UNWGAD: Members are biased

jose-guevaraIf a judge is biased in an important case it is a miscarriage of justice. A scandal. If members of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) are biased it dispels “the myths that Assange chooses to remain in the Embassy or that he is a fugitive from justice.”  That is if one is to believe the contents in one of the UNWGAD members re-tweets.

Assange has lost in three separate courts in England. Judge Riddle, Sir John Thomas, Mr Justice Ouseley, Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson have been part of the proceedings and they have spent lots of time in order to reach a verdict. A verdict that is well argued and concise. That is a total of 10 judges. If one of those judges in direct connection to the published verdict had re-tweeted comments by the Swedish Prosecution Authority, articles by the Swedish Prosecutor Marianne Ny, the “Talk about it Campaign” or articles that defended their rulings we would all have been surprised and suspicious. Judges simply don’t behave this way. Judges are objective and unbiased.

For some unknown reason there are no demands on members of a UN Working Group, whose job it is to decide if an individual is arbitrary detained, to act objectively and unbiased. They can behave like activists and nobody cares. Take a look at what the vice chair José Guevara has been up to in connection to the publishing of the Opinion on Assange. Immediately he starts tweeting like a maniac. 15 tweets about the case. All in support of Assange. Not one in support of Sweden or the UK. Is he objective? You’ll be the judge.

Let Assange’s lawyers speak freely

tweet-comboOn the 5th of February, the same day as the Opinion was made public, our “objective and unbiased” friend re-tweets a link to an article by two of Assange’s lawyers, Melinda Taylor and Michael Ratner. To make sure the article is read, our “objective friend” makes sure that two different people are the originators.

Then let one Assange lawyer say it again

tweet-11On the 7th of February once more he links to one of Assange’s lawyers, Melinda Taylor. She wrote an araticle that our “objective friend” thinks everybody should read in order to understand how “objectively and without bias” UNWGAD reached this phenomenal decision and how important it is for Sweden and the UK to follow the recommendations. Melinda Taylor uses a strong voice when she declares:

The foreign secretary was apparently not briefed on the fact that WGAD is a specialised United Nations body composed of impartial, international legal experts, which applies binding standards of international law in the area of illegal and arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

Impartial, international legal experts? Like Mr Guevara? Ridiculous!

Climax, 500+ prominent individuals have no clue

tweet-15It is obviously not enough for our “objective friend” Mr Guevara to link to Assange’s lawyers. He wants us to know that there are 500+ “objective, unbiased, noble …” Human Rights Organizations and prominent individuals that are behind the “objective and unbiased panel” demanding that Assange should be set free. I can only quote Secretary of State Philip Hammond: “Ridiculous!” I’m not sure that is enough.

Among those 500+ there is one individual that I will take a closer look at in my next post. Then I will point out all the errors UNWGAD made when they reviewed the Assange case. And I will of course take apart Assange’s submission.

It is important to remember that two people in the UNWGA panel are completely innocent. One is Vladimir Tochilovsky who dared to contradict the activists in the panel and Ms. Leigh Toomey who was lucky to be left out.

UN Panel’s remarkable Opinion (54/2015) in the Assange case

OHCHRIt was a while since I posted anything on this blog. When the UN panel (UNWGAD) on 5 February 2016 published its remarkable opinion in the Assange case I was astonished. How could they reach this conclusion and why is the Opinion filled with factual errors? I had to investigate.

I now know that the panel kept Assange’s allegations secret for Sweden. Most likely the panel kept Assange’s allegations secret to the UK as well. In an adversarial procedure as the one in UNWGAD it is essential that the parties are given access to all of the allegations otherwise one party is discriminated and a decision will be faulty. From Factsheet 26 :

The Group attaches great importance to the adversarial character of its procedure. Consequently, the communication is forwarded to the Government concerned through diplomatic channels with an invitation to communicate to the Working Group within 90 days its comments and observations on the allegations made, both as regards the facts and the applicable legislation and concerning the progress and outcome of any investigations that may have been ordered.

The UNWGAD panel have violated their own rules in this case. They kept Sweden (and most likely the UK) in the dark of Assange’s allegations in order for them to declare Assange to be arbitrary detained.

It is evident that the UNWGAD Opinion is nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. What is the value of a panel like the UNWGAD when they operate more like a court in the former Soviet Union during Stalin’s time.

I will expose the UNWGAD’s practice in a series of posts. I will also expose Assange’s submission to the UNWGAD for what it really is. A collection false arguments, willful errors in translation and misleading lines of reasoning. So there is more coming.

Swedish Legal Facts: Why Mutual Legal Assistance wasn’t used in the Assange case

One reason the Assange case looks complicated is that Julian Assange and his legal team lie and misrepresent facts. For instance, they deny the fact that he’s been charged, they deny that he left Sweden to avoid interviews and they try to hide the fact that he had conditions for interviews. In two articles I have shown that Jennifer Robinson and Per E Samuelsson are very liberal with the truth, to say the least.

Another reason the case seems complicated is that the Swedish Prosecution Authority hasn’t explained the Swedish Criminal Procedure in terms easily understood. The Prosecutor General Anders Perklev is satisfied the English Judges have ruled correctly. I don’t think that is enough. It is important that justice is done. But is even more important that it can be seen to be done.

Finally, the Prosecutor Marianne Ny is not the best of communicators. She denied Björn Hurtig’s request for interviews in England with the words “For investigative reasons” it is not an option. Not a very good explanation.

For a long time Julian Assange and his lawyers have demanded that Julian Assange should be interviewed in England using Mutual Legal Assistance, MLA. They claim it is common that MLA is used in cases like his. Since the legal team makes this claim it is most likely not the full truth. “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important matters.”

In this article I will take a look at Mutual Legal Assistance and try explain what it is for and when it is used. It is not used in cases like Julian Assange’s and I will explain why. Continue reading

Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?

(Update March 16, 2013) Since I wrote this article exposing Craig Murray as a serial liar and inventor of stories he has responded in typical Craig Murray fashion. In a comment on his blog he says that he will never ever back up his claims. (Makes sense since it is impossible.) In a silly attempt to save his lying face he is doing what he can to censor me, making it impossible for me to comment on his blog from my IP address. So much for openness and freedom of speech.

pinnoccioPinocchio is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the 1883 children’s novel “The Adventures of Pinocchio”, by Carlo Collodi, an Italian writer, and has since appeared in many adaptations of that story and others. Carved by a woodcarver named Geppetto in a small Italian village, he was created as a wooden puppet but dreamed of becoming a real boy. He has also been used as a character who is prone to telling lies and fabricating stories for various reasons. Pinocchio is known for having a short nose that becomes longer when he is under stress, especially while lying. His clothes are made of flowered paper, his shoes are made of wood and his hat is made of bread.

Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador and wanna-be protagonist of the coming novel “The Adventures of Julian Assange”. He calls himself a “Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist” and a defender of free-speech. He prides himself of being a formidable textual analyst who can interpret police reports like nobody else.

In this article I will take a closer look at Craig Murray’s claims and his so called “textual analysis” capability in order to evaluate his claims. What his hat is made of I don’t know. I only know that what’s inside it isn’t functioning very well. Something the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office found out a long time ago.

Continue reading

If Jemima Khan can, anybody can

jemima-khan-4I don’t know Jemima Khan. But I have an opinion of her based on her support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And she impresses me.

For Jemima Khan truth is what is important. She feels passionately that democracy needs strong, free media. Elected governments, big corporations, politicians, organizations, lawyers and individuals lie to us all the time. It is very important for us to have true information about what is going on. As Bradley Manning puts it “without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public”.

In a recent very interesting article in New Statesman Jemima Khan reveals “How the Wikileaks founder alienated his allies. An article that I recommend everyone to read. She writes:

The problem is that WikiLeaks – whose mission statement was “to produce . . . a more just society . . . based upon truth” – has been guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.

Jemima Khan is aware that Julian Assange “is no more vulnerable to extradition to the US from Sweden than he is from the UK” contrary to the claims made by WikiLeaks. In fact he is less vulnerable to extradition in Sweden. Not one person has been extradited from Sweden to the US for political or military crimes in the last 50 years. Sweden did not even extradite the CIA defector Edward Lee Howard in 1992 even though the US did its best to get him. Continue reading

The UK Supreme Court, Susanne Maier @gerge42 and the truth

David Allen Green is legal commentator at New Statesmen. He has written a number of great articles about the Assange case in New Statesman and on his blog, Jack of Kent. He has coined the wonderful expression “zombie facts”.

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down;

Since David Allen Green is exposing many of the inconsistencies in Julian Assange’s legal teams arguments he is attacked in a number of ways. Some small minded people claim it is incorrect to call it “zombie facts” since facts are supposed to be true. Others claim that David Allen Green must be paid by the big Satan, USA, and part of a world wide conspiracy against Information Jesus. Just like so many of us that realize that Julian Assange and his legal team are very liberal with the truth.

Susanne Maier, @gerge42, is a prominent member of the fundamentalist Assange cult. Kind of like a self proclaimed Queen of Disinformation. She is one of the world’s most recognized collectors of zombie facts.

