Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is expected to appear in a UK court tomorrow!

[Peter Lemkin]

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is expected to appear in a UK court tomorrow after his lawyers said he would meet police to discuss a European extradition warrant from Sweden relating to alleged sexual assaults.

As the legal net continued to close around the whistleblowers' website and US attorney general, Eric Holder, said he had authorised "a number of things to be done" to combat the group, Assange appeared to be reconciling himself to a lengthy personal court battle to avoid extradition.

Jennifer Robinson, a solicitor with Finers Stephens Innocent which represents the Australian freedom of information campaigner, told the Guardian: "We have a received an arrest warrant [related to claims in Sweden]. We are negotiating a meeting with police."

Another lawyer representing Assange, Mark Stephens, added: "He has not been charged with anything. We are in the process of making arrangements to meet the police by consent in order to facilitate the taking of that question and answer that is needed."

Stephens explained that the interview would happen in the "foreseeable future" but he could not give a precise time. According to other sources, it is thought that Assange would appear before a court to negotiate bail .

Assange is seeking supporters to put up surety and bail for him. He said he expected to have to post bail of between £100,000 and £200,000 and would require up to six people offering surety, or risked being held on remand.

In recent days Assange has told friends that he is increasingly convinced the US is behind Swedish prosecutors' attempts to extradite him for questioning on the assault allegations. He has said the original allegations against him were motivated by "personal issues" but that Sweden had subsequently behaved as "a cipher" for the US. He has also said he declined to return to Sweden to face prosecutors because he feared he would not receive a fair trial and prosecutors had requested that he be held in solitary confinement and incommunicado.

This weekend he said he was exhausted by the effort of running his defence against the allegations in Sweden rape charges and the release of the US embassy cables at the same time, as well as running WikiLeaks, which has split since some supporters became disaffected over Assange's handling of the Afghanistan war logs.

Once he turns himself into the police he will have to appear before a magistrates court within 24 hours, where he will seek release on bail. A full hearing of his extradition case would have to be heard within 28 days.

In the past Assange has dismissed the allegations, stating on Twitter: "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

Last week Stephens added: "This appears to be a persecution and a prosecution. It is highly irregular and unusual for the Swedish authorities to issue [an Interpol] red notice in the teeth of the undisputed fact that Mr Assange has agreed to meet voluntarily to answer the prosecutor's questions."

While the latest US diplomatic cables released on WikiLeaks have been stirring international political alarm and recriminations, Assange is understood to have been staying out of public sight in south-east England.

Prosecutors in Sweden issued a warrant for his arrest last month but it could not be enforced because of a technical blunder. The Australian's details were also added to Interpol's most wanted website after a red notice was issued, alerting police worldwide to his status.

Detectives in Sweden want to question Assange after two women claimed they were sexually assaulted by him when he visited the country in August. The country's supreme court upheld an order to detain Assange for questioning after he appealed against two lower court rulings. The sex assault claims may be Assange's most pressing legal issue, but it may not be the only legal complications he faces as several countries consider the impact of his diplomatic cable disclosures.

He has come under growing pressure after WikiLeaks started publishing excerpts from a cache of 250,000 secret messages. In the US, the level of political vituperation has become more vengeful. The former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has described Assange as "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands". The senior Republican Mike Huckabee said that "anything less than execution is too kind a penalty".

Meanwhile WikiLeaks has been forced to move to a Swiss host after being dumped by US internet companies as it comes under siege from cyber attacks.

PostFinance, the financial arm of the Swiss post office, said it had closed Assange's account after he provided "false information". "PostFinance has ended its business relationship with WikiLeaks founder Julian Paul Assange," the bank said in a statement. "The Australian citizen provided false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process."

[Peter Lemkin]

Assange is seeking supporters to put up surety and bail for him. He said he expected to have to post bail of between £100,000 and £200,000 and would require up to six people offering surety, or risked being held on remand.

....so next time you don't use a condom in consensual sex...think twice! [if you're on the USG's 'hit list'] Can we go back and prosecute Clinton for not using a condom with Ms. L.?!

