Hi Goran,
Much appreciated that you also reported the initial interviews with AA and SW were not recorded. It’s hard to believe there was no recording equipment available for both women, especially since AA’s interview was not done during that first visit. Having initially given your support to the women, and done your best to mediate, I fully understand your shock at the discovery of AA’s submission of false evidence. I agree with you that the case is now very weak, especially since SW didn’t sign her statement, which she claims was “railroading” her into confirming a portrayal of rape.

How is AA likely to be punished for her actions? I have gathered that Swedish justice takes a stern view on this kind of behaviour, yet she seems nonchalant, and since the lab report was issued in Oct 2010, I’m wondering why it had no apparent impact on Prosecutor NY’s investigation, or was even mentioned by the msm for almost two years. Do you have any idea why your article of March 5th 2012 was completely ignored, except by a few insignificant bloggers such as myself, Rixstep (already), Christine Assange, the Wikileaks’ defence team and a small pocket of the social media?

You wrote extensively about the lack of chromosomal DNA from either party on the so-called ripped condom, and I agree that your previous analysis of AA’s police interview already showed without a doubt that the condom was “fabricated evidence”.

It seemed reasonable for you to state the following, and I was baffled as to why nothing changed, even at a level of internal inquiry:

“What is important is that this case proves that the Swedish police and Swedish prosecutors are unable to distinguish between a real and a false accusation… For me it is very obvious that one of the women who accuses Julian Assange of sexual assault, Anna Ardin, is making up her accusations. Or in other words, she accuses Julian Assange of committing criminal acts that she knows he is not guilty of.”

It must be frustrating to do such rigorous investigation and have it fall on deaf ears. So what’s happened? You seem to have done a complete turn-around. Is that getting you more attention?

Goran you have made an unusually groundless statement about Rixstep’s Rick Downes being a serial liar, but your recent explanation of “to be considered as charged” contradicts what you wrote back in December 2010:

“Julian doesn’t seem to understand he’s under arrest. He’s not been charged. The police only want to question him so they can decide if he’s to be charged”.

And what you said in July 2011:

You also contradict yourself or mislead at other times in your 57 varieties of truth article – many times I might add – but I would like to highlight what I consider to be the most important:

You say that you find it hard to believe that Julian Assange would fear for his life during the week of the 21st-27th of September; before he handed over the Afghan War Diary to the German press on September 28th – as documented by your extracts from Stephanie Maurizi. I’m not sure that anyone would find that fair comment, but you attempt to support its credibility by saying:

“As soon as Julian arrived in Berlin he stopped fearing for his life.“

You stated earlier that he arrived in Berlin the day before, September 27th, and Maurizi reports that he made the call regarding his lost or stolen luggage the moment the documents were signed over on September 28th. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Assange may have been fearing for his life for one day after his arrival in Berlin; notably, until after he unloaded the Afghan War Diary.

If I had been Maurizi on that day, I would have feared for my life until I got the material to print. As for Assange, it is highly reasonable that he would suspend all telecommunications during the days leading up to the hand-over, and therefore be unaware of any appointments that had been made for him during that period.

I guess what you’re saying is that, in his shoes, you would have been more concerned about your luggage, and that Judge Riddle’s equally myopic “I do not know why” [Assange went off the map before delivering the material] somehow supports your “hard to believe” conclusions.

What is truly hard to believe, is that you would attempt to cite general principles about Swedish police and court procedures, when you know that those exceptions you cited will permit the court to be as secretive as it wishes. What is undeniable is that in this case, prison IS a restriction that was specified by Procecutor Ny (due to apparent flight risk); and what is regrettable, despite your stamp of approval, is that police disclosures to the media DID cause harm.

You hardly mentioned the “person unknown”, who initially told the media that it would be worth lodging a FOI request, but of course who that was is irrelevant. What is apparent in this perfectly legal process you describe, is the potential for unjustified smear, especially if someone wants the accusations to be broadcast, or the accused’s name is newsworthy. Perhaps you might like to explain what constitutes “harm”, the only impediment you mention, especially for Julian, whom you’ve already claimed is innocent in relation to AA’s fabrications.

I understand, from reading through your early communications with Wikileaks, that you thought the situation could be massaged socially, but surely by January 2011, it was time to give up on that myopic theory.

What may have seemed to you like fancy or egoism on Julian’s part – that the US were after him – later turned out to be supported by overwhelming fact. Besides the unchecked foul play from AA, which YOU largely uncovered, we discovered the Wikileaks Grand Jury; now active for 788 days and “unprecedented in scale and nature”. We also learned, via Stratfor, of the sealed indictment, which curiously enough, requires Assange’s incarceration, to be opened.

