Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Analysis: Assange’s lawyer’s error shouldn’t determine the case

As we know, Assange’s lawyer in Sweden Björn Hurtig admitted yesterday at the London Court proceedings that he had involuntarily missed a message from Prosecutor Ny in regard to a possible date for Assange´s interrogation while still in Sweden. The information was never passed over to Assange because of several reasons explained by Hurtig.

Unsurprisingly, the manipulated/manipulative anti-Assange media (see for instance The Independent today's article on Assange in section "Crimes") wishes to exploit this event by arguing that Hurtig’s admission in the Court would negate one of Assange’s defence key-arguments, namely, the assertion that Marianne Ny could have very well - if she really wanted – interrogated Julian Assange in  Sweden without the necessity of issuing an international extradition warrant.

This Sweden-issued warrant in reality wished, and obtained, the arresting of Assange without the need of even charging him – as Swedish prosecutors ostensibly had no substantial evidence against Assange.

In fact, Sweden expected that Assange would remain in the high security cell where he was held practically incommunicado in London ensuing the arresting demanded by Sweden. That was the design. As it can be recalled, an especial request in that regard was put forward by the prosecutor on behalf of Sweden during the proceedings of January 11, 2011.  Sweden opposed bail and favoured continuation of incommunicado-like circumstances for Assange. But things turn different and Assange was granted bail.

These are instead the determinant facts in the context  (and about that one miss amid numerous skilful assertions from the part of Björn Hurtig at the London Court).

  1. The paramount fact is that the Swedish prosecutors DID ALLOW ASSANGE TO LEAVE SWEDEN without making the interrogation a compulsory or conditional item for his leave!  This fact in the strongest meaning confirm the artificial - also called “malicious” -  manoeuvre of try the arresting of Assange abroad, a sine-qua-non condition for having him extradited to Sweden and therefore held him incommunicado in waiting for – in a worst, yet highly credible scenario – the extradition, alternative illegal rendition to the USA. Sweden does have a proven experience and routine as to how implement such illegal rendition. In fact, is the disclosure by Wikileaks of such “operative -intelligence” cooperation between the Swedish government and the USA one of the most potent explanations of Swedish official vendetta against Assange and Wikileaks.
  2. Hurtig did also declare in the London proceedings of Feb 8 – fact which was not rebutted by the Crown prosecutor acting in Sweden’s behalf – in good time prior to Assange’s departure from Sweden (to Germany, and then the UK) he had contacted prosecutor Marianne Ny suggesting a new date for the prosecutor’s questioning of Assange but she adduced unavailability from her part.
  3. That a new questioning of Assange never took place  (The Independent journalists seem to forget that Assange had indeed been interrogated extensively by the police on the issue. See the  leaked police report) is  then hardly solely accountable to a sms-message missed by Hurtig. 

Ergo, the argument of Assange’s defence in disclosing the truly nature of the extradition warrant do remain in its full power. The vicissitudes around one sms message – received surely amid hundred others by that time by Hurtig -  have no bearing at all in the  solidity of Assange’s position with regard to the  “peculiar” position of de Swedish Judiciary and its outmost artificially constructed proceeding in the Assange case.

These proceedings fit instead one hundred percent in the perspective-analysis of an active involvement of some Swedish officials, or institutions, as instruments in the geopolitical design of the foreign power they apparently obey.

I am aware how horrible and highly conspiratorial the above might sound, but I could myself hardly believe it was true – when I read an article Expressen yesterday – that the very Prime Minister of Sweden Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, whom this column have elsewhere referred as a politician with honourable marks - made public statements involving officially and openly the Swedish government in the London Court deliberations referring exclussively to protecting the rights of the accusers  (the two women) involved in the Assange extradition process.

Let me first to recall that in my article published in Newsmill Jan 11  I clearly advanced the hypothesis on whether behind the Sweden case against Assange it truly exists the intention of making a pilot case of the event. Meaning, to use Assange's celebrity to reassure or move forwards positions in the Swedish legislative process towards a radicalization in the penalty of sex-offences, or the enhancing of criminal conceptualization in that regard.

