The Assange hearing will not be decided until after the New Year, but in the interim we must keep it in the news. In our desire to get the virtually unreported real news right out there in the public domain we should look to unlikely advocates of our cause and a broader range of publications, but why? We must go beyond ‘preaching to the choir’ when trying to convert others to a progressive way of thinking. The controversial issue of the Assange extradition is just one example. In a Tweet that Peter Hitchens posted over a year ago he wrote, “I’d be ashamed if I did not protest against the imprisonment of Julian Assange, who for all his faults is not a violent criminal, in Maximum Security Belmarsh Prison.” Why is Hitchens intervention so important? Because when you are talking to someone of a different mindset who is not so supportive, being able to name drop someone who is definitely not an avowed ‘leftie’ and an article printed in a paper they routinely turn to for an often warped perspective on ‘the news’ is rather useful.
Peter Hitchens wrote interesting Mail Online Article on Julian Assange entitled, “My defence of Julian Assange – a man I abhor.” He admits to disliking him, “yet he argues extraditing the WikiLeaks boss to the US violates British sovereignty, threatens press freedom and is nothing less than a politically motivated kidnap.” After saying, “I can’t stand Julian Assange. He is almost everything I do not like. I doubt we would get along if we spent an evening together…” he is adamant that, “I am wholly, furiously against the attempt by the United States government to extradite Mr Assange from this country, now under way at the Old Bailey. I think it is wrong in principle. I think it is clearly a political case and should be rejected on those grounds alone, if there were no others available.” While Mail Online has a slightly different outlook from the tabloid Daily Mail they are still in the same general camp.
Another unlikely outlet to focus on the Assange saga was tech magazine Computer Weekly who featured UC Global’s spying, but Julian Assange revolutionized the interface between IT and Journalism. In a Computer Weekly Article entitled, “FBI seized ‘legally privileged’ material from Ecuador Embassy, claims Julian Assange’s lawyer,” Bill Goodwin reveal how, “The US struck a secret deal with Ecuador to seize WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s property from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London days before his arrest. The haul included legally privileged documents, says his solicitor.” Goodwin reports that, “The US struck a secret deal to seize computers and documents, including legally privileged files, belonging to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange days before he was evicted from the Ecuadorian Embassy. Three days before Assange’s arrest on 11 April 2019, the Office of International Affairs asked Ecuador to seize all evidence from the embassy and hand it over to a UK-based FBI officer to transfer to the US.”
Goodwin reports that, “The disclosure follows evidence that legal meetings between Assange and his London-based solicitor, Gareth Peirce, who represented him in the extradition hearings last week, were secretly placed under surveillance. Assange’s defence lawyers argue that the seizure of legally privileged communications from the embassy are an abuse of the legal process. This ‘constitutes the most serious breach of one of the most fundamental safeguards known to the common law’, they argue in written submissions. The US Department of Justice sent a ‘highly confidential’ request to Ecuador in anticipation of Assange’s imminent arrest, according to evidence disclosed last week. The request dated 8 April 2019 required Ecuador to seize Assange’s files and property from the embassy and that “these evidences be handed over to a representative of the UK FBI to hand over the property to the USA”.
Looking at the time line Goodwin says that, “Assange was ousted from the embassy and arrested three days later after the president of Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, withdrew asylum status from Assange. The rooms in the embassy were sealed and staff told to stay away for a week, but it later emerged that the seals had been broken and replaced with seals marked ‘for judicial purpose’, according to Peirce’s witness statement. Security guards were able to access the rooms, and a consul official took an inventory of items in each room of the embassy, which has not been disclosed to Assange’s lawyers, she said. An Ecuadorian intelligence agent and an embassy official sent USB sticks found in the embassy by diplomatic pouch to Ecuador. When Assange’s solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, collected Assange’s possessions over a month later, they found all the legally privileged material missing apart from two volumes of supreme court documents and several pages of loose documents.”
According to Goodwin, “The missing items included a plastic bag of ‘legal documents’ dated between 2008 and 2010 and documents marked ‘legally privileged’ that were identified in a press photograph released by the Ecuadorian government. Carlos Poveda, a lawyer representing Assange in Ecuador, attempted to recover the documents from the Ecuadorian authorities in December 2019. He was allowed to inspect five files, each containing 100 pages, which were said to be a record of the items taken from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Photographs in the files showed that the seals placed on the door to the front room of the embassy, which was used by Assange, and the computer room, had already been broken. Other photographs showed folders, portfolios and notebooks, some clearly marked ‘WGAD (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention)’, ‘Pompeo’ [the US secretary of state]’ and ‘legal planning’ had gone missing.”
Goodwin Reports that, “Proveda was told that that the material was the subject of a mutual legal assistance request from the US and that no copies of the material would be kept by Ecuador once the documents had been sent to the US. US prosecutors argue that any legally privileged material in its possession would be the subject of review by a ‘taint team’ and would be excised by the prosecution before a trial. The UK government said in legal submissions that The United States Code of Federal Regulations ‘require the [US] government to employ specific safeguards to protect the attorney-client privilege and to ensure that the investigation is not compromised by exposure to privileged material relating to the investigation or to defense strategy’.”
