm – which has been conducting a criminal investigation for the last five years on Assange, still in its preliminary phase - and from the "Crown Prosecution Service" in London, the principal prosecuting authority for England and Wales, which has provided support to the Swedish Prosecution Authority on the Assange case. While the British have rejected all of our Foia requests, the Swedish released 226 pages of documents to l'Espresso. Whether these pages represent a major portion of the Assange file or only a small set of documents is hard to say.  To our request on the exact number of pages held by the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish replied that it was impossible to say, as many documents only exist as individual electronic documents, requiring too many resources to count all the pages. Instead the Crown Prosecution Service replied that the task was not possible for the opposite reason: the information is voluminous and mostly held in paper format, hence ascertaining the exact number of pages would be too time-consuming and expensive. The files obtained under Foia reveal that from the very beginning, the "Crown Prosecution Service" in London advised the Swedish prosecutors against the investigative strategy that could have led to a quick closure of the preliminary investigation: questioning Assange in London – as he has requested on many occasions - rather than extraditing him to Stockholm, as the Swedish prosecutors have always tried to do. In January 2011, not even two months after Julian Assange had been arrested in London, a lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr. Paul Close, strongly advised the Swedish magistrates against questioning the WikiLeaks' founder in London. According to Close, the appropriate strategy was to interview him «only on his surrender to Sweden and in accordance with Swedish law». Writing to the Swedish prosecutors, Mr. Close sustains that «it is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. It is certainly non stop. Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request». The documents also reveal that in April 2015 – a month after Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny had changed her mind and finally agreed, after almost five years of legal paralysis, to question Assange in London at the Ecuadorian embassy –WikiLeaks' founder promptly agreed to the questioning and to providing a DNA sample. The questioning was supposed to take place in London the 17th and 18th of June, as agreed upon by the parties, but the Swedish contacted the Ecuadorian authorities for permission and assistance only at the last minute, so the questioning, awaited  by Assange and the Swedish prosecutors for years, was ultimately aborted. Five months that shook the world  It all began in August 2010, less than a month after WikiLeaks had published the US secret documents on the Afghan War, infuriating the Pentagon and the US government. On August 20, 2010 the Swedish prosecutors opened an investigation on Julian Assange, requesting his arrest for the suspected rape and sexual molestation of two Swedish women. The case immediately collapsed, however: the Swedish prosecutor, Eva Finne, revoked the arrest and terminated the preliminary investigation on rape, whilst preserving the investigation on sexual molestation. Assange was questioned by the Swedish police about this episode the 31st of August. The next day a different prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reopened the rape investigation after Mr. Claes Borgström, the lawyer for the two women, asked Marianne Ny to review the case. On September 27, Assange flew for Berlin to meet, among other journalists, l'Espresso. Two weeks before Assange left Sweden, his Swedish lawyer at that time, Björn Hurtig, had asked Marianne Ny whether there were any problems with Assange leaving Sweden. «By telephone», writes Ny in a document handed over to l'Espresso, «Mr. Hurtig was informed that there were some investigative measures still outstanding before a new interview with Julian Assange would be relevant and that there was no arrest warrant issued for him». Since there was no hindrance, Assange left Sweden, flying to Berlin where he met l'Espresso the 27th of September, late in the evening. When he arrived at our appointment, he explained that his luggage had been lost in the direct flight from Stockholm: only his shoulder bag containing his laptop was left. As a matter of fact, he arrived at our appointment with only the shoulder bag, laptop and a clear plastic bag containing a t-shirt, a toothbrush, and some small bottles of soap, as l'Espresso immediately reported in an article. It was that 27th September that the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny ordered the arrest of Julian Assange in absentia. The preliminary investigation conducted by Marianne Ny focused on three alleged crimes: rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and sexual molestation. In the documents released to l'Espresso, Ny reconstructs the difficulties in interviewing Assange in 2010, when in five short months Assange and his organization were publishing a deluge of secret US documents never seen before. While Ny reconstructs these difficulties, Björn Hurtig reminds prosecutor Ny that he had suggested various dates for the questioning of his client: «Neither the times we had then suggested nor another occasion suggested were acceptable to you; on some occasions, our proposed times were too far in the future (a few weeks time); another occasion, one of your investigator was ill», Hurtig writes, adding that it seems «strange that a hearing could not take place because an investigator was ill». Marianne Ny forges ahead, ordering the detention of Julian Assange: «this measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation», writes the Swedish Prosecution Authority in its website. To execute the detention, Ny issues a European arrest warrant for Assange and on December 1st, 2010, an Interpol red notice makes him wanted all around the world. Six days later, Assange turns himself over to the police while in London, where he had just started publishing 251.287 cables of the US diplomacy in collaboration with the Guardian and with a team of international media. A few days after his arrest, Assange is granted bail, sent to Ellingham Hall under house arrest with an electronic bracelet tracking his every move. Since 2010, Julian Assange has always opposed the extradition to Sweden requested by Marianne Ny to perform an interview with him. Ny has always insisted that questioning him in the embassy «would lower the quality of the interview», whereas Assange has always fought extradition to Sweden, convinced that it paves the way to extradition to the US, where there is an ongoing investigation on the publication of the US secret documents by WikiLeaks. A special extradition? To put on paper that the extradition case of Julian Assange is not an ordinary extradition is a lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service in London: Mr. Paul Close. In an email to the Swedish prosecutors dated 13 January 2011, Close writes: «It is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. It is certainly no stop. Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request». What makes the Assange case special? Mr. Close does not explain this. However, in his email exchange with the Swedish, he seems pleased that two days earlier, the 11th of January 2011, the extradition hearing at the Belmarsh Magistrates' Court was not exactly an exciting event for journalists: «It was all rather boring and technical, which of course is precisely what I wanted to happen». Two weeks after these comments, January 25th 2011, Paul Close is even more straightforward with the Swedish prosecutors: «My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant in the UK». «Any attempt to interview him under strict Swedish law”, Close continues, «would invariably be fraught with problems». He therefore concludes: «Thus I suggest you interview him only on his surrender to Sweden and in accordance with the Swedish law. As we have discussed your prosecution is well based on the existing evidence and is sufficient to proceed to trial, which is the prosecution's intention». The following couple of paragraphs of this email were censored and not released under the Foia. Two things are interesting in this email exchange between the Crown Prosecution Service' lawyer and the Swedish prosecutors: Paul Close uses the word “defendant” in referring to Assange, a term which under English law indicates an individual who has already been charged with a crime, whereas in January 2011 the WikiLeaks' founder had not been charged, nor has he been charged with a crime in the last five years. In addition, Close claims that the Swedish prosecutors already intended to bring Julian Assange to trial, even before any questioning had taken place. It should be noted that just six days before this email, Marianne Ny had sent a letter to Mr. Paul Close explaining: «According to the Swedish law, a decision to prosecute may not be taken at the stage that the preliminary investigation is currently at. The decision concerning prosecution, i.e. legal proceedings, may not be made until the preliminary investigation has been concluded». L'Espresso filed a comprehensive Foia request to the Crown Prosecution Service asking for access to the entire Assange file, including the full correspondence, if any, with the US Department of Justice and with the US State Department. Our Foia has been rejected in full. To our request to acquire any correspondence with the US authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service replied: «we neither confirm nor deny whether we hold any relevant information». Whereas the Swedish Prosecution Authority and the Swedish Ministry of Justice replied that «there has been no correspondence between Sweden and the US regarding the Assange case». A diplomatic impasse that joins a judicial paralysis  From 2010 until March 2015, the Swedish investigation  remained at a standstill: Stockholm prosecutors have always insisted on extradition as the only solution to question Assange and decide whether or not to charge him once and for all. Assange has always opposed extradition tooth and nail, fighting it in the UK and Swedish courts without success. When, in June 2012, he exhausted all his legal options to resist extradition, he took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Knightsbridge, where Ecuador granted him political asylum, as the Ecuadorian authorities judged that the risk of Assange being extradited to the US and prosecuted for his journalistic work is well-founded. Since June 19, 2012, Assange is confined to the embassy in precarious conditions: he has no access to a garden or even to a small courtyard where he could enjoy a breath of fresh air and sunlight, so indispensable for his health. This turn of events has added a diplomatic impasse to the judicial paralysis, as the British authorities have always declared that under no conditions will they offer a safe passage to allow the WikiLeaks' founder to leave the embassy and enjoy asylum. Last week, Assange's lawyers and the Ecuadorian authorities denounced that the British are denying him safe passage to a hospital for an MRI scan to diagnose the causes of severe pain. As for Sweden, it has always rejected the idea that Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy because the risk of extradition to the US is real: Sweden considers his confinement in the embassy as a merely voluntary choice, which he could reverse any time. This diplomatic impasse seems as intractable as the judicial paralysis. In November 2012, as revealed by a document released to l'Espresso under Foia, a British diplomat tried to meet Marianne Ny. «I have no idea why the Brit Vice-Ambassador wants to meet with you," writes the Crown Prosecution Service's lawyer, Paul Close, to Marianne Ny, who apparently had asked him about the diplomat: «I can but assume that as you mix in those social circles it is hardly surprising!». The very long-awaited questioning  Only in March 2015, the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny agreed to question Assange in London, at the Ecuadorian embassy. What made Ny suddenly change her mind after almost five years? According to the Swedish Prosecution Authority, two facts made Ny accept this possibility: the incumbent statute of limitations for two of the alleged crimes – sexual molestation and unlawful coercion, due to expire in August 2015 – and the fact that in November 2014, the Stockholm Court of Appeal, while rejecting Assange's request to lift the arrest warrant, had criticized Marianne Ny for lack of progress in the criminal case, issuing a clear press release: «The Court of Appeal notes, however, that the investigation into the suspected crimes has come to a halt and considers that the failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward». Asked by the Swedish prosecutors whether he consented to questioning in the embassy on the 16th of April 2015, Julian Assange confirms, through his current Swedish lawyers, Thomas Olsson and Per Samuelsson, that he agreed to be questioned in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and to provide a DNA sample. The parties agree that the questioning and the acquisition of DNA should take place the 17th and 18th of June. However, the documents released to us under Foia reveal that the Swedish authorities contacted the Ecuadorian ambassador in London, Juan Falconi Puig, at the very last minute to ask him for permission and assistance. The 12th of June, Marianne Ny realized that the Ecuadorian ambassador has not yet received «any communication from the Swedish authorities». As a matter of fact, the long waited interrogation aborted. Assange's lawyer, Per Samuelsson, explains to l'Espresso what he thinks made the questioning collapse: «One prosecutor travelled to London together with a police-officer. When they were in London Marianne Ny, their boss, cancelled the whole thing due to the fact that Sweden had not gotten the permission from Ecuador. Sweden applied way too late». The documents obtained by l'Espresso confirm that the