Visit justice4assange.com, the defence teams website, to discover the shocking facts of this case.

Not many people would have seen this interview with David House last year. The truth has been out about the Grand Jury for a long time but politicians were not allowed to tell it.

Would this be the first Australian citizen ever to need political asylum? We go to press in haste and would invite correction. A shame though, if Julian can not come home any more, or at least any time soon. His Senator polls were soaring…

We invite readers to make their own decision on whether asylum was his only option.
As a simple, clear overview of the situation:
OPEN LETTER TO THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE from Christine Assange
wlcentral.org/node/2632

LEGAL BRIEF TO AUSTRALIAN MPs by Jennifer Robinson (Julian’ s lawyer)
wlcentral.org/node/1418
This is a factual chronology of what Ms Robinson deems to be abuse of legal process on Sweden’s behalf.

DIPLOMATIC BRIEF TO AUSTRALIAN MPs by Tony Kevin
wlcentral.org/node/1414
Tony is an ex Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade Diplomat and Ambassador over 30 years

CHRONOLOGY
wlcentral.org/node/2486
Case details and incidents of alleged abuse of legal process with political interference

EXTENSIVE DATA BASE & DOCUMENTS
justice4assange.com
Swedish Extradition, US Extradition & UK Hearings

We spoke to former MP John Hatton AO a few days ago about the situation Assange found himself in after the Supreme Court denied Dinah Rose’s application to re-open the appeal. It would come as no surprise to many Australians that Hatton was quite an expert on Sweden. Thanks to him, it once served for us as a model of healthy transparency and justice. Hatton is one of our greatest Australian watchdogs. He used his parliamentary privilege, not only to take on an entire police force, but other members of parliament, to beat corruption.

His landmark “Churchill Report”, which fully documented Canada and Sweden’s systems of governance and justice, was held high as an example from the late 80s; at which time Sweden’s JO (Justice Ombudsman) had full view, even over Secret Service operations.

What happened?

Is John Hatton right? Is our democracy a myth? Is there indifference to corruption? Is it acceptable that an Australian citizen feels compelled to seek political asylum in Ecuador?

THE SWEDISH OUBLIETTE & THE FRENCH LETTER (la capote anglaise)

Julian Assange was NOT facing charges in Sweden. Since the latest Supreme Court decision, he was facing immediate imprisonment with NO CHARGES for an indefinite period – in solitary confinement, and visible to no one but a lawyer and a priest. Gud är god!

Swedish remand prisons were described by Birgitta Winberg, the President of International Prison Chaplains’ Association Worldwide, as ’the worst in Europe’:
“In no other country are people in isolation before they are charged”, said Winberg.

A supporting article stated: “A high proportion of prisoners – as much as 70 per cent at Kronoberg, in Stockholm – are placed under restrictions that may see them in their cells for 23 hours a day. Only visits from a lawyer and priest are allowed.”

That may seem unjust to many Australian, British and Swedish citizens, and shocking to former champions of Swedish justice, such as John Hatton AO, but it is now “due process” in Sweden, for foreigners and suspects in sexual misconduct allegations, even when they have not been charged with any crime. They may not apply for bail while awaiting questioning or trial, and for whatever reason Sweden finds it just, not even their families have visiting rights.

One might reasonably ask, why such treatment simply because one is a foreigner, when Swedish Nationals are treated like other Europeans – as if innocent until proven guilty – but who will?

Fair Trails International and British MPs are struggling to assure this fundamental right, but only for their own citizens, while the Australian government, who should be concerned that the anomaly is affecting one of its citizens, is insisting on “due process” (whatever that might be), and claims it would support this treatment for “any other Australian”.

The British Supreme Court would obviously have more difficulty with the Australian’s prolonged pre-charge detention, but it seems now to be out of their hands. With their refusal to re-open the appeal, Julian Assange defaulted to going “directly to jail” in Sweden, because prosecutor Marianne Ny’s status as a judicial authority, though “not cricket”, has been awkwardly deemed acceptable at European level, and her brand of “due process” – arguably relentless persecution – has been tolerated, if not ignored. It was not deemed sufficiently abusive of process to issue a European Arrest Warrant and Interpol Red Notice in the first place, against a previously co-operative party, to whom she had just given permission to leave the country… What?

