I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
I think Marianne Ny is bluffing. Once they have him on Swedish soil they can charge him with other crimes, for example something related to Wikileaks that has taken place outside Sweden. Apparently there is a law that says that for a foreigner to be charged (by Swedish authorities that is) with a crime committed outside Sweden, he must be in Sweden.
It’s not just US that has troops in Afghanistan, Sweden does too, and perhaps Sweden wants a go at him for any Afghanistan related leaks, or something else, before handing him over to the US. Even if the immediate goal may not be to send him to US, once in custody they can always do so later.
Do people know that the head of the Swedish troops in Afghanistan in 2006 was Mattias Ardin, said to be Anna Ardin’s cousin? I haven’t been able to conclusively verify that they’re cousins, but the family name is unusual and according to the public record of the Swedish population in 1980, their families seem to have lived only a few houses apart on the same street in a relatively small town, Visby. It may mean nothing, but it’s not just the US military that may feel a little uneasy about the release of the Afghan War Diaries. On 27 July 2010, 15 days before Assange’s arrival in Sweden, a major Swedish newspaper published an article about Swedish troops being mentioned in the leaked document. The article (in Swedish) can be found at http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/svenskar-namns-i-hemliga-dokumenten The title means Swedes mentioned in secret documents.
It may mean nothing, but there’s no harm knowing.
Sorry, Villager, I might have my dates slightly wrong in my 1.00pm post. The application to re-open the appeal may have gone in by 12 June, not 13th as I’ve stated, with the refusal coming 9am on the 14th. I can’t remember exactly. But the point remains that it was very hastily rejected; they certainly didn’t weigh the merits of its arguments at leisure, shall we say, on a case/point of law previously described as being “of great public importance”, the reason why the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal regarding whether Marianne Ny – as an INVESTIGATING prosecutor – is considered under the UK Extradition Act 2003 to be an impartial “judicial authority” (the parliamentary debate prior to passing the Act indicated Parliament thought it meant a court or a judge). The Supreme Court ruled that yes, she is. Do you think a prosecutor such as Marianne Ny fits such a description? Doesn’t really matter what you or I think now though – her ilk is what we here in the UK are stuck with now, courtesy of the SC. Cheers, yer honours! Thanks a bundle.
Goran said “.. a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds.” He goes on to ask if Assange is suspected of a crime on reasonable grounds and answers his own question with a definite “NO”. But then he asks if Assange is considered to be CHARGED with a crime and, again answering his own question, emphatically writes “YES YES YES ….”.
It’s the same childish concept of procedural logic that gave rise to the Swedish claim that Assange was “arrested in absentia” – a profoundly moronic contradiction in terms. You just can’t reason with people who think like this. So why do we bother?
Orb, Mattias Ardin is mentioned as being Anna’s cousin in the comments to this blog.
http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-88LLB7
Arbed, thanks for all your fine work on this.
Arbed, let me second Clark’s last comment at 1.50 pm.
Orb, as to Mattias Ardin being Anna’s cousin it is interesting to note that all links to any blog allegedly containing that reference comes up with a 404 error. Intriguing. I think they probably are cousins (and friends as one comment puts it).
Villager 11.21am
“Goran, an afterthought, anyway, why is it so important whether Assange is charged or not?”
Sorry again, I’ve realised I didn’t give a very good answer to your query about my belief that decisions in the Assange case have totally “mashed” legal protections for defendents in our laws. So…
1) Whether he’s charged or not matters, because the EU Framework Directive, on which EAWs are based, forbids extradition for questioning or simply for the furtherance of an investigation. The Irish Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) back in April 2012 I think it was that extradition without charge was not possible with EAWs. It was a case involving a murder in Ireland of a French film producer’s wife with the French seeking extradition to solve an old, unresolved case. (The woman it seems may in fact not have been murdered at all, but trampled by her horse in the horse. The Gardai made an absolute pig’s ear of the original investigation. The ‘suspect’, an unpopular local man, has never been charged.)
2) As I’ve said elsewhere, EAWs are already notorious for not allowing judges to consider whether there is a prima facie case to answer by taking into account underlying evidence. But the law allows them to do so in “exceptional cases”. Apparently, Assange’s situation doesn’t merit the term ‘exceptional’.