Swedish investigative team sent to London did not get access to the embassy because the Ecuadorian authorities had been contacted by Sweden too late. «I am sure you are informed that a diplomatic procedure has to be followed. At this point I have to inform you that I am being transferred to a new post as Ambassador», Juan Falconi writes to Ny the 19th of June, adding: «Therefore, as from July this affair will be handled by the new Ambassador, Mr. Carlos Abad Ortiz». Last August, Marianne Ny discontinued the investigation on two of the alleged crimes: unlawful coercion and sexual molestation due to statute of limitations. On that occasion, the Swedish prosecutor declared: «Julian Assange, on his own accord, has evaded prosecution by seeking refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador», and adding: «Since the autumn of 2010, I have tried to gain permission to interview Julian Assange, but he has consistently refused to appear. When the statute of limitation approached, we chose to attempt to interview him in London. A request to interview him on the premises of the Embassy of Ecuador was submitted in the beginning of June, but a permission has yet to be received». No mention at all of the Swedish authorities’ tardiness in contacting Ecuador. With the statute of limitations, both the two Swedish women and Julian Assange lost any opportunity to obtain justice for two of the three alleged crimes under investigation since 2010. Under Swedish law, a person under investigation cannot oppose the statute of limitations, as the Swedish Prosecution Authority confirmed to l'Espresso. So the WikiLeaks' founder cannot reject the statute of limitations in an attempt to prove his innocence and clear his name. The Swedish preliminary investigation on Julian Assange is proceeding with respect to what Swedish law considers the less serious category of rape: Assange allegedly had unprotected sex with one of the two Swedish women while she was asleep. Apparently, they had had sexual intercourse before that episode and she had expressed wish that a condom be used. The statute of limitations for this alleged crime will expire in August 2020. Will Assange ever be questioned? http://m.espresso.repubblica.it/internazionale/2015/10/16/news/five-years-confined-new-foia-documents-shed-light-on-the-julian-assange-case-1.235129 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT At a hefty price-tag in the millions, along with the exceptions involved in this legal, diplomatic, political and media assault on Assange (who is held 5 years without charge), anyone can see that this isn't about a torn condom or sex without a rubber:  this is state and legal corruption aimed at POLITICAL PERSECUTION of a journalist who exposed state war crimes. What is more appalling (to me) than war crimes, illegal war abroad, torture, and millions of dead as a result of illegal war,  is that:  THERE IS NO JUSTICE in the Swedish or in the British homelands. Just as the governments are corrupt, the judicial system is corrupt also.  I think it's safe to say, that this corruption is most likely pervasive, long-standing and a feature of government and its institutions. So what is society such as this?  The societies we live in are just a lie and all our assumptions are false. We live in a corrupt world where psychopaths pull the strings, and might is right:  whether that be the might of a corrupt state's civil institutions, or the might of the corrupt state's enforcers, such as the police, military, and intelligence agencies (with their spies, infiltrators, and assassins), that all in unison (including the government and puppet politicians) serve interests of only the powerful elites. It all amounts to the same thing:  rule/control and maintenance of power over the people by deceit and force. So that would mean, anything in this world is permissible -- so long as you can get away with it. ------------------ *Therefore:  all government / power is corrupt (some more than others, I guess). ꕤ

Sweden Prosecutor - Misleading Statements