Assange and Hrafnsson come out of one more court battle - photo Cathy Vogan

.

Nor was it considered abusively disproportionate that Ms Ny insisted Mr Assange be imprisoned in the UK rather than under house arrest. Not here! the UK judges said. We don’t imprison people pre-charge and pre-trail. But eventually, and at enormous expense to Mr Assange and his supporters, they said OK, we’ll extradite, so you can do it over there. The law lord’s summing up attempted to blind us with bilingual etymology, but those who spoke French were already summing up more patly:

Ce n’est pas un cas de faux amis, mais de la mauvaise foi.

[It's not about words that look, but don't mean the same in two different languages, but the adoption of false values under societal pressure.]

If Ny had had her initial wishes granted on British soil, Assange would have already spent over a year and a half in prison awaiting questioning, or for an end to her vexatious extradition request; already disproportionate by Swedish standards. Ms Ny’s misleading statements to the public, regarding her delay in questioning Assange over that time – refusing all normal avenues, such as Mutual Legal Assistance at the Swedish Embassy or Scotland Yard – were also conveniently overlooked.

Justly so, the defence team objected with strict attention to detail, respect for the rule of law, and guidance from expert witnesses, many of whom were Swedish… for almost two years, but to apparently deaf ears.

.

Among the many valid points they made…

Marianne Ny has misled the public by stating that Swedish and UK law do not permit her to question Julian Assange in the UK.

Three days after Marianne Ny had issued the EAW for Julian Assange (5 Dec 2010) Ny falsely stated: “Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London.”

[sic] Prosecutor Marianne Ny has also claimed that questioning in the UK was illegal in a Time interview on 3 December 2010. This is false. Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.

But they may as well, as the French would say, have been pissing into a violin… That the tactic of delaying questioning, and the subsequent obligation to rescind the warrant or issue charges, also permitted Ny to withhold evidence from Mr Assange’s defence lawyers, thus impeding the course of justice for all parties, went largely unchallenged, besides a suggestion from Lady Hale that some kinds of prosecutors were not the same as others…

“… a principled distinction could be drawn between a prosecutor who is independent of the prosecution in the particular case and a prosecutor who is in fact a party to the case in question. The Framework Decision defines a European Arrest Warrant as a “judicial decision” and by no stretch of language could a decision taken by a party to the case be termed “judicial”.” Lady Hale

.
[sic] One example is the evidence submitted by Göran Rudling, who discovered complainant AA’s deleted tweets (see Evidence Destroyed). Rudling submitted these to the investigating authorities on 15 September 2010. The prosecution never informed the defence lawyer of the existence of this evidence, “despite the fact that it revealed evidence of obvious and crucial significance to the defence, namely that one complainant had acted entirely inconsistently with her story the very day after the alleged assault and then tried to destroy the evidence”.

—————————————————————————————————————

In the end, every effort was made to get the problem of Assange’s detention, guilty or innocent, after almost 2 years without charges, out of a respectable place like England!

“… the obligation ceases when national law cannot be applied compatibly with the result envisaged by the framework decision. In other words, the principle cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem…” Lady Hale

It may be fair to assume that Ny would neither have been in a hurry to question Assange when dispatched “at her pleasure” to the horrendous Gothenberg Prison. Her case has grown weak over time; depending now on only one signed statement, and what is almost certainly false evidence.

.
For those who haven’t read or been told about the lab report, no chromosomal DNA was detected on the famous ripped condom. Concurring statements by Assange and the remaining accuser AA, assert that the condom had been used for several hours during sexual contact, and for that reason, forensic experts said it must be expected to be covered with chromosomal DNA from both parties. With a 2% error margin in the reliability of observations, none whatsoever was detected.

The significance of this item is paramount. Not only did it fuel countless weird and salacious stories in the press world-wide; it was also used as material evidence to re-open investigations into the affair; which had already been closed by a second, more senior prosecutor, Eva Finné, on the basis of the other woman’s testimony, strangely enough.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

It was made clear that the two women came to the police station to make an enquiry, not a complaint; that no statements had been initially recorded, and that Assange had definitely NOT committed a crime. Surely a lab report which negated the very reason for the re-opening of this case would matter to an impartial authorité judiciaire in any country, but Marianne Ny did not let up.

Ny has seemed determined, vexatious and inordinately unaccommodating; the veritable attack dog of Lady Hale’s worst nightmares.