Goodwin says that, “According to Peirce’s written evidence submitted to the court, the private company responsible for security at the embassy, UC Global, secretly recorded legally privileged meetings between Assange and his legal advisors. On one occasion, photographs were taken of a file belonging to Assange’s Spanish lawyer, Aitior Martinez, when he left the room for a private consultation. UC Global security staff replaced CCTC cameras in the embassy with cameras capable of recording conversations Anonymous witness statements by two former UC Global employees claim that the senior Spanish lawyer representing Assange, Baltasar Garzón, was followed and photographed and that his offices were burgled after the idea was mentioned by David Morales who ran UC Global.”
Goodwin claims that, “Potentially more significantly for the London extradition case, UC Global allegedly surveilled meetings between Assange and his solicitor Gareth Peirce on 6 December 2017, 19 December 2017 and 14 January 2018. Peirce said she had seen surveillance material related to the meetings but disclosed no further details in her evidence. UC Global replaced CCTV cameras in the embassy with cameras that could record audio in late 2017 (see video below). Footage seen by Computer Weekly shows that on 14 January 2018, Peirce was recorded on CCTV surveillance accompanying Assange’s Spanish lawyer. They were seen walking through the kitchen area of the embassy, apparently heading in the direction of the ladies’ bathroom – one area in the embassy that Assange believed was unlikely to be bugged. There is no sound on the footage.”
“Peirce said in her witness statement that she was wholly unaware of the surveillance at the time. ‘I do not comment here upon my own reactions to the discovery, but comment only generally that there has prevailed, as a consequence, an exceptionally high level of anxiety and fear that legal interviews with Mr Assange are continuing to be monitored,’ she said in the statement.” Goodwin writes, “The surveillance has had a chilling effect on the ability of Assange’s legal team to prepare for the extradition proceedings. ‘This fear, triggered by the clear evidence that had been taking place over a number of years, has had a chilling effect upon preparation for these extradition proceedings,’ she said. Spain’s national court in Madrid is investigating allegations that UC Global founder Morales had a side deal to supply surveillance material from the embassy to ‘American friends,’ alleged by two former UC Global employees to have links with US intelligence, following a criminal complaint filed by Assange’s Spanish lawyers in July 2019.”
The article includes a Video produced by Computer Weekly managing editor (technology) Cliff Saran. Goodwin reports that, “UK prosecution lawyers argue that the surveillance allegations are “wholly irrelevant” to the case. The charges against Assange relate to events between 2009 and 2011 – five years before surveillance took place, and therefore have no impact on the case against Assange. They said in written submissions that there is ‘nothing in the defense case to show any privileged materials gathered in the embassy are deployed against Assange in his extradition’.”
Goodwinn reports that, “Peirce said in her written evidence that the US seizure of legally privileged evidence from the embassy had made it difficult for Assange to reconstruct the activities of WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011 the general timeframe of allegations filed by the US. Had Assange been notified in 2011 of the allegations against him and his extradition, she said, he would have had access to computer records, phone records and communications with WikiLeaks partners, and those of his immediate associations, over the history of control and access to encrypted data. ‘Almost none of that data is now available,’ she stated. Peirce said some of Assange’s closest advisors have died, including Michael Ratner, president of the US Centre for Constitutional Rights, barrister John Jones QC and Gavin McFadyen, a respected figure of huge importance to both WikiLeaks and Assange. Without access to the records in the embassy, Assange has been unable to reconstruct records of his conversations with them, she said.”
Reverting to the timeline, Goodwin says, “Belmarsh Prison only agreed to allow Assange to view electronic material provided by his lawyers on a computer in January this year, Peirce states in evidence. The prison apologised that it had misunderstood Assange’s needs, following requests for assistance over the previous six months. The US Department of Justice has not suggested it will return that material “even though attention has been drawn to the existence of recordings that could play an evidential part in the extradition hearing”, said Peirce. US prosecutor Gordon Kromberg said in a witness statement that ‘no privileged communications will be used against Assange in criminal proceedings’. He said that if the fruits of any surveillance in the embassy exist, they will not be reviewed or used by prosecutors and that any use of privileged materials against Assange would be barred by US law.”
The Computer Weekly Article includes a detailed Timeline of events headed, “How the US obtained Julian Assange’s possessions from the Ecuadorian Embassy:”
“19 June 2012: Assange takes refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge, London.
July 2012: Assange appoints Spanish lawyer Barlatsar Garzón to coordinate his legal advice from lawyers in multiple countries.
18 August 2012: Ecuador offers asylum to Assange.
2015: UC Global, a company with headquarters in Spain, is appointed to provide security services to the Ecuadorian Embassy by the Ecuadorian government.