But, given that EAWs routinely get rubberstamped through without regard to any evidence, they at least – until Assange’s case, which has set new precedents for us all – could not be used without someone being formally charged, and having been reviewed first by a judge or a court in the requesting State. Obviously, in practice this has often meant figures such as French or Italian examining magistrate, etc, who are seen as prosecutorial in essence. However, those figures are at least part of a judicial system which is separate from the State executive. Not so, in Sweden. There, people like Ny have a dual role – they are akin to a public prosecutor (like the CPS here in the UK) but at other times they can be the Chief Investigator on a case, ie they are in those circumstances in essence part of the police, and therefore the executive branch of the State. In Assange’s case, Ny has elected to be BOTH.
If you look at the Agreed Facts accepted by the UK Supreme Court and by both prosecution and defence teams, you will see that Ny’s first application to a court in Sweden for a warrant was heard on the same day that she issued it. Piece of paper and rubberstamp exercise? I think so. Assange appealed that to the SVEA court, I think and there was a defence lawyer present on behalf of Assange but it still went through. His application to have the decision reviewed by Sweden’s Supreme Court was turned down flat.
So, those two important protections – no extradition without charge and impartial review by a court or a judge – helped compensate for the fact that EAWs enable extradition without evidence. And they’ve both been “mashed”.
Orb, not very helpful but a photograph.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mattias_Ardin.jpg
John Goss, thanks for the links!
Minor correction to my previous post: The article I liked to was published on the 26th but updated on the 27th, that’s why I got it wrong.
Yes, Goran’s seemingly unremitting need to issue ad hominems at the ends of his lines/paragraphs/posts, instead of simply presenting facts/his views is becoming interesting.
A little while ago, on this thread, I called for people who are fluent and literate in Swedish to contribute and so am pleased to see that both Orb and Arbed are contributing in rational and proportionate measure.
I’d have thought that of all the contributors here so far, Arbed has presented points in a particularly detailed, logical and incisive way and so really ought to have come in for the least emotional opprobrium from Goran Rudling. Yet the opposite appears to have been the case.
Fascinating, as Mr Spock might say.
Shrewd observation Suhayl. I wonder if Göran put up bail for Julian Assange, and he’s bitter thinking about the loss. Certainly his views seem to have changed since Julian took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Arbed,
“1) Whether he’s charged or not matters, because the EU Framework Directive, on which EAWs are based, forbids extradition for questioning or simply for the furtherance of an investigation.”
Now i’m trying to find that clip re the alleged freudian slip by the Supreme Court (?) re assange being charged and then withdrawing that. So if they acknowledged he wasn’t charged how could they proceed with the surrender. Sorry, am i missing something?
Also my memory vaguely recalls some kind of a 5 to 2 Supreme Court decision(??). What was that precisely on and what did the dissenting judges have to say?
Hope i’m not being a burden! Thanks again.
Villager, Carl Gardner was very quick to spot the legal anomalies with the Supreme Court decision which saw 5 Justices, Lords Brown, Kerr, Dyson, Walker and the President, Lord Phillips, find against Julian Asssange’s appeal. Lady Hale and Lord Mance found for Assange.
http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/05/30/supreme-court-judgment-assange-v-swedish-judicial-authority/
But you don’t have to be a genius to know that the justices were hand-picked to give a pre-ordained decision.
Hello people!
In two interlinked posts – 20 Sept 8.55pm and 9.20pm – I made the claim that the Guardian journalist David Leigh’s libel of Assange that he said “they’re informants, they deserve to die” was a potentially life-threatening one, because of the US espionage statute 18 USC 794(a), which says those found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage may face the death penalty if it is shown there was “intent to harm” US informants.
My reasoning depended is premised on two things, of course: That David Leigh’s libel has been so widely re-reported that many people now believe it to be true and it has therefore poisoned US jury pools (civilian and/or military ones, doesn’t matter); and that there is nothing to stop the US adding this charge onto Assange’s ‘sheet’ once he is safely extracted from Sweden on a ‘non-political’ offence, it would be simple to ‘bump up’ the ante, as it were (as indeed we saw Bradley Manning’s ‘sheet’ get upped from 8 charges to 22 in the space of a few months last year).