It seems unlikely, but if Ny did manage to mount a case, then Assange would be subjected to another indefinite and incommunicado pre-trail detention, and who would be optimistic in that case, irrespective of whether America exercise their right to “Temporary” Surrender before, during or AFTER this ordeal, which the defence estimate could take up to a year? Even if Assange walked an innocent man after 3 years of house arrest and imprisonment, the whole process would be likely to start all over again, take a life-time, and eventually entail his execution for the sought-after conviction of espionage.

What’s clear is that from Sweden onwards, no one would know what’s going on in the courtroom, because the doors would be closed. While they were open, it was obvious that the facts of the case, especially the lab report, became of little interest; neither to the High nor Supreme Courts; and neither to the press, who have only just learned not to copy/paste the word “charges”, lest they be sued. And unless a miracle happened, Julian was going to Sweden very soon.

Yesterday Julian’s father, John Shipton explained why:

“He can put in an application to the European Court of Human Rights, but there’s a three year waiting period. It will not prevent his immediate extradition and imprisonment – for God knows how long… What good is it if they decide in three years time that it was in violation of his human rights?

Hmmm… that is about as backed into a corner as one can get.

Mr Shipton joins Julian’s mother in recommending some enlightening reading. He’s very much a Rixstep man http://rixstep.com/0/jawl.shtml
“…to learn everything about the case in Sweden, and for reference to other unfortunates, already held at a prosecutor’s “pleasure”; incommunicado and without time limits.”

.
.

Ecuadorians welcome Julian Assange on Facebook - click to go to the page

T2T also thanks Bob Carr for wasting Christine Assange’s precious time on 2UE with copious information about what happens where there are “charges”.

The Hon Julia Gillard MP

Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600                                                                                    4 June 2012

Dear Prime Minister,

RE: JULIAN ASSANGE

Regrettably we feel compelled to write to you about the plight of Mr Assange.

You will know that many Australians are angry, disappointed and even confused about your government’s response to Mr Assange’s situation.  They feel that way because they care:  they care about civil liberties, they care about freedom of speech, they care about truth and they care about democracy.

Many people fear that Mr Assange’s greatest enemy may not be the United States or Sweden but rather the indifference demonstrated by his own Government, our Government.

Many are wondering why your only contribution to the debate has been initial accusations of illegal conduct followed by muted silence. Why?

As you know, there is currently a 14 day stay on the UK Supreme Court judgment but it is very likely that Mr Assange, an online publisher and journalist, will be extradited to Sweden.  We think that the letter from Mr Assange’s lawyer , Gareth Peirce, to the then Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd dated 25 October 2011; the detailed brief provided to several members of the Australian Parliament by Finers Stephens Innocent in March 2011; the recent article by the Australian Centre of Independent Journalism; and the Fair Trials International note which explains what will happen to Mr Assange once he is taken to Sweden, highlight the reasons for our Government to be concerned.

The Government has said that it has and will continue to provide the same consular assistance offered to any Australian caught up in a legal matter overseas.  That ignores the facts (raised by Mr Tony Kevin, now retired from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) that not only is this not a standard consular issue, but that “David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib received similarly worthless consular access from Howard and Ruddock at the times they were rendered with Australian Government consent to years of torture in Guantanamo. Both men were being abusively treated in Pakistan and Egypt while on their way to Guantanamo, as Australian consular officers looked on impotently.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Carr asserts that no Australian has received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange.  You need only refer the Government to assistance provided to one Mr Thompson (just one week after he was detained in Baghdad, in May 2006, with a cache of arms) to see that the assertion is wrong. It is perhaps also worth mentioning the assistance provided to those caught up in drug cases in Bali.

We understand that Mr Assange asked for assistance from the Ambassador while in Sweden, which wasn’t forthcoming, and that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade later denied that any request had been made.  In any case, no consular assistance was offered while he was in Sweden.

The Senate Official Committee Hansard report of February 24, 2011 shows that Mr Assange was provided with a copy of the Consular Services Charter on December 7, 2010. Of how much use was that?

In November 2011 Mr Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, confirmed that the Australian Ambassador in Sweden had agreed to convey questions from Mr Assange’s defence team to the Swedish prosecutor’s office, but said they offered little more. She pointed out that “correspondence was limited to requests to arrange seating in court and requests for briefings on case progress. There was little contact.”