In declarations published in Aftonbladet  "i samband med domstolsförhandlingarna om utlämningen av Julian Assange i London", PM Reinfeldt reveals what is in fact the issue at stake. Reinfelt said concretely:

"Let us not forget what is here at risk. It is the right for women to have their case tested in court as to whether what they have been subjected of is a criminal abuse (offence)" 

– Låt oss inte glömma bort vad som riskeras här. Det är ju rätten för kvinnor att få prövat huruvida det har varit ett övergrepp som de har varit utsatta för."

I put in serious doubt that Reinfeldt  would really consider the content of his statement above as THE reason for the Swedish offensive aganist Assange and Wikileaks. For there is evidence that the "pilot-case factor" is only a part in the constellation of causes behind the Swedish political crusade against Assange and Wikileaks.

Nevertheless, Reinfeldt did try also to defend the integrity of the kingdom’s judiciary – which would be totally understandable for his position as surrogate head of state (Sweden is still a monarchy and Prime Ministers receive formally the assignment from the king). However,  he just made things worst. What Reinfeldt in the main ended in pointing out - in the name of the Swedish government - was  the publicly taking side on behalf of the two accusers-ladies, for which he demanded respect very much exclusively. This is what he stated in Expressen:

"that in this way attempt to circumvent it and make it appear that their rights are worth very little, I think that's regrettable."


["att på det här sättet försöka kringgå det och få det att framstå som att deras  rätt är mycket litet värd, det tycker jag är beklagligt."]

On the other hand Fredrik Reinfeldt has tried a few times to give the notion that his government is “neutral” in the matter.  He had to lie to assert such statement. Everybody in Sweden knows however that Sweden is not only not-neutral any longer but also a proven and active subservient collaborator of the USA judiciary, their international political police (CIA), the USA military (including USA/Sweden joint-occupation forces in Afghanistan), not to mention the USA-controlled multinational corporations whose commercial and financial ventures in and by Sweden – for Sweden's own detrimental as independent trade mark -  are the everyday's national disgrace. 

And what about shameful collaboration in the illegal rendition of political prisoners in Sweden to CIA? Was that the monopoly of Person/Bodström social democratic government? The same rigth-win liberal newspaper Expressen ran recently a main article headed "Reinfeldt felicited by Bush for secret collaboration on terror", inserting this picture
 

How then, how could ever the same Reinfeldt, in the very same Expressen (article  of Feb 8, 2011, headed "Reinfeldt disappointed with the picture that spread on the Swedish Judiciary") pretend being so surprised about the world-wide spread characterization of Sweden  as having nowadays its official authorities and  institutions at the service of  the USA? 

Sweden killed Palme to sell her soul. Some opportunits wish now to sell her body. We will stop that with the help of Wikileaks, and this is a primary reason why we have to help in FREE ASSANGE NOW in a fair proceeding!

Let us retain Sweden dignified, neutral, democratic, republican, and sovereign!

Marcello Ferrada de Noli,

Media 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9






Hamlet utan prinsessan. Åklagaren Marianne Ny starkt utmanat av Asange's advokat

Åklagaren Marianne Ny starkt utmanat av Asange's advokat

Vid en improviserad presskonferens visades i en Telegraph video 8 Feb (länk  här), och numera i Youtube


Detta sade Assange om den svenska åklagaren (Professors blogg översättningsförsök!):

"Idag såg vi att den svarta lådan jag talade om tidigare var tom.
Det mesta vi har sett är processövergrepp efter processövergrepp som vittnades timmar in and timmar ut.
. . .
Vi har sett en snedvridning av bevis och fakta från Svensk åklagarmyndigheterna vilka visades i detalj genom dagens lopp.
Vad vi inte har sett, är emellertid chefsåklagaren i detta fall. . . hon har vägrat att komma här (London Court proceedings) och det finns ett rop i Sverige för att försöka ha henne att komma hit.