Well, I didn’t link this in those posts, but my argument was actually based also on another source, Stratfor. Take a look at this:
On 12/7/10 7:38 AM, Fred Burton wrote:
“Will take weeks for extradition, unless he waves the process.
DOJ (Holder) won’t seek prosecution on their own, but look for the GOP (Congress) to press for criminal prosecution.
Be easy to indict.
I would pursue Conspiracy and Political Terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which I could link to Wiki.”
Then Burton responds like this to a query from a Stratfor analyst:
“Depends on what charges would stick. Bankrupt the arsehole first, ruin
his life. Give him 7-12 yrs for conspiracy.
Sources will die or have died is what I’ve been told, which is a very
conservative but reasonable assessment.
In looking at the Wiki docs, you can easily ID a few sources if desired,
e.g., the plot to whack the VOA broadcaster by the Iranians.”
Nicolas Miller wrote:
“Fred,
what would be the maximum punishment for the charges you listed? has
there been any sources that has been killed because of wikileaks?”
Here’s the link:
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1057220_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html
Very astute, Mr Burton. He’s the ex-Deputy Chief of Counter-terrorism for the Diplomatic Security Service (one of the agencies in that list I posted in the earlier post of all the federal and military law enforcement outfits known to be STILL working on the Wikileaks Grand Jury), so I wouldn’t count his views on the matter as uninformed. Likely to be VERY well-informed, in fact. He’s also the guy who sent the “We have a sealed indictment for Assange. Please protect” email, which the mainstream media loves to pooh-pooh.
I’m glad to see a Swedish journalist come out in favour of Assange at last. Had to resort to doing it on a Marxism.com site, though (favourable articles about Assange are not very fashionable or sought after by Swedish newspaper editors, to say the least).
Still, it’s well worth a read. It’s lonnngggg, but one of the most comprehensive surveys on both the Assange case and the geo-politics of Sweden I’ve seen to date. Factually accurate too. Now there’s a thing – journalists writing accurate articles about Assange and Wikileaks – who’da thunk it? No wonder he couldn’t get it published in the mainstream press:
http://www.marxist.com/case-of-assange-sweden-and-hypocrisy-of-imperialism.htm
When it went to the Supreme Court Assange’s legal team only challenged the EAW on the grounds that the person who issued it was not qualified to do so. The wording of the EAW was not discussed at all.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0264_Judgment.pdf
Well, who knows, John? One recognises that he is oppositional and in a minority in term of this blog. He certainly seems to have invested a mountain of time and effort in relation to the matter, which I suppose is admirable in one sense. Yet from the literary point of view, a tactic – the deployment of repeated infantilising ad hominems against anyone who demurs – used sparingly and appropriately retains its power; used constantly, it becomes simply an amusing and predictable trope. This is not about first language, second language, nor is it simply a matter of literary blog style. It is about a certain attitude to the subject (in both senses of that word) and of course, in the communications sense, in this context, attitude can communicate just as much as content.
Arbed, an old one of yours from 18 Sept 10.04
“Can I put in a plea that you don’t consider Craig’s assertion about what Ny did or did not submit to the UK court a wild goose chase, on the basis that Krans couldn’t be considered a witness to Wilen’s interview as she was herself the interviewer, and DO check this out for us?:
“Craig Murray: “The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.”
Frankly if not a wild-goose chase, for me its like looking for a needle in a haystack. I’ll leave it to Craig to reveal his source. It does sound dubious.
No idiot would buy the line that Krans as interviewer could also sign as a witness. And why would Ny admit to witnesses, if they are out of procedure?
Still interested in case you have something concrete on that.
Villager 6.20pm
No, I’m afraid I don’t have a direct source for what Craig quotes Marianne Ny as saying in her submission to the High Court. Sorry if I’ve wrongly targeted you with looking for a needle in a haystack – I’d got the impression from comments by others here that you had some sort of easy access to bailli.org (spelling?), which I thought might be some sort of subscription service to court transcripts. Apologies for mix-up.
[Mod/Clark: here’s a link
http://www.bailii.org/
]
Yes, let’s leave it to Craig to find it or explain his source. Still, I’d really like to have that quote on some kind of linkable source, because it is very, very damning if true. YVMV, but I think it DOES ring true – for her. She has told all sorts of porkies to the UK courts, which I hope I’ve been able to demonstrate here on this thread in some small way. Actually having the gall to tell the UK court that an unsigned statement is fine in Sweden because it was ‘witnessed’ by the police interrogator and another complainant who shouldn’t have been sitting in on the interview at all would be par for the course for Marianne Ny.
John Goss, thanks for that…
Arbed 6.11pm
Ack! Forgot to mention the most salient point. (doh!) The wording of that espionage statute 18 USC 794(a) is that the death penalty can apply if the US informant HAS DIED in relation to the purported conspiracy/espionage.
Sorry, hope that makes Fred Burton’s “advice” in the Stratfor emails much clearer.
Arbed you said, “Actually having the gall to tell the UK court that an unsigned statement is fine in Sweden because it was ‘witnessed’ by the police interrogator and another complainant who shouldn’t have been sitting in on the interview at all would be par for the course for Marianne Ny.”
Can you please refer me to where the UK court were told that another complainant witnessed the police interrogate SW? There is no evidence AA was present during SW’s interview. Repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.
I think you need to give up this death penalty nonsense as well, forgetting just for a moment that extradition from Sweden would be more difficult than from the UK, JA would never be extradited for a charge carrying the death penalty. And unlike you dramatically misinformed people last night, further charges cannot be added at later date if someone is extradited from the EU.
On extradition the Swedish Law Professor Pal Wrange has previously backed David Allen Green and contradicted quite a lot of arbed’s myopic arguments. He has also stated that the spurious claims on justice4assange(I never trust a website that substitutes a number for a word) are wrong and barely worth comment;
However, it is extremely important to bear in mind – as already implied above — that Assange can be extradited also from the UK (incidentally America’s closest allies). It has been said that at present there is a legal-technical barrier to extradition from Britain. My understanding is that the technical barriers consists of the Swedish request for surrender, since Sweden, so to speak, is first in line. (Compare, for instance, Article 15(e) of the UK-US Agreement, here.) If this is true, it is – quite ironically — Sweden’s request, which currently constitutes the main protection for Assange against extradition from Britain to the United States. For me, it is thus completely incomprehensible how one can say that the Swedish process is a “honey trap” for Assange, since he is likely at greater risk of extradition from the UK, and since he can, in principle, be extradited from any country.
On the site http://www.justice4assange.com it is alleged that in the Swedish extradition agreement with the U.S. there is a special summary procedure that so to speak bypasses the usual requirement that the crime may not be political, that the death penalty may not be imposed, etc. On the same site is also stated that there is no such procedure in the US agreement with the UK (see here). Both of these claims are completely wrong. (The other arguments are hardly worthy of comment.)
http://palwrange.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/can-julian-assange-be-extradited-from.html
Jemand,
“An indictment is the same thing as a charge.
Are you serious?
What is a formal charge then?
And what is “standing charged”?
When in a legal process is someone charged? Is that at the same time as someone is indicted?
At what time is a plea entered?
From your comments I can see that you are as ignorant as Arbed. I cannot believe your level of ignorance of English criminal procedure. And I know you know nothing of Swedish criminal procedure.
But I’ll give you one more chance. Is there a difference between being charged and being indicted?
Before you write anything, use the keyboard to check things
Villager and everybody that is commenting on this blog,
I have seen you on these threads very closely now, but i haven’t seen you lose your shirt as you are doing with Arbed.
Goran, an afterthought, anyway, why is it so important whether Assange is charged or not? am
[Mod/Clark: emphasis HTML tag fixed.]
I haven't lost my shirt or any other piece of clothing. My top-hat is on. My diamond earrings are still in place. My baby crocodile boots are on. My rube red ring is sitting on my finger and my leopardskin tights are wrapping my sexy legs. You don't need to worry about my clothing. Worry about the some of the people that comment on this blog. And worry about their total lack of knowledge. It is far more important than my shirt.