[Assange Lawyer Statement] SOURCE http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn9rus 20th Aug 2015 - Melinda Taylor on 13 August statement by prosecutor Marianne Ny. "The Swedish prosecutor's statement today is acutely misleading. She falsely states that 'Julian Assange, on his own accord, has evaded prosecution by seeking refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador'. Assange sought and was granted political asylum from persecution under a US 'espionage' investigation, not from any Swedish prosecutor as Ecuador's asylum declaration makes clear. He has not 'evaded prosecution' in Sweden. There is at present no prosecution. The prosecutor admitted in a submission to a Swedish district court on the 16th of July 2014 that she has not even decided whether to charge Julian Assange. He has not been charged. She claims she sought to interview Assange in the embassy and implies that he refused. In fact, Assange has been demanding that the prosecutor take his statement for five years. It was Assange who initiated the request to hold an interview, and he placed no reservations on the desired interview, because it was his wish that it would happen as soon as possible. This is made clear by this diplomatic cable between Ecuador and Sweden: http://is.gd/tYSgEU She also claims that she asked Ecuador for permission to interview Assange but that she has not been given permission. In fact, Ecuador has been asking the prosecutor to interview Assange for three years, and for three years she has refused. For months, she has refused to enter into a dialogue with Ecuador on the mutual assistance parameters of the interview, a dialogue that is necessary before an interview can take place. In her statement, the prosecutor says that she hopes to conduct a further hearing, since 'there is an ongoing dialogue on the issue between Sweden and Ecuador'. She neglects to mention that Sweden only agreed to Ecuador's repeated requests to enter dialogue two days ago, after refusing Ecuador's invitations for the last three years. Both the Swedish Court of Appeals and the Swedish Supreme Court have rebuked the prosecutor for failing to advance her preliminary investigation. Responsibility for today's outcome fully belongs to the Swedish prosecutor." - Melinda Taylor SOURCE http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn9rus COMMENT / SUMMARY Sweden prosecution: falsely states that Assange has evaded prosecution by seeking refuge. Political Asylum | Espionage Investigation. has no prosecution at present. has not even decided whether to charge Assange. Assange has not been charged. has refused to interview Assange / but implies Assange refused. Assange demanded prosecution take his statement for 5 years. agrees at the last moment to Ecuador repeated requests to enter into dialogue. That would be on bang on deadline - for statute of limitations.  has been rebuked by the Swedish Court of Appeals & Swedish Supreme court for long-term inaction on the 'preliminary investigation'. About 4.5 years inaction ... and then some. ꕤ

Sweden - ASSANGE: Sven-Erik Alhem former Chief Prosecutor Sweden critical of Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny failure to act

Neue Wirren im Fall Assange Weil der schwedischen Staatsanwältin die Zeit davonläuft, möchte sie den WikiLeaks-Gründer nun doch in der ecuadorianischen Botschaft in London verhören. TRANS: New turmoil in the Assange case Because time is running out, the Swedish prosecutor now wants to interrogate WikiLeaks founder at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zeitungen/Neue-Wirren-im-Fall-Assange/story/27430427 MENTIONS LOOK-UP: Sven-Erik Alhem born April 5, 1942,  Malmö former chief prosecutor  social commentator in Malmö and on Visingsö Issues:  incl.  human rights,  hate crimes, environmental & health & safety violations, various issues relating to traffic, wildlife protection (esp. wolf). Ahead of the 2006 parliamentary election ran for Liberal Party Not elected Columnist in Jönköpings-Posten and Jusek magazine Weblog via newspaper Expressen  expert commentator on television around the law Published book:  with lawyer & wife Justitia (2008) Chair of the Association for Victim Support, from 2009 HQ Stockholm. source https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven-Erik_Alhem Sven-Erik Alhem Sven-Erik Alhem former Chief Prosecutor Sweden critical of Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny failure to act   Bing Trans: "Late justice is sometimes even no justice," legal expert Alhem says. Evidence loses power over time, victims want the thing behind. [tagesanzeiger.ch] Google Trans:   "This is all very strange, is Sven-Erik Alhem, head of the Swedish victims auxiliary Bunds and earlier prosecutor. Strange mainly because Assange talking yes avowedly wish. "I can not understand why it has not now long since taken place," says Alhem. He criticized Marianne Ny for the hesitation. A survey in London was as a basis still better than no survey." [tagesanzeiger.ch] Stefan Wahlberg Rechtsexperte Stefan Wahlberg sagt, es sei Assanges gutes Recht, zu bleiben, wo er ist. «Er ist nicht verpflichtet, die Ermittlungen gegen ihn zu unterstützen», so der Chefredaktor der schwedischen Fachzeitung «Dagens Juridik». [tagesanzeiger.ch] Trans: Legal expert Stefan Wahlberg says it is Assange's every right to stay where he is. "He is not obliged to cooperate with the investigation against him," says the chief