Våra vittnar från Sverige har kommit här och redogjort för, mina advokater har redogjort för, och samtliga har genomgick korsförhör. Var är rättvisan i detta fall? Det finns ingen jämlikhet.

Snarare ser vi en obegränsad budget från Sverige och Storbritannien som använts i denna fråga, och min ganska begränsade budget som spenderas för att svara."

Och detta sades av advokat Mark Stevens:
"Mina damer och herrar, 

Idag har vi sett Hamlet utan prinsessan. Vi har sett en åklagare som har varit redo att mata media med information, men har varit oförberedd att komma hit och stå själv tillsvar i ett korsförhör som hon vet att hon inte kan hantera!"
 
Jag utmanar Marianne Ny! Marianne Ny, kom till London, stå själv tillsvar i ett korsförhör av Geoffrey Robertson QC !"

Marcello Ferrada-Noli
From Genoa, Italy 8/02, 2011

Mer om Assange/Wikileaks i Profesors blogg:
Media 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Strongest appeal to Swedish prosecutor - "Hamlet without princess"


Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny is now publicly challenged in the strongest terms by Julian Assange and his lawyers –– to come to the Court in London and subject herself to the same  cross examination process that Assange’s side had to stand.

I have made excerpt-transcriptions of the Telegraph video, see below (har också försökt en översättning till Svenska, se här

Update, video now in Youtube: 



This was said by Assange on the Swedish prosecutor:

"Today we saw that box I spoke about earlier been open up.

The most we have seen is process abuse after process abuse been revealed for hours and hours . . .

We have seen the distortion of evidence and facts by prosecuting authorities in Sweden revealed at minor detail through all the course of the day.

What we have not seen, however,   is the chief prosecutor in this case . . . she has refused to come to these proceedings and there is an appeal on in Sweden to try forcing her to come here.

Our witness report from Sweden, may layers report from Sweden, and extensively cross-examined. Where is the equality of arms in this case? There is no equality.

Rather we see the unlimited budget of the Sweden and the UK been spent in this matter, and my rather limited budget spent in respond."

And this was said by lawyer Mark Stevens:

“Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, we have seen Hamlet without the princess, we have seen a prosecutor who has been ready to feed the media with information, but has been unprepared to come here and subject herself to the cross-examination she knows she cannot stand.

I challenge Marianne Ny: Marianne Ny, come to London, subject yourself to the examination by Queen-Counselor Geoffrey Robertson!” 

Julian Assange och hans advokater har offentligt utmanat - i de starkaste ordalag - svenska åklagaren Marianne Ny att i rättvisas namn (equality) komma till domstolen i London och svarar under samma korsförhör procedur som Assanges sida var tvungen att genomgå. 

LINK TO THE TELEGRAPH VIDEO HERE

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Irrelevant Objection To Judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman's testimony

Brita Sundberg-Weitman is an Associate Professor in Sweden and a former Judge. It is Sundberg-Weitman's professional and academic experience, her expertise-knowledge on the Swedish judiciary, what  makes her witnessing valuable about   Marianne Ny's doings as prosecutor in the public Assange case: In judging to which extent are those public doings - as prosecutor or commenter - congruent with acceptable Swedish judiciary praxis. Whether Sundberg-Weitman is personally acquainted with Ny or personally with the case itself is downright irrelevant. And the fact that she is NOT can hardly speak against her testimony.


A Washington Post article by Anthony Faiola and Karla Adam ("Assange attorneys cast doubt on accusations at extradition hearing in London", 8/2, 2011), reports the testimony in court of Brita Sunberg-Weitman which put in serious doubt the objectivity of Marianne Ny.  The Washington Post article refers prosecutor Ny been portrayed  "as an overzealous women's rights crusader with a bias against men". Expectedly, "Crown prosecutors representing their Swedish peers rejected the assertions". On which grounds?  