I am of the opinion that you have to have at least some minimal understanding of a subject before you open your mouth. Arbed and Jemand have clearly demonstrated that they don't even understand basic concepts of the English criminal procedures. I have understood that on this blog there are more people that are just like Arbed and Jemand. Before I will prove that Arbed and Jemand are legal midgets of the smallest kind I would like to know who of you seriously believe that charged is the same as indicted. So I would like that everybody to do something. Tell me what you think. I'll give you some alternatives.
What I want everybody to do is pick a statement from below and post it so I can sort you guys out. And when I've seen your replies I will explain the English criminal procedure to you. Below are the choices.
I am really surprised of the development of this thread. I just thought you guys didn’t understand the Assange case. I now know that you don’t even understand basic concepts of the English criminal procedure. If you don’t understand the basics I assume you don’t under more advanced concepts like the English sex legislation. I am convinced that most of you don’t know shit about Swedish criminal procedures.
I stepped onto this blog to shed some light on the Assange case. Now I see my mission is to help you understand the laws and procedures of your own country. I cannot believe this true. But I know it is not a dream. I have pinched myself 100 times. I am awake. And I haven’t been drinking. So just comment. Tell me what you think.
Sincerely,
Göran Rudling
Arbed,
“Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in respect of which his extradition is sought”.
English is not my mother tongue. But I can clearly understand the sentences above. You can’t.
What does “stands charged” mean to you?
What does the sentence “This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange.” mean to you?
Is there a difference between “not charged” and “charges have not yet been brought”?
I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court did not express this in an optimal way. That is so that people like you cannot understand it. I will ask for a clarification in order to prove to you that your understanding of the English language is not as good as you think?
Goran/Arbed/Others
I put my hand up:
3. I don’t really know, but please tell me.
I’m not legally educated, i confess. Tried looking it up in wiki (indictment)–simplest to understand was India, the first listed. Start looking at England, and it becomes complicated:
“All proceedings on indictment must be brought before the Crown Court.[2] By virtue of practice directions issued under section 75(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, an indictment must be tried by a High Court judge, a Circuit judge or a recorder (which of these it is depends on the offence).
As to the form of an indictment, see the Indictments Act 1915 and the Indictment Rules 1971 made thereunder.
As to the preferring of a bill of indictment and the signing of an indictment, see section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and the Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971 (S.I. 1971/2084) made thereunder, as amended and modified by the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1983 (S.I. 1983/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1988 (S.I. 1988/1783), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1992 (S.I. 1992/284), the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1997 (S.I. 1997/711), the Indictments (Procedure) (Modification) Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3045) and the Indictments (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000/3360).”
Surprised to see however the word indictment coming in so strongly. In the media, colloquially, one rather more often hears the word charge, and i thought indictment was more an Americanism, but apparently not.
I want to understand, even though i currently cannot see how any fair system can bring charges, or frame charges, until an investigation is complete.
Has there been covert political leverage from the USA in this case? That is the key. If there has, it is part of a political trial process and because of the Kafka-esque instrumentalisation of legal process, everything must be viewed differently, just as in a ‘show trial’ situation. If there has not not, then all these detailed legalistic precepts are relevant.
Is this ‘The Castle’ or ‘The Trial’, or are we talking Charles Dickens and ‘Bleak House’?
Goran :
“I haven’t lost my shirt or any other piece of clothing. My top-hat is on. My diamond earrings are still in place. My baby crocodile boots are on. My rube red ring is sitting on my finger and my leopardskin tights are wrapping my sexy legs. You don’t need to worry about my clothing. Worry about the some of the people that comment on this blog. And worry about their total lack of knowledge. It is far more important than my shirt.”
Worry? What me worry? I just observe. Everyone including the one most difficult to observe–one’s self.
Suhayl, i disagree with you. They are not legalistic precepts, but legal precepts. Its ALL important. Its not either or. We know what we know, and when we don’t, we don’t know. What is important is total continuous awareness. Life is a living thing, dynamic and we don’t truly know what happens tomorrow. But we can question everything.
If Göran’s analysis is correct, and JA has in fact been charged, that means the prosecutor is blatantly in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, which states:
Marianne Ny comments on this very issue in an email to Björn Hurtig on 15 November 2010:
(my translation and emphasis)
JA clearly hasn’t been “informed promptly, in a language he understands and in detail”. A clear violation of his rights under the ECHR.