editor of the Swedish trade journal "Dagens Juridik». [tagesanzeiger.ch] Niklas Richter Wågnert   [otherwise referred to as: Niklas Wågnert] Niklas Wågnert = Stockholm Court of Appeal (Judge) November 2014 Stockholm Court of Appeal Decision:  not to lift the arrest warrant for Assange Trans: [Supreme Court of Appeal] has asked the prosecutors to look for new solutions. With new situation Assange could challenge the warrant again, says Niklas Richter Wågnert, who was involved in the decision. [tagesanzeiger.ch] "A new situation may mean that something new has happened in this case, but also that nothing has happened." In the spring, the Supreme Court of Sweden has also confirmed the arrest of Assange. He has asked to comment on the conduct of investigations Marianne Ny. At that time, she decided to appear to travel to London. [tagesanzeiger.ch] Other source (translation): Niklas Wågnert, the Stockholm Court of Appeal judge who heard Assange case in November, said the guard of permanent failure interview with the Australian be in London "new circumstances" in the case that would enable it to launch Assange, a complaint about the Swedish [Courts]. If Assange found himself in front of an outstanding payment, he added, it could be a factor for judges to weigh, when the case came to trial. "The time has passed and nothing has happened - it would be up to the courts to decide whether [a diplomatic dispute between Sweden and Ecuador] would be a good explanation enough for the prosecutor's office does not make progress," he said. source http://osterreich.website/2015/07/24/julian-assange-ecuador-und-schweden-in-angespannten-toten-punkt-uber-interview/ Cecilia Riddselius Swedish Ministry of Justice is responsible for international legal cooperation Role:  Deputy Director at the Swedish Ministry of Justice Stockholm, Sweden ---------------------  COMMENT German language article caught my attention because Sven-Erik Alhem, former Chief Prosecutor, Sweden (& victims' support advocate, by look of things), is critical of Sweden Prosecutor Marianne Ny. Ny has stalled the curious case of the revived Swedish 'investigation' pertaining to what one might call 'alleged allegations' involving Assange, by failing to even question Assange for almost 5 years now. I say 'alleged' allegations because such 'allegations' were not recorded according to proper police procedure (nor were the alleged complainants interviewed in accordance with proper police procedure), the police database was tampered with, the alleged 'victims' have behaved and made social media statements in a manner which contradicts police claims [see:  Assange Affidavit] Wondering if Judge Niklas Wågnert (Stockholm Court of Appeal) might be trying to pass the buck by palming off Sweden's failure to act in a timely manner (for almost 5 years) as being the result of a 'diplomatic dispute' with Ecuador, or if it just reads that way because it's a poor translation of a comment as to the latest Sweden prosecution blunders regarding interview arrangements in London?  It also looks like Sweden could be subject to complaint by Assange should Sweden try the 'new circumstances' angle, which presumably means, should Sweden attempt some legal manoeuvre on the basis of 'new circumstances', after dragging this out for years.  But hard to say; translation's not that great.  Reading some mangled extract, I'm wondering why I bothered grabbing that.  LOL Anyway, they're some of the Swedish players and that's the latest, I guess. *Fingers crossed that I have all the links right.  LOL

Sweden Prosecutor's Delay Blamed for Destroying Three Lives

GOOGLE TRANSLATION * CAUTION * * INEXACT * STERN http://www.stern.de/panorama/wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange-kaempft-gegen-schweden-2180034.html Julian Assange to Sweden destroyed three lives, a culprit GOOGLE TRANSLATION * CAUTION * * INEXACT* March 14, 2015, 11:35 clock Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had to wait for years for no reason on an interrogation. A scandal that destroyed three existences, but only one culprit knows: the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. A commentary by Sylvia Margaret Steinitz The Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange © Adam Ihse / AFP / Facundo Arrizabalaga / EPA The whole thing would have been so not necessary. The international arrest warrant. Applications to court. The asylum at the Embassy of Ecuador, the existential twilight seventy square meters. One thousand days without sunlight and fresh air. Sentry outside the windows, which devoured already rumored 15 million pounds of British taxpayers' money. The whole theater - in vain. Years ago, it now turns out, the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny would have to arrange that Julian Assange interviewed in the UK to allegations of sexual offenses from 2010 and whether charges are brought. She always had declared a survey in the message is not possible, Assange had come to Sweden. The unspoken "or": In case of refusal, he would just go stale in the message. The warrant remained upright and in any case so that the whole farce about the Wikileaks founder, who fears being extradited to the US, he should enter the Swedish soil. Fairness And now that Assange's legal team called the Supreme Court, an Attorney General has taken responsibility and also the limitation period for some of Assange threatens to spread alleged actions, as it suddenly goes but Marianne Ny has submitted a request to question Assange in London to take a sample of DNA. What she needs is unclear, the Swedish authorities have already from the year 2010. But, after all. It is an examination that is desired by all parties, especially by Julian Assange. The course is not Uschuldslamm. Do the statements of the two affected women in the matter only half the truth, this man has a huge problem with people in general, and respect for women in particular.  [Uschuldslamm, means 'innocent lamb' (I think).  The bit about the 'huge problem with people" and 'respect for women in particular', is arguable, of course.] Assange is smart, arrogant, irrational, utterly fearless. On a ten-point scale from hero to asshole he is a clear five. But heroes and assholes have to prove the same right to due process, the possibility of her innocence, if convicted on appropriate punishment and the chance of rehabilitation. Assange may already sitting longer than a prison sentence would make if convicted.  [LOL, I don't know how the author came up with an Assange is 5 on an 'assh*le' scale assessment, if that's a proper translation.] But while the situation in which Julian Assange is located, has been sufficiently discussed, one thing remains largely unnoticed by the public: what does this long waiting time for the two women. Help protect the mighty lawyer Since XXX & XXX released in August 2010 on a Stockholm police station to seek advice on how to Julian Assange could be forced to have an HIV test is over her life basically. XXX stated that Assange had had intercourse with her while she was half asleep, and that without prevention protection, even though she had repeatedly emphasized to want to have sex only with condom. XXX had come along to support XXX and explain his sexual encounter with Assange, who she'd felt as violent. The police saw among other things, satisfies the conditions of the rape and put an ad on. Rape in Sweden is a public offense that needs no own display by the victim. 24 hours later dropped the competent prosecutor this fall again. XXX  brought forward Protect your help with a ideologically related Advocate Claes Borgström, well-connected politically powerful, ambitious. By a legal trick he left the lodge a complaint again and took a very different prosecutor from the nearly 500 kilometers from Gothenburg on board: his old friend Marianne Ny, which should delay the process until 2015. Video Swedish authorities want to question Assange in London The end of a career For more than four years, XXX and XXX maligned as intelligence officials, who Assange had set a trap, abandoned their personal experiences with Assange ridicule - not least by Geoffrey Robertson, Assange's acclaimed lawyer and head of Amal Clooney stated that the portrayal of XXX describe "what is commonly known as a missionary position". XXX and XXX full names were mentioned in violation of the protection of their identity in articles published their photos in the network appeared ace address and a picture of her house on input. She eventually fled to Palestine to participate, on a project. XXX popped up quite as. It has created a new lawyer who is primarily concerned with photos and other items that affect XXX personal lives to sue from the network. For the aspiring artist video of farewell from the Internet also meant the end of a career that had just begun. The political career of XXX, who worked for a subset of the Swedish Social Democrats will never take the path that might have been possible without this floating method. Assange spurred the witch hunt Assange did nothing against the witch-hunt against XXX and XXX, on the contrary, in a subtle way he spurred the agitation also still on. He has switched Only since 2014, and stressed that the two women had not introduced the display. Much too late. Marianne Ny that could be provoked by Assange attacks in their direction into a power struggle, it is understandable though unprofessional. But with their blockade, they also took the women affected the ability to