Assange’s lawyers lie about Interpol Red Notices

One of INTERPOL’s most important functions is to help police in its member countries share critical crime-related information using a system of international notices. Police can use Interpol notices to alert law enforcement in other countries of potential threats, or to ask for assistance in solving crimes. The notices are colored depending on their function. Notices can also be used by the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court and international criminal tribunals to warn that certain individuals and entities face UN sanctions.

During my life I have made a number of mistakes. Some sillier than others. A recent mistake has been trusting that Julian Assange’s lawyers were informed and acted in compliance with the code of conduct for lawyers. I have been forced to realize that the lawyers are both ignorant and they lie. And their conduct is not what I would have expected of lawyers.

In a recent documentary on ABC Australia, “Sex, lies and Julian Assange”, some 14 minutes and 5 seconds into it Jennifer Robinson, UK legal advisor to Julian Assange, says the following:

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.

If it was “incredibly unusual” for a Red Notice to be sought for a rape allegation how come Jennifer Robinson didn’t check this in a little more detail? If “Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators” how come Gaddafi was not subject to a Red Notice she asks. This is a most interesting point. If Jennifer’s statement is true there’s a double “incredibly unusual”. First “incredibly unusual” that Julian was subject to a Red Notice. Second “incredibly unusual” that a dictator of the caliber of Gaddafi was not subject to a Red Notice. So what does Jennifer Robinson do when she finds double “incredibly unusual”? She does absolutely nothing. She just repeats her message like a parrot. “Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators.”  I would have imagined double “incredibly unusual” called for a serious check. I would have imagined that a human rights lawyer would make sure that an evil man like Gaddafi was properly chased by Interpol.

Facts about Interpol Notices

Let’s look at the description of three different Interpol Notices. Guess which one’s is applicable to Julian Assange and which one to Gaddafi.

  1. To seek the location and arrest of a person wanted by a judicial jurisdiction or an international tribunal with a view to his/her extradition.
  2. To warn about a person’s criminal activities if that person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety.
  3. To warn of an event, a person, an object or a process representing an imminent threat and danger to persons or property.

I think you agree with me number 1 is most applicable to Julian Assange and that number 3 is most applicable to Gaddafi.

Notices have different FUNCTIONS. It is not as Jennifer Robinson makes us believe that the color has something to do with the dangerousness of the person or crimes committed. “Dictators get red and tax evaders get yellow.”

From the picture on the left, click to enlarge, we can see that Red Notices are used for people that are wanted for extradition. Just like Julian Assange. And there are many Red Notices issued for crimes much less serious than rape.

As of today there are 21 persons wanted by Sweden that are subjects to Red Notices. I think everybody understands that Sweden is not looking for 21 “terrorists and dictators”. Even Jennifer Robinson understands that.

One of these individuals is Stefan Daniel Oscarsson. He is subject to a Red Notice for thefts. Wanted by Sweden. He is a Swedish citizen. It proves that Red Notices are used for people that are wanted for extradition, that Swedish citizens that have committed thefts can be subjects and that Jennifer Robinson does not have a clue of what she is talking about. She is not alone. There’s a group of lawyers around Julian Assange that are in a similar position.

Below you can see how many notices Interpol issued in 2011. If Jennifer Robinson was right there should be 7 678 dictators and terrorists being wanted. Thank God Jennifer is completely wrong.

Why is it that Jennifer Robinson, who is an intelligent person, just repeats a blatant lie without reflecting? I am 100% convinced that if Jennifer would be on her own she should have checked the facts before she spoke. But she is not alone. She is in a very large group of lawyers around Julian Assange.

When you are supposed to be a human rights lawyer you cannot repeat lies (so called Assange truths) and hope that you will be respected. People will find out. As a lawyer you have to work hard, make investigations and check facts before you talk. That is the best way to help your client.

Is Jennifer Robinson the only Assange lawyer that lies about Red Notices? As you know by now, she’s not alone. The pack of Assange lawyers is into some kind of groupthink. They all seem to regurgitate the same lies. And nobody seems to be checking facts. I just wonder from where to the lawyers get there information? Who’s the source.

The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against out-groups.

3 thoughts on “Assange’s lawyers lie about Interpol Red Notices

  1. Goren,
    I’m confused.
    I saw Jen Robinson on TV saying that Sweden had declined Equador’s offer/suggestion that they interview JA in their London Embassy. Yet, JR indicated she had been informed of this, my impression was, by JA and had not seen any documentation of this “declining” …

    Reuters reporting the story states:

    But following a meeting with Correa on Wednesday Patino said he had “unofficially” learned that Sweden had turned down the offer. He said he was disappointed about Sweden’s decision because it “makes the situation more complicated.

    Sweden’s foreign ministry declined to comment, but a Swedish prosecution authority spokesman said prosecutor Marianne Ny had turned down an offer to interrogate Assange in Ecuador’s Embassy in London.

    The spokesman said the offer was made by Assange’s Swedish lawyer Per Samuelsson, but that the prosecution authority had not been in contact with Ecuadorean officials. He said he was unaware if there had been any contacts at government level.

    Ecuador wants to avoid Assange’s extradition to Sweden

    I do not understand the “coyness” here … is this secondary to some routine blanket “gag order” attached to any “sex crime” investigation? (I note that there is never any mention of any conditions Team Assange might have placed the interview — the expected being access to the case file).

    I thought of you watching Jen Robinson who — it became apparent — was merely that day’s designated media representative and — who afterwards launched into the “usual” list of “concerns.”

    Your thoughts?

    (I edited your comment. OK? Göran)

    • I would assume that the prosecutor would turn down any offer to interview Julian at the Ecuadorian Embassy. An interview in the Embassy is just pointless. The offer is just part of Julian’s failed propaganda campaign.

      Julian has asked for political asylum because he fears for his life if he is extradited to Sweden. What Ecuador has to do is to investigate if there are any grounds for his claim. That is looking at the law and checking the history of previous extraditions. As I have stated before, there are no grounds for Julian’s claim that his life is at risk. It is nothing more than imagined fear. So far Ecuador has not shown anything that indicates that Julian’s life is at risk.

      Instead Ecuador gets involved in the sex case in Sweden by making comments and “offering” interviews at the Embassy. It looks to me like Ecuador is likely to grant Julian political asylum and they are doing it in such a way that they think they can blame the Swedish prosecutor for it.

  2. And what about the claims by prosecution that an interview abroad would be illegal? Apparently it turns out it is not and they could have done it.

    Not “British or Swedish law” or as they claimed in the first hearing they needed DNA samples and this could only be done in Sweden, not even the EAW would have hindered them.

    The footnote “Fotnot: Artikeln har i vissa delar formulerats om eftersom uppgifter från åklagarmyndigheten angående svensk lagstiftning kring utlandsförhör, som låg till grund för den ursprungliga artikeln, visat sig vara felaktiga.”

    is quite something, I’d say.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *