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 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
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
Lately I’ve been asked by many Assangeistas why I was a witness for Julian Assange in February 2011 since now I am critical to Julian Assange. It is very simple. Being a witness is not being a bought megaphone. Being a witness is not about being a supporter. A trial is not a high school popularity contest or a football game. It is about verifiable facts and circumstances. And proper process. Being a witness is about telling the truth about facts you know. On this blog I have been telling the truth since I started in May 2010. I will continue to do so even if it makes Julian Assange and his followers angry. Continue reading