finally finish the thing. How much suffering victims of sexual violence through lengthy proceedings, is sufficiently well known. Marianne Ny is considered to be declared feminist and expert on Sexual Violence and yet consciously accepts the gain of a possible post-traumatic stress disorder in buying, apparently to punish an unpleasant counterparty. To leave two women in an unnecessary and intolerable, endanger its existence condition is inexcusable. But senior public prosecutor Ny is accountable to no one, seated at her job, Swedish workers law goodness. And so she plays for four years God. If a person is responsible for the mess in which not only Julian Assange, but XXX and XXX stuck, it's Marianne Ny. COMMENT The article is a poor Google translation of German, so all you can get from it is a few snippets and an overall feel for the article.  Some of it, I'm not entirely clear on.  And some translates hilariously:  as in the 5 points on the assh*le-scale.  Sorry, people, but I find that really funny.  Not so funny is the bit where Assange is deemed to have issues with 'people' and with 'respect for women in particular'.  Not quite sure how the author has come to that conclusion, unless she knows him personally.  And even if he was known personally, such a statement would be a statement of subjective opinion, rather than a statement of objective fact. Moving on:  I thought the criticism of Ny was interesting.  Ny in a job 'accountable to no one', plays God for four years.  Ny a declared feminist and expert on sexual violence who has, nonetheless, let this matter stagnate, risking possible post-traumatic stress disorder  ("PTSD"). However, that risk of PTSD is, of course, on presumption that the state of Sweden's allegations of wrongdoing reflect an actual trespass upon the two women (which the women themselves have previously and separately denied). Alternatively, even if the women in question were caught up in political intrigue, Sweden dragging this highly political and public matter out over the space of nearly 5 years is enough to give anyone PTSD, including Assange, I should think. The writer indicates that one of the women has fled to Palestine on a project and the other woman  cut short an otherwise promising career (if I understand this translation correctly). That woman's career appears to have been on the periphery of the Swedish Social Democratic party. Swedish Social Democratic party seems to connect a number of people associated with this intriguing Swedish predicament:  including the lawyer who resurrected the dismissed matter — 500km away in Gothenburg:  Claes Borgström. The author of the Stern article refers to, lawyer, Claes Borgström, as "well-connected politically powerful, ambitious." It appears from the article that prosecutor, Marianne Ny, is the prosecutor Claes Borgström found (500km away) to resurrect the dismissed matter — and this obliging prosecutor is referred to, in this Google translation, as Claes Borgström's 'old friend'.  Found this pretty exciting news (assuming the translation is correct).  Wow, how mind-blowing is all of this?  It's probably one of the first mainstream articles I've seen that sort of connects the dots (or it gets rather close).  On the other hand, this could be old news to everyone else and nothing to get excited about.  But I still think it's rather cool to see Sweden come under criticism in mainstream media. The author made a good point about Sweden dragging this out and the potential effects of doing so, particularly when the person taking the hit for the delay is a 'radical feminist' (who presumably ought to have more concern as to the impact of delay on the two women involved). This is a most interesting and pertinent criticism of the prosecutor's delay. And perhaps the criticism is even more interesting in light of the probability that the delay did not really come down to a single person in Sweden holding up progressing the matter by refusing to question Assange.  The disregard for the women's welfare — by a feminist state and feminist prosecutor — is perhaps more disturbing when the delay is considered alongside the strategy of a governmental, legal and political apparatus that's held Assange in place on behalf of the US Department of Justice, for more than 4 years.  Regardless of who in Sweden is responsible for not progressing this matter in a timely manner, the point about the delay by Sweden still stands and deserves examination, in the aftermath of Sweden's improbable about-face. As for the Claes Borgström and Marianne Ny 'old friend' factor referred to in Stern, how awkward.  LOL * Checked the distance between Gothenburg & Stockholm.  Varied figures.  470km was one of those figures, which is near enough to the author's 500km.