With your inordinate ability to put two and two together, you must have understood how Ny’s hell-bent attempts to get him into prison would do nicely to slit that envelope. We have seen Ecuador grant asylum in the face of political persecution, and begin to face the consequences; and Assange finally declared an ENEMY OF THE STATE, whatever that means besides hatred and vengeful name-calling…

Why, oh why Goran, do you not smell the rat when you so successfully sniffed out its tail?

Cablegate, the Stratfor emails, the Spy Files and the Afghan War Diaries may seem insignificant to you, compared to being nice to a woman who submits false evidence to get you arrested, or attending to your lost luggage in a timely manner, but you Goran, have decided to ignore the bigger picture.

It is shameful that you abandon your earlier diligence with a paltry:
“Unfortunately this is not the only investigation that is poorly conducted”

Stay on track Goran, and realize that the investigation is the core issue; not what people say about it; even Jennifer Robinson.

It’s clear for Michael Pearce QC that Australians will have to raise their voice (scream blue murder?) as they eventually did about the plight of David Hicks, before their government will offer the political and diplomatic assistance Julian Assange needs to resolve his current situation.

Mr Assange is currently trapped in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, despite having been granted asylum, since police outside have been briefed to arrest him “under all circumstances”. Curiously, this extraordinary predicament is the result of one judicial authority’s decision; the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, who refuses after two years to question him anywhere or anyhow but in person and in Sweden.

Ms Ny has admitted since February 4th 2012 that she could very well use Mutual Legal Assistance, a commonly employed method of interviewing suspects in other countries, but for reasons she will not explain, deems this process “inappropriate” in the case of Assange.

Ny has also refused Ecuador’s invitation to question Mr Assange at their London embassy and has insisted that he be extradited. Lawyer Susan Benn, who spoke outside the Ecuadorian embassy the day Assange arrived there, has pointed out that this “more appropriate” method will involve Assange passing through Swedish custody (most probably for 4 days) before seeing the prosecutor.

Benn adds that this provides the ideal window of opportunity to open the sealed indictment for his temporary surrender to the US in relation to a charge of espionage, since this step necessitates Assange’s prior incarceration. It is perhaps only within this context that Ny’s actions could be deemed appropriate. The case should have been dropped in October 2010, when forensic analysis showed that the famous ripped condom, which served as her material evidence to re-open the investigation, was a fake.

Ny’s refusal to question Assange in a safe place has also permitted her to withhold other exculpatory evidence from his defence team; namely electronic records of conversations between her two clients, before they went to the police station to make an enquiry about STD testing.

Ove Bring, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law recently stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”. That would appear to be an understatement, but as Naomi Wolf has pointed out, none of the Swedish players seem to be going for a win, since that is not the point of getting Assange to Sweden.

“Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney. So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.”

Marianne Ny is not the only one who is pushing her professional integrity to the limits. Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is also a lawyer, publicly announced that Assange had committed an illegal act by publishing material that had been sent to Wikileaks. Craig Murray, ex Bristish Ambassador to Usbekistan, not only informs us that other ambassadors around the world do not agree with the actions of Britain’s Foreign Minister William Hague; he also makes it clear that Mr Hague will be putting local police at risk of extradition to Ecuador if they enter the embassy to arrest Assange.

Back in Australia, Foreign Minister Bob Carr claimed that there was not the slightest hint that the US was gunning for Assange, only a week before news of the Grand Jury investigation broke. He was also contradicted by diplomats at the Australian embassy in Washington, who expressed no doubt that a request for extradition was on the cards.

On July 12th 2012, Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam challenged Bob Carr’s persistent denials that Julian Assange is in danger. Who would doubt it now, given the desperate measures numerous public figures are taking, and the international crisis that is building over the capture of someone who has not even been charged with a crime?

Australians should take note of Senator Ludlam’s assessment of the situation and respond en masse by writing IMMEDIATELY to their MPs; to demand not only consular, but political and diplomatic support for their fellow citizen. It is now appropriate that the Australian Government reiterate their request for DUE PROCESS according to international law, no matter how embarrassing it feels to argue Assange’s position as Australia’s first political refugee.

Safe passage to Ecuador must be granted by the UK and if Sweden refuses to question Mr Assange before he goes, so be it. Ecuador are convinced that he will be exposed to the risk of “temporary” surrender to the US – the terms of Obama’s NDAA can make that rather permanent – if prosecutor Ny’s wishes, and hers alone, be granted.

The Australian Government will only help Assange when the people object

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…

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.