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.
It is true that I can be verbally aggressive sometimes. Especially towards mental midgets that make ridiculous false claims. Like zombie fact collector Susanne Maier. And you know what? I don’t think I am unfair. “Jeder bekommt das was es verdient.”
The Supreme Court ruling
For some time I’ve read on twitter that I am supposed to disagree with the UK Supreme Court. I don’t know if it is Susanne Maier who first made this statement. It is not important. She is re-tweeting it zombie style.
Is it true? Of course not. Get this. When Susanne Maier is saying something most likely it is untrue. I agree fully with the Supreme Court. What I find amusing with Susanne’s claim is that she is unaware of the fact that she is the one that disagrees with the Supreme Court. She just doesn’t have a clue. But forgive her, she thinks it is Halloween everyday. Give her a sweet.
It seems like the misconception originates from one of my responses to a Brita Sundberg-Weitman comment on my blog. She is of the opinion that Julian Assange is not charged. Why Brita is of this opinion is because she thinks being charged is the same as being indicted. I am not saying that Brita is a zombie, she is just ill informed just like so many other Assange supporters. But forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing.
In the ruling 14 June 2012 the Supreme Court makes a correction in the High Court ruling:
Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in respect of which his extradition is sought”.
The Queen of Disinformation’s interpretation
Susanne Maier, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, @