It was only after The Age newspaper approached the Foreign Affairs Department on 25 October 2011 that a response was sent to Mr Assange’s British lawyer, Gareth Peirce, in response to a letter of concern Mr Turnbull had hand delivered to Mr Rudd’s office on 22 September 2011.

We understand that up until November 2011 the High Commission’s help in the United Kingdom was confined to calls to Mr Assange’s lawyers requesting ‘tickets’ to the court hearings. No real and practical help was ever offered.  That same month the Consul-General in the United Kingdom, Mr Pascoe, finally requested a briefing on the case.

We are unable to ascertain whether or not a letter from prominent expatriates handed to the High Commission in December 2011 was responded to. Perhaps you would kindly confirm that it was?

Despite the fact that the Government asserts that it has no information from the United States to indicate that it has laid, or is about to lay, any charges against Mr Assange, or evidence that a sealed indictment already exists, we are kept in the dark about exactly what questions our Government has asked, what assurances have been sought and what information our officials have received.

Various Freedom of Information requests have revealed:

• that the Australian embassy in Washington knew of an “active and vigorous inquiry into whether  Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act” and that the “WikiLeaks case was unprecedented both in its scale and nature”;
• that Australian diplomats have requested “advanced warning of any public announcement of the results of US investigations or proposed actions”, but have raised no concerns about the Australian journalist being pursued by US prosecutors on charges of espionage and conspiracy;
• that Washington provided Canberra with regular updates, including reporting on the issuing of subpoeanas to compel WikiLeaks associates to appear before a grand jury in Virginia, and US State Department efforts to access Twitter and other internet accounts; and
• that the Australian embassy has obtained “confidential or legal commentary“ from private law firms “on aspects surrounding WikiLeaks and/or the positions of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning.”

Washington embassy cables sent to Canberra between 1 November 2010 and 31 January 2012 do not contain any references to representations made by Australian diplomats to US officials concerning proper extradition processes, even though we were assured by Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in April this year that they had.  We note the timing of Ms Roxon’s representations to Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, US Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and US Deputy Attorney-General James Cole.

We understand that the Australian Government has made representations to the Swedish Government about due process being applied to Mr Assange, and that assurances to that effect have been given by the Swedish Government.  But again, we are kept in the dark about exactly what questions were asked and the terms of the assurances received.

We don’t even know whether the Government has expressed any concerns – and there should be deep concerns – about the way in which charges were laid, investigated and dropped, only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor; about how Mr Assange’s police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the day after he was interviewed on 30 August 2010; why the Swedish Prosecutor, Ms Marianne Ny refused to accept Mr Assange’s offer to return to Sweden for interview on 9^th and 10^th of October 2010 and his offer to be interviewed at the Swedish Embassy in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom; about a contentious Swedish action having an Australian citizen electronically tagged and under house arrest without charge for 545 days, or about a Swedish prosecutor authorising an Interpol Red Notice for Mr Assange when he was required merely for questioning.

We find it disturbing that Mr Assange’s mother, Christine, felt compelled to respond on Twitter to recent government assurances about consular support provided to Mr Assange, as follows:

“Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask US not 2 put him under “Special Administrative Measures” in prison (no touch torture). Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask US 2 ask those who had publicly incited murder against him 2 retract statements. Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask Sweden under Prisoner Transfer Program that any sentence B served in Australia.  Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 grant him safe passage home from the UK & Sweden at end of proceedings.  Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Govt 2 ask Sweden 2 grant bail (unquestioned, uncharged, didn’t breach UK bail conditions). Request denied.

Julian asked Aust Gov 2 ask Swedish PM, AG, FM, 2 stop misleading public re: case FACTS, & smearing him in public. Request denied.”

It is very difficult to accept that, and we fail to see how the Government’s actions to date in relation to Mr Assange’s plight or the level of consular support he allegedly received are “something to be proud of“.

Mr Assange’s case obviously is politically charged.  Governments may not be able to interfere in the legal processes of other countries, but there are plenty of precedents where governments have acted diplomatically to prevent legal processes from being invoked or continued.  The Australian Government clearly has that capacity and should exercise it.

Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have given people all over the world, including the Australian people, a glimpse of the truth behind the spin, of the grubby guile behind the veneer of smooth diplomacy, and of the appalling disdain that people in power have for human life, let alone human rights.  We have a right and a need to know these truths, and all Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have done is give us some scope to exercise those rights.

We call on the Australian Government to take all steps it can to assist Mr Assange, both by providing direct real assistance to him, including any necessary financial support for his legal representation and family support, and by exploring and utilising all diplomatic channels that may be available to obviate his further persecution through formal legal channels.

Yours faithfully

Gary Kennedy

Secretary

Newcastle Trades Hall Council

Gary Kennedy, Secretary NTHC

The Newcastle Trades Hall Council (NTHC) currently has 22 Unions affiliated which cover most work areas and job designations in the Hunter. The Newcastle Trades Hall Council is the peak Union body in the Hunter and works closely with Unions NSW and the Australian Council of Trade Unions ( A.C.T.U. )

This co-operation means that State and National campaigns are co-ordinated and run on behalf of Unions by the NTHC.

-

It will be interesting to see how PM Gillard responds…

*Open Letter to the Australian People* - Christine Assange - click here

So how does it look at your end John?

I'm just saying, if that were me...

Good luck Christine...

While US President Barack Obama is addressing the Australian parliament, Christine Assange will be on the lawns with anti-war protesters opposing the Australia-US alliance.

Sydney’s STOP THE WAR COALITION are hiring a bus that will leave Sydney at 7am on Thursday morning (meeting time is 6.30am) to arrive in Canberra at 10.30am and return in the evening of the same day. The cost will be $30-$40. Contact details here. The group will protest against the proposed “joint operation of military bases in Australia, attacks on WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, and the US government’s persecution and torture of accused WikiLeaks whistleblower, Bradley Manning.”

Linking up onsite with a number of other groups, they will “join the movement of the 99% opposing wars for the 1%”.

Mrs Assange specifically wishes to question what she calls “arse-covering” by the Australian government for the US, in respect to WikiLeaks. She claims that for the sake of the US alliance, it has failed in its obligations to an Australian citizen.

“In my opinion we have become nothing more than a franchise of the US and Julia Gillard has traded my son for her position as prime minister … I’m going right to where the buck stops, which is Canberra, and I’ll be talking to people about this case.”
Read More

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
Strong words, but Julian could be in a Swedish jail by Christmas, and a Grand Jury indictment for US extradition issued at any moment after that. The US and Sweden have gotten around European Law (which would normally give Britain the right to object) by creating a “Temporary Surrender” treaty, essentially permitting Sweden to “lend” Assange secretly and quickly to the United States – even before he’s been tried in Sweden!

John Pilger tells us in his article ‘The Smearing of a Revolution’ that some members of the British judiciary are amazed at how this affair is somewhat oddly but  inevitably proceeding:

“At the appeal hearing in July, Ben Emmerson QC, counsel for the defence, described the whole saga as “crazy”. Sweden’s chief prosecutor had dismissed the original arrest warrant, saying there was no case for Assange to answer. Both women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain.” [either]

User MEJ at maxkeiser.com makes a good point for someone who doesn’t give a shit:

“It would be a mistake for USA to take Assange now. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, and all we would do is make ourselves look even worse than we already have (which is saying something). Assange’s organization is already seriously split apart and he is dissed in many quarters, not just D.C.. If we try him in the USA it will probably be in a secret court and there will be huge publicity in the blogosphere and he will turn into a martyr for the revolution.”

Oh yes. Give up Dorothy, we do implore you, while sensing that Assange is more likely to go through that very process and find himself in a similar hell hole to Bradley Manning, where visions of Twin Chairs come to mind… Pilger’s description of the legal climate in Virginia does nothing but add to that sinking feeling of inevitability:

“The grand jury is a “fix”, a leading legal expert told me: reminiscent of the all-white juries in the South that convicted black people by rote. A sealed indictment is believed to exist.”

Oh Shit!

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Christine Assange said her son could get an unfair trial in Sweden, where there are “provisions for incommunicado detention and secret trial”.
The website swedenversussassange.com points out that Assange, even if not charged or acquitted, could be nevertheless looking at a year in solitary confinement, simply awaiting a decision. That’s a torturously long time to “wait-and-see” if a US extradition order arrives…

If extradited [to Sweden], Assange’s lawyers affirm that he will be:

held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden.