[Peter Lemkin]

Julian Assange has been arrested and has NOT been presented with the reasons for his arrest [the charges] in English - but in Swedish, which neither he nor his lawyers can read...illegal by EU and International law. Seems they will use every dirty trick in the book.

Mr Assange will appear before City of Westminster magistrates so a decision can be made about whether the warrant is appropriate for extradition.

Mr Stephens has warned any attempt to extradite will be resisted, “mainly on the grounds that he may be handed over to the Americans”.

Sky News’ US correspondent Greg Milam said officials in Washington are watching developments “very closely”.

He added: “There is a growing clamour in the US for something to be done even if they’re not completely sure what that should be.

“The big fear for everyone here is what comes next. What will be contained in the next leak of documents and how damaging will that be?”
--------------------------------------------------
More and more this appears to me as the States [not U.S., but all States, as in Nations] v. The People!

[Magda Hassan]

Let's see how different they handle this to Pinochet

[Peter Lemkin]

Let's see how different they handle this to Pinochet

180 degrees different - States are usually [with a FEW notable exceptions] fascist in nature and friendly to dictators and fascists - not to whistleblowers and those that would tell State secrets..... Pinochet had an 'in' with the ruling rich elites in the most powerful nation. Assange is that same nation's declared enemy #2 [after the long dead OBL!]

[David Guyatt]

Let's see how different they handle this to Pinochet

Yep, will the usual double standard apply? I strongly suspect it will. Mass murderers go free thanks to their political clout and contacts, whereas an ordinary guy is arrested on trumped up charges and (will be?) extradited on such trivial evidence it is laughable.

The moral being, don't fuck with power because they will get you anyway they can. No matter what.

Vindictiveness at its worst it seems.

[Peter Lemkin]

JULIAN ASSANGE SHOULD BE FREE, BECAUSE:
HIS ARREST WARRANT WAS INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, DESCRIBED DIFFERENT CONDUCT THAN THE ALLEGED BY THE TWO WOMEN; THERE WERE ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO QUESTION HIM AND THE ARREST WARRANT WAS NOT ISSUED BY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.

Argument 1: JA Alleged conduct by two women do not reflect alleged conduct in arrest warrant
The original police complaint describes different conduct than the alleged conduct in arrest warrant.
A MISREPRESENTATION OF CONDUCT i.e. if documents do not match- IS SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the police report and the European Arrest warrant just don't match and the allegations in the European Arrest Warrant are different and more serious than those alleged by the Swedish women. That is enough to invalidate the arrest warrant.

Argument 2: Julian has not been even charged
ONLY ACCUSED PEOPLE CAN BE EXTRADITED VIA EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT FOR PROSECUTION, NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SUSPICION IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR EXTRADITION.
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the European Arrest Warrant was issued by a Swedish prosecutor for other legal purposes: interrogation. He has not been accused of any crime and there are not yet charges against him in Sweden.
JULIAN ASSANGE CASE IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL AN DISPROPORTIONATED because the prosecutor ignored Mutual Legal Assistance mechanisms to interrogate him in the UK, the prosecutor also ignored electronic mechanisms to interrogate him by using videoconference or other digital tools available and accepted as valid by Swedish courts. Instead, his freedom of movement and other related freedoms have been restricted for more than 200 days, staying almost 2 weeks in solitary confinement last December and almost seven months under house arrest with a strict curfew, electronic tagging and the duty to sign a book every day in a police station.

Argument 3: European Arrest Warrant was vague, rights restricted
Prosecutor issued order saying that offences occurred on August 18 or on any of the days before or after that day.
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IS VAGUE AND THE PERSON CANNOT HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF THE NATURE AND EXTEND OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the uncertainty around the dates when the allegations were committed invalidates the arrest warrant.