6 December 2017: A meeting between Assange and his solicitor Gareth Peirce is subject to surveillance.
19 December 2017: Another meeting between Assange and his solicitor Gareth Peirce is subject to surveillance.
21 December 2017: Assange meets the head of the Ecuadorian intelligence agency, Senain, Rommy Vallejo. They discuss a plan to help Assange escape from the embassy by giving Assange diplomatic status. Assange and Vallejo speak quietly while Assange activates a white noise generator to make it difficult to record the meeting. UC Global staff listen to the meeting at the door.
22 December 2017: The US issues an international arrest warrant against Assange.
14 January 2018: A meeting between Assange and his solicitor Gareth Peirce is subject to surveillance.
20 October 2018: Photographs are taken of Assange’s Spanish lawyer Aitor Martinez’s file when he leaves the room for a private consultation. The incident occurred when Assange gave evidence by video link to an Ecuadorian court for a protective order against the actions of Ecuador and the US.
8 April 2019: The US Department of Justice informs Ecuador that it anticipated that Assange would be arrested imminently. It requests that Ecuador seized Assange’s property and that ‘these evidences be handed over to a representative of the UK FBI to hand over the property to the USA’. A document headed “Highly Confidential from the Deputy Director’s Office of International Affairs” gives directions on preserving evidence and for it to be handed to the FBI in the UK for delivery to the US.
11 April 2019: Ecuador’s president Lenin Moreno withdraws asylum status from Assange. Assange is removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrested.
11 April 2019: Assange’s solicitor, Gareth Peirce, makes repeated requests to the Ecuadorian Embassy to recover legally privileged material left in the building. The Embassy does not respond.
17 April 2019: The Ecuadorian prosecutor formally requests authorisation to access the embassy and seize evidence. According to an Ecuadorian inventory, the evidence seized includes a “plastic bag with legal documents from 2010 to 2018”.
9 May 2019: The UN special rapporteur on privacy writes to the Ecuadorian authorities requesting to be present to monitor the requested seizure of property from the embassy, but is refused.
20 May 2019: The Australian Consulate is informed that a judicial request had been received to transfer Assange’s property to Ecuador.
Assange’s solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, later collect Assange’s possessions and find that all legally privileged material is missing apart from two volumes of Supreme Court documents and several pages of loose documents.
Photographs released to the press show files and other material marked legally privileged which were not given to Birnberg Peirce.
20 May 2019: A former employee of UC Global emails lawyer Aitor Martinez, who worked at Barlatsar Garzón’s law firm, claiming to have information on UG Global. In subsequent meetings, two former employees disclose evidence of illegal surveillance conducted in the embassy and hand over a large volume of emails, video and audio recordings, documents and files.
12 June 2019: Material seized from the Ecuadorian Embassy is transferred to Ecuador.
5 July 2019: Two former UC Global employees give witness statements before a notary alleging surveillance in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
29 July 2019: Baltasar Garzón’s law firm files a legal complaint in Spain against David Morales, owner of UC Global, alleging breaches of privacy, breaches of attorney-client communications and money laundering. UC Global is accused of criminal breaches of privacy and breaches of attorney-client communications.
7 August 2019: The Spanish court begins an investigation into allegations of illegal surveillance by UC Global.
17 September 2019: David Morales is arrested and his home and the headquarters of UC Global searched.
16 December 2019: Assange’s lawyer in Ecuador Carlos Poveda inspects five files, containing 100 pages, said to be a record of what had been taken from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to Ecuador.
Photographs in the file show that the seals had already been broken in the front room of the embassy, where Assange stayed, and the computer room. The photographs show folders, files and notebooks, some of which are clearly marked ‘Pompeo”, ‘WGDA (UN Working group on Arbitary Detention)’ and ‘legal planning’.
Poveda is informed that the material is the subject of a mutual legal assistance request from the US, and that no copies of the material will be kept by Ecuador once it is sent to the US.
Poveda makes an application to the Ecuadorian court to prevent the transfer of the data, raising the issue of legally privileged material.
Poveda asks for a copy of the list to be made available for extradition proceedings in London, which was refused.
January 2020: Belmarsh Prison agrees to allow Assange to view material provided by his lawyers on a hard disk, on a computer, following requests over the previous six months. Belmarsh apologises that it has misunderstood Assange’s needs.”
Goodwin states that his source is: “Witness statements from solicitor Gareth Peirce and Computer Weekly research.”
As pointed out earlier, “Julian Assange revolutionized the interface between IT and Journalism;” now many News outlets host a ‘secure drop box’ dedicated to receiving leaked or even highly classified information. Whistleblowers have a safe place to expose the information our Governments would rather we did not see or know about. The Assange verdict could put all of that in jepody with a threat from US overreach that other countries will eagerly emulate. We need Whistleblowers to expose the corruption that stole the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, reveal the illegal data mining that fuelled the weapons grade PsyOps that warped that vote and Brexit so that both are discredited, Investigated and invalidated. We should establish a secure drop box and find a professional Investigative Journalist to work with us because until this Tory Government is removed from office there will be repeated injustices, blatant squandering of public funds and dangerous policy making as Johnson/Cummings continue their ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple.” DO NOT MOVE ON!