There is no bail system, so he would remain in detention indefinitely.

If there is a charge and a trial, it will be held in secret.

He will not be judged by an ’independent and impartial tribunal’, a fundamental requirement under the European Convention of Human Rights (article 6.1). Three out of the four judges are lay judges, who have been appointed by political parties and have no formal legal training (see Lay Judges).

The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has not given Julian Assange or his lawyers information on the allegations against him in writing, which violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.

There has been political interference with the Prime Minister’s statements to the Swedish Parliament during the trial (see Political Interference, and constant press attention has been given to the complainants’ lawyer (see Media climate in Sweden).

The bilateral agreement between the United States and Sweden allows Julian Assange to be extradited to the US as soon as he arrives in Sweden (see section on US extradition). Under US custody, Julian Assange risks kidnapping, torture, and execution.

And if that seems like a bit of an exaggeration, listen to Former British Ambassador Craig Murray talk about the UK and USA sending prisoners to Uzbekistan to be tortured, in order to generate FALSE intelligence:

It would seem that very, very soon, the whole world will NOT be watching any more… Julian Assange is about to disappear. And if the “Temporary Surrender” process is secret, it will have already happened before the world even hears about it.

Christine Assange describes the process as:
“…a program of illegal abductions, under which thousands of mostly innocent people were tortured by the CIA in secret “black sites” all over the world or sent to pro-US dictatorships to be tortured under CIA supervision.”

One wonders if she will stand Buckley’s chance of asking President Obama how he will follow through on his election promise to end this practice, given that he has so far pursued more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors.

What Mrs Assange wants is fairly simple; that her son be permitted to answer Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny’s questions from the Swedish Embassy in London. It is equipped, and well practiced in setting up telecommunications for this purpose. The Prosecutor has always had this option, but refused to use it, and refused to explain why. She might feel obliged to be slightly more co-operative if our Prime Minister asked her, on our behalf, to extend Julian this small courtesy. It’s a maddening thought to consider, that eventually, because Ms Ny won’t Skype, Julian has to wait in solitary confinement for a year until his name is called. After all, this is still “Much Ado About NOTHING” criminally speaking.

Barrack for Julian and not Obama on November 17th, and join Christine on her journey to Canberra, where she will attempt to avoid pointless imprisonment for Julian and clear this matter up quickly. We must not tolerate indefinite imprisonment, pending decisions on whether someone is to be imprisoned or not. That amounts to letting punishment precede justice. Good luck Christine. Your efforts may also help sensitise Ms Gillard to the similar plight of our refugee detainees.

Waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting...

ADMINISTRATIVE NEGLECT
Craig Murray’s revelations in Part 2 of the video you have seen above complete this picture in a most surprising and alarming way, while pointing to a causal factor that is just as apparently innocuous as a Swedish Prosecutor refusing to Skype – insouciance, or as the French would actually call it “nombrilisme” (being aware or concerned about little more than your belly-button). In a way, it’s a human condition that must precede the looking after of Number 1, and by default, the looking after of Mr 1%, since we can never really get HIM out of our lives… Deploring the banality of evil, Mr. Murray states:

Our legal advisors had decided that under the the UN’s Convention against torture, it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture, as long as we didn’t do the torture ourselves. I just couldn’t believe this! He was a nice man… Sir Michael Wood… and I thought how can someone?? – YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN BEING TORTURED IN FRONT OF THEIR PARENTS, and you’re saying: “Well I don’t think Clause 4 quite covers it, given this particular legal meaning of the word “COMPLICITY”.

72747954 Letter Gareth Peirce to Minister Rudd

Click on image to view the only video trace we can find. Unfortunately a published audio recording has also disappeared.

The Sydney Opera House, venue for the 2011 ‘Festival of Dangerous Ideas’, had announced but three days before, with a 27-hour window of opportunity, for its 5000 attendees to submit their questions by email, since they couldn’t be taken live due to the satellite connection. Hadn’t anyone there heard of an audio mixer? I was lucky enough to catch the notification in time, but many didn’t.

It came as good news that the presentation would be split in half: Julian’s talk; then a generous 30 minutes for questions. What became quickly evident however and also made me scratch my head, was that the satellite transmission was running on a 7 second delay, with ABC host Fran Kelly trying to explain that: “Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, is a very long way away… “.