Argument 4: Extradition arrest warrant was not issued by a judicial authority
Judicial authority and mutual recognition principle was not respected.
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT WAS NOT ISSUED BY A COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
In the case of Assange v. Sweden the person who signed the request for extradition is not a judicial authority, BUT a public prosecutor. A prosecutor is by definition, not a judge, because the figure of a prosecutor is partisan. In contrast, a judicial authority is independent and impartial. The European Arrest Warrant should be issued by a judicial authority exercising recognisably judicial functions in an independent manner. A European Arrest Warrant was issued by a Swedish prosecutor on 26th November, 2010 and was neither evaluated nor ratified by a Judge.

Therefore, the EAW is void.

[Magda Hassan]

UK court backs Assange extradition request

Published: 02 November, 2011, 09:27
Edited: 02 November, 2011, 13:55

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, will be extradited from the UK to Sweden to face questioning over rape allegations. Britain's High Court has decided that there is enough evidence against the Australian citizen to grant the request.
Both Assange and the Swedish prosecutors have the right to take the case to the Supreme Court.
If it does go to the Supreme Court, it is likely that the entire basis of the European arrest warrant, under which people can be extradited to other EU countries to face questions with very little evidence, will be put under scrutiny. Many in the UK would welcome that.
If the judge rules out further appeals one of two things will happen. Assange could be set free immediately after 11 months living under strict bail conditions. Or his feet might not touch the ground as he could be extradited to Sweden within 14 days.
Either way, his life's work is under threat. WikiLeaks is in crippling financial trouble and maybe forced to close in the New Year.
http://rt.com/news/assange-british-higher-court-361/

[Magda Hassan]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71271943/Julia...-Nov-2011#

[Peter Lemkin]

Disappointing, of course - and no doubt much political pressure applied - as there were NO good reasons to extradite, as NO charges had been filed. It is as if any citizen can be forced back to another country only because the police want to interview them for the possibility of filing charges - even after they had and didn't take the long time they had to do so when he was there....what a joke!


This along with the announcement last week that Wikileaks is almost broke [due to their money being frozen and not allowed to be collected by mainstream methods] shows a coordinated campaign out of the American Empire to get him to the USA and try him for terrorism [i.e. life in prison with no trial or evidence....]

This from Professors Blog:
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
A fair trial for Assange?

Here is a sample of "juridical" irregularities - viewed from international standards - concerning the Swedish administration of Justice and particularly referred to the Swedish case against Julian Assange:


Sweden has a judiciary system in which judges participating in the courts are appointed by the political parties (there is not Jury-system in Sweden, neither exists in Sweden the institution of bail).
Sweden allows secret, "close-doors" trials. Particularly with regard to sexual-offences trials in which case secret trials is the most common form to be used in the Swedish system of justice.
The appealing system in Sweden has been notably reduced after a law of 2008 (the so called EMR reform) devised to curve down the number of cases resulting on appealing at higher courts.
In the Swedish case against Assange the police investigators conducted interrogations without video-recording, sound-tape recording or other form of transcription. This is an aggravating anomaly and which infringed clear standard proceedings as instructed by the Police Authority with regard to cases involved suspicions of rape.
The interrogation of one of the nominal accusers was performed by a police officer friend of the other nominal accuser.
The interrogation of Julian Assange could have very well have conducted in Sweden but the prosecutor chosen to issue an Interpol warrant what it made possible the fabrication of an extradition case.
The law-firm defending the accusers is co-owned by a politician member of the very same political group within the Swedish Social democratic party, Mr. Thomas Bodström (former Minister of Justice) and in which the accuser AA was at the time of the accusation the political secretary.
The actual lawyer appointed by the firm (the other co-owner of the law firm) is Mr. Claes Bogström, which, together with the prosecutor of the case Ms. Marianne Ny, and together with the former Minister of Justice and chairman of the Justice Committee of the Swedish Parliament Mr. Thomas Bodström participated in the study of the new legislation which radicalized the proceedings and penalties for sexual-offences in Sweden.
Mr. Thomas Bodström was the main politician - apart of the former Prime Minister Göran Persson - signalled around the agreements with CIA on the rendition of political refugees in Sweden to be transported to torture elsewhere. For that he was called upon the Swedish Constitutional Committee. The Swedish political parties however, as well as the mainstream media, did never really condemn such behaviour.