The notable point that the prosecutor for the Swedish side, Clare Montgomery,  did try to make it was that witness Brita Sundberg-Weitman would not have an own personal knowledge of Ny's conducting the case nor personally would have met Marianne Ny. That it was. The Guardian (7/2) resumes in the subheader of the article of Esther Addley "Julian Assange 'would face bias in Sweden', retired judge says":

Brita Sundberg-Weitman is an Associated Professor at Stockholm University and a former Appeal-Court judge (lagman) with vast experience, and she has also been president of the nation-wide human-rights organization Medborgarrättsrörelsen.

Assange’s lawyers could instead  well argue that the issue of this witness value (in the context of whether the accusations AND procedures put forward by Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny's are tenable in the Assange case) has primarily to with how well Associate Professor Sundberg-Weitman  would know the judiciary system in Sweden, and she certainly does, particularly on the issue at stake.

Ergo, it is solely her professional and academic experience as such the valuable parameter for judging whether prosecutor Marianne Ny’s registered doings as public-prosecutor or commenter are or not in consistence with acceptable Swedish judiciary praxis. Other issues for instance that witness Sundberg-Witman stated in London "she had no personal acquaintance with Ny" (The Christian Science Monitor, 8/2) are in the context  wholly irrelevant.

Furthermore, if the witness would have had a personal or desk-professional acquaintance with Ny, then her witness report should be scrutinized from the view as to what that relationship would signify for her statements.

Prof. Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Bergamo, Italy 8/2 2011

Media 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12




 

Sunday, 6 February 2011

Q & A: The Assange case and Swedish extradition

An utterly necessary correction of the highly misleading Q & A version distributed in this moment worldwide by AP   
This Professors blogg article was published in Second-opinion 7/02, 2011

 

Q & A: The Assange case and Swedish extradition


Corrected (highlighted texts) by Professor Marcello Ferrada-Noli
 
Julian Assange returns to a British court Monday to fight extradition to Sweden, where the WikiLeaks founder is wanted for questioning about alleged sex crimes. 

The petition, filled by the Swedish Prosecutor Authority, was done at a time-point after the Wiklileaks exposures on USA war atrocities - in conflicts supported militarily by Sweden - and the magnitude of its collateral damage. The Wikileaks revelations elicited anew analysis on the participation of former minister of Justice Thomas Bodström in the illegal rendition of political refugees to the CIA. Prior that, Assange had been first acquitted of any suspect charge by a Swedish senior attorney on the very same issue. Further, after the case was re-opened by a new prosecutor - at the instigation of a partner of Bodström (see below) - Assange had been nevertheless permitted to leave Sweden legally.

The 39-year-old Australian has denied the accusations, which his supporters claim are part of a CIA-led conspiracy against his secret-spilling organization. 

Although no Assange supporter has ever maintained that it is in fact “a CIA-led conspiracy” it has been pointed out that a) one of the accusers is a notorious anti-Castro activist – banned from Cuba - connected with organizations financed by the CIA, b) the same accuser was at the time of the allegations a paid employee of an organization within the social democratic party (the Christian Brotherhood) in which the former minister of Justice Mr. Thomas Bodström is one senior political members. In that position as information secretary of such organization she implemented  and financed the invitation of Assange to “lecture”  in Sweden.
Here are some questions and answers about the case. 
Today in London, with Lawyer Jeniffer Robinson
Q: Why does Sweden want him extradited?

A: A Swedish prosecutor wants to question Assange about accusations made by two women that he violated them sexually during a brief stay in the Scandinavian country last year.  

This is a version that some Swedish journalists or anti-Assange radical feminists continue to spread abroad. The truth is that the women made no charges whatsoever of rape (“violation” means rape in most of languages). The formulation of the “crime rape” was a post-elaboration of the lawyer Claes Borgström (the partner of Thomas Bodström in their law firm Bordstrom & Borgström) which convinced feminist Prosecutor Marianne Ny to re-open the investigation.  

One of them says he intentionally damaged a condom during sex and the other says he had sex with her while she was asleep. The latter could be considered rape under Swedish law. Assange denies wrongdoing.