It began thus:
[Audience cheers when Assange's name is mentioned; 'Woohoo!" when he appears onscreen]

Fran Kelly: “So over to you……………………..”
[Audience laughter at the extraordinarily long (satellite) delay]

Assange: It is heartening to me to hear that kind of response in Australia. The Australian public and its support of our work is really something that keeps us going. The reaction in Washington and London is really very different, and that’s something I’d like to explore a little bit; about how different nationalities and different States have viewed our work and reacted to it.

“310 days ago I was in Wandsworth Prison in Windsor, in London. I was placed into the basement, into the separation unit; kept away from all other prisoners, confined to myself 24 hours a day, and during that time I had a moment to reflect…”

“We had a whole lot of government task forces in Australia set up against us – publicly declared – involving the AFP, ASIS ASIO, the Department of Defence and the Attorney General; looking in to whether there was any way to stop what we were doing; whether we had committed criminal offences in Australia… and that swift reaction by the Australian Government was only stopped, ONLY stopped by the Australian population and by our friends in the Australian media.”

“Left to its own devices, the Australian Government / the Australian Labour Cabinet would have done everything in its power to see me and other people working with me shipped off to the United States.”

Assange shows us “some 270 pages released…” about Wikileaks staff by the Australian Government to the US State Department before Cablegate. He says they were obtained via FOI request, but the pages are about 75% blacked out.

Julian Assange holds blacked out FOI document from Australian Govt. at Festival of Dangerous Ideas, Sydney 2011

Rolls of laughter from the audience and quite a bit of chatter… “This is your Government”.

Assange goes on to say that 1% of the American population has signed a secrecy agreement; a total of 3 million people who are not allowed to talk about what they are doing. It sounds familiar to Australians. Some of our government workers are not allowed to talk to each other, starting with people in other departments, about internal affairs. At one of our largest media organisations, you can’t connect to the internet from inside the building – to stop that kind of caper from happening – and they send a supervisor to tell the journalists what to write. That was the experience of this reporter when she was hired to train staff there.

I find it sad to contemplate this bottle-neck of blur, where people are not supposed to think for themselves or communicate their opinions to others; this absurd “don’t ask, don’t tell” framework that fosters confusion and disinformation by default, unintentionally. What’s also sad is that the recording of this “dangerous” event has disappeared from public view. A source close to Wikileaks later stated that Assange’s contract to speak at the Sydney Opera House had barred him from ‘appearing’ anywhere else in Australia for months prior to the event. Only on the night would he be able to battle misinformation and perhaps ‘shine a light’…

Assange tells us that America is run by a “Shadow Government” that involves both corporate sponsorship and collaboration. He cites Paypal, Mastercard and Bank of America’s extra-judicial blockage of Wikileaks revenue, to the tune of about $AU 30 million, but when asked, he passes on complaining about media-orchestrated calls for his assassination.

The nexus of power of the Shadow Government, Assange asserts, exists above government and brazenly so at times, outside of the rule of law. In the US, one can’t run for election without access to such sponsorship. He explains further, how this Shadow Government extends its existence and imposes its will across many other countries – and right into our pockets in the form of a credit card. “Yikes”, from someone nearby breaks the silence in the house.

Assange’s speech concludes on a note of optimism: the whistle blowing will continue even if Wikileaks doesn’t. The capacity crowd is stirring now at the prospect of their questions being selected. ABC’s Fran Kelly is onstage to read them out, but she starts with her own rather long-winded one, which essentially portrays Wikileaks as tragically dead meat.

Julian gets a laugh with his response, describing Wikileaks as “A rather big boat with a lot of torpedo holes in it” which is still… “drifting along”. Later he jovially slips in the word “Titanic” to describe governments, challenging the notion of “too big to fail”.

Fran Kelly went on to the selected questions, asking Assange up front about facing the “charges” in Sweden. It was an embarrassing mistake which Julian corrected, informing her that there were no charges. He also had to remind Kelly that the un-redacted State Department Cables had been released, and were viewable by everyone on Cryptome.org or downloadable as a torrent on the Pirate Bay before Wikileaks re-published them.