I have always wondered if you are dependent on zombie facts to survive, what does that make you? I understand being a zombie must have an up-side. It is like Halloween everyday. Trick of treat forever. Another version of “Ground Hog Day”. Is it fun? Don’t know. Ask Susanne.

I am not a fundamentalist. I am in no way saying that everything Susanne Maier claims is untrue. Just most of it. Continue reading

Per E. Samuelsson: Lawyer or liar?

In a recent post I showed that Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Australian Members of Parliament from March 2011 contains 57 varieties of “truth”. It is not possible to make that many errors without trying really hard. It is obvious that she did her best to deceive the MPs.

Per E. Samuelsson, one of Julian Assange’s Swedish lawyers, is doing his best trying to follow in Jennifer Robinson’s footsteps. In an article in the Guardian 2 July 2012 he makes many false claims. It is obvious that he is trying to deceive readers. I will deal with some of the claims in the order they appear.

“Sweden routinely imposes severe restrictions on suspects held on remand.”

How relevant is this statement to the Julian Assange case? Julian Assange’s legal teams have tried to tell the world that if Julian Assange would be extradited to Sweden he would be held incommunicado. Is it true? Continue reading

Jennifer Robinson: 57 varieties of “truth”

Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange’s legal advisor, wrote a brief to Canberra Members of Parliament in early March 2011. The idea was to give “some insights into the Julian Assange case”.The brief is overflowing with errors. Fiftyseven of them. 57 varieties of truth. Before I go into detail, a short introduction.

In July this year I was contacted by journalists behind Four Corners, Australian ABC’s investigative program. They wanted some information about the Assange case. I noted they were not particularly interested in facts showing that there was something seriously wrong with Julian Assange’s defence.

But they were very nice and warm people and I must say I took a liking to them. So when they asked if I would help along with some pictures I immediately said yes .

When the program, Sex Lies and Julian Assange, aired on July 23 I saw Jennifer Robinson look straight into the camera without batting an eye and in a sweet voice say:

“You only need to look at the way that Red Notices are used around the world. Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators. The president of Syria does not have a Red Notice alert. Gaddafi in Libya, at the same time Julian’s arrest warrant was issued, was not subject to a Red Notice but an Orange Notice. It was an incredibly… it was incredibly unusual that a red notice would be sought for an allegation of this kind.

She completely knocked me out. Not for being good looking which she is, but for what she said. She revealed a monumental ignorance of Interpol Notices implying that even the Interpol are in on some conspiracy against Julian Assange. I could not believe my ears. And she is supposed to be a Human Rights lawyer.

I then remembered Jennifer wrote a brief to Canberra MPs in March 2011, about a week after the verdict in the first extradition hearing. Reading through the brief again there were so many errors I had to count them all. I noticed fifty seven errors, 57. Some repeats. Continue reading

The Assange case: The prosecutor has not declined offers for interviews

The Swedish version of the Freedom of Information Act, Offentlighets och sekretesslagen, is a law for openness and transparency. It guarantees ordinary people the right to see government documents so people can be well informed and check what is going on.

In the Assange case all the documents released from the police are lawfully released under the “Offentlighets och sekretesslagen”. There are no leaks from the police. The only confirmed leak is the Detention Memorandum (Häktningspromemoria) that was leaked by Julian Assange’s lawyers. Even though the first page states “Please notice that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else” it did not stop the English legal team from leaking the documents to the public.

Since some people are convinced that there is foul play involved in the Assange case numerous requests under the Offentlighets och sekretesslagen have been made. The latest released documents are the contacts between the prosecutor Marianne Ny and Julian Assange’s lawyer Björn Hurtig. The documents does not indicate any foul play. On the contrary, it indicates that Julian Assange is not telling the truth. Continue reading

Julian Assange and Rick Downes unveiled again

Whenever there is new information one would imagine that it would have an impact on people’s perceptions. That is not the case when the people involved are converted Julian Assange fans. Facts are not important. If facts do not support Julian Assange’s story, just disregard them. Pretend they don’t exist and pray that nobody will find out. And if facts are found, attack the person that found them because they must have an agenda.

What happened on 6 October 2010?

According to Julian Assange’s official hearsay the prosecutor Marianne Ny has been playing a game of trying to arrest Julian Assange in public in order to humiliate him. To ambush Julian Assange. “Marianne Ny double-crossed Julian Assange. Of that there is no doubt. All along there’s been a shadow game as the war of words played out in the media. It’s a hidden war kept away from the public eye that explains what’s really going on and why Julian Assange is rightfully apprehensive about returning to Sweden.” Continue reading