The problem is that the Swedish Police found no DNA evidence linking Assange to the condom provided by one of the women, some time a week later.

Q: Will Assange be jailed if he goes to Sweden?

A: He will immediately put under arrested upon arrival and held incommunicado. There is no bail-system in Sweden. Yes, at least for some time. He would be arrested upon arrival and a detention hearing would be held within four days. The prosecutor could decide to release him after questioning. But she could also ask the court to extend the period of detention. Such hearings must be held every two weeks until a suspect is charged or released. There is no bail in Sweden. Following the manifested position of the Swedish-prosecution side in the Court hearings of January in London, Assange will not be released after questioning on the base of the alleged danger of escaping.

Q: Assange's lawyers say there's a "real risk" that Sweden would hand him over to the U.S. How likely is that?

A: Assange hasn't been charged with any crime in the U.S. If he were, Swedish legal experts say he would be no more likely to be handed over from Sweden than from Britain. Because of the current extradition proceedings between Sweden and Britain, handing him over to a third country would require approval from both countries, says Nils Rekke, legal chief at the Stockholm prosecutor's office. Rekke notes that Britain is a closer ally to the United States. 

Rekke has not denied that Sweden would be willing to hand over Assange to the USA, what he said is that “Sweden cannot do as Sweden likes” before asking Britain first on the matter! 

The fact is, regarding the “open” requests of extradition from the USA, Sweden has granted extradition to the USA in ALL OF CASES in which the asked person was in Swedish territory. 

Q: How common is it that people are extradited from Sweden and Britain to the U.S.?

A: Since 2000, the U.S. has requested the extradition of seven citizens from Sweden, according to the Swedish Justice Ministry. Five of the requests were approved, and two were rejected because the suspects were no longer believed to be in Sweden. Britain and the U.S. signed a fast-track extradition treaty in 2003 intended to speed the transfer of terror suspects. Since it came into force in April 2007, 23 people have been extradited from the U.K. to the U.S., according to British government figures. Extradition lawyer Karen Todner said Assange would probably stand a better chance of resisting extradition to the U.S. if he were in Sweden than if he were in the U.K.

Again, as above:  Regarding the “open” requests from the USA, Sweden has granted extradition in the TOTAL OF CASES in which the prisoner was in Swedish territory. This is a fact.

Furthermore, Sweden has a praxis of giving – in clandestine operations - prisoners labelled by USA as terrorist (like in the case of Assange, according for instance to expressions of USA’s Vice president), the so called rendition.

Q: Could the prosecutor in the sex crime investigation or the Swedish government have been influenced by pressure from the U.S. to seek Assange's detention?

A: Most legal experts in Sweden agree prosecutors would never accept orders from politicians, which is illegal (sic!). But Assange's supporters note that Sweden has responded to U.S. pressure before, including in the crackdown on file-sharing site The Pirate Bay, and the secret rendition of two Egyptian terror suspects.

Q: Has Assange been charged with a crime in Sweden?

A: No. He's only considered a suspect, of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Prosecutors say - and Swedish courts have agreed - that there is "probable cause" to believe he committed those crimes. That's the higher level of suspicion in Sweden, but it doesn't mean that he will be charged. It typically takes months of investigation before Swedish prosecutors decide whether to bring a case to trial.

Q: What's the penalty in Sweden for this type of crime?

A: It ranges from fines for the lower offenses to as much as six years in prison for rape. In cases where sex starts out being consensual, but ends up in rape, the maximum sentence is typically four years. 

No misleading work of any establishment's journalist or compromised attorneys or political opportunists with radical-feminist agendas will ever be capable to erase from the memory of millions and millions among the decent in the world the Wilikleaks exposure “Collateral damage” - a main contribution to international peace and to the anti-war movement, a permanent blow to secret state-power abuse inflicted by Julian Assange and his heroic organization of civil-courage fighters.

This is the issue at stake! 


Media 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9
, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Tags 1, 2, 3,