The Opera House’s selection of questions was not much appreciated. They were too generalist for that audience and made them groan and heckle at times. They ranged from valid to misinformed, antagonistic, redundant – there were two questions about harming informants – and irrelevant, with “too much time wasted” on the latter, like the Irishman said. “Why don’t you accept extradition to the US and stare out your accusers?” was met with multiple outbursts from the audience of: “That’s a stupid question”…

Julian’s forthright and clarifying responses were warmly applauded, as was his announcement that Wikileaks still don’t have “blood on their hands”. But what seemed to please most was the moment when Kelly tried stop his “CUT TO THE CHASE”.

At one point Assange went on a roll of “live leaks”, citing important but dubious redactions from cables when they had appeared in mainstream media. Not only names but facts were removed, and he demonstrated by comparison… If I had been the host, I would have let him continue, because that’s what we wanted to hear, but Kelly did her utmost to shut Assange down. However… because of the very long satellite delay he couldn’t hear her, so he insouciantly continued and she became visibly flustered. It was good theatre! Even after he must have heard her, Assange kept going and the excitement of the audience was rising to fever pitch. The host had lost control of the narrative. Utterly the best moment of the evening to see Assange conquer the 7-second delay.

Where memories are made

Assange has NOT been (legally) accused of anything so this statement can only be referring to accusations from the press and politicians rather than the police. Yet the SMH suggests that the police were the FIRST to accuse Assange of rape.

That is only one of the reasons why the EAW (European Arrest Warrant) was invalid and its demands for extradition should get rejected. An EAW can only be issued for prosecution or conviction, not for questioning. Another reason is that ONLY Swedish police can issue such a warrant and Marianne Ny, despite her legal status, is not authorised to demand one.

Marianne Ny: unprecedented abuse of process in the Assange arrest

The defence cites an unprecedented abuse of process by Ny, including false claims that all avenues to contact Assange had been explored and were fruitless. As it turns out, he even offered to go to Sweden and this was rebuffed by her. The normal European protocol is to use Mutual Legal Assistance, whereby one country can arrange a direct, telephone or Skype interview for the country in question. This process has been formalised via the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (2000, C197/01) and Protocol (2001/C326/01). Mutual Legal Assistance was not contacted at all and the defence asserts:
“Ms. Ny went from informal discussions about arranging an interview of Mr. Assange straight to the issuance of an EAW, without taking the reasonable and proportionate, intermediary step of formally summoning him for an interview or formally requesting his interrogation.”

It seems like Marianne Ny was suddenly in a hell of a hurry, after having “let things slide” for so long, but arresting Assange in absentia, on the very day she granted him permission to leave the country (September 27th 2010), sounds more contrived than chaotic…

Given her position of Senior Prosecutor (not Director of Public Prosecutions!) it would be hard to imagine that she has not been aware of, and willing to take the risk of engaging in a number of illegal activities (under Swedish and European Law).

Yet in her supporting letter of the case for the prosecution, she is still unable to come up with any convincing argument why Assange needs to be sitting in front of her in Sweden, before she can ask him any questions, and thus decide or not whether to prosecute.

Going back to the SMH article, it opens by describing this affair as “the most high-profile rape case in the world”. How can the SMH call this a “case” at all when no one has been charged with anything? How can they say: “The rape accusations were cancelled” when what they mean was that the initial complaint was DISMISSED as not constituting a crime, even in Sweden.

In summing up the defence’s “main” points, SMH are saying that what Assange allegedly did does not constitute a crime in Britain. This is Point 83, which is one of the only points I find somewhat irrelevant, in terms of clearing Assange’s name. What seems crucial to this case is the defence’s complaints about the with-holding of evidence that would have assisted their case; namely the communications between the two complainants before they reported their story, which strongly suggested that it was concocted around jealousy, disappointment and a certain desire to make money.

As it turns out, Ms Ny would have been legally obliged to hand over ALL of the evidence, had she made the decision to prosecute, so maybe there was some method to her madness.

Now read the case for the defence (“skeleton” version), signed by Jeffrey Robinson QC, and John RWD Jones, for yourself. What you will be undoubtedly waiting for throughout the entire reading is unveiled, without disappointment, at the end:
http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Preliminary%20Assange%20Skeleton%20Argument%2011_01_11.ashx

Prelude to a Show Trial? Not if Jeffrey Robinson has anything to do with it!

The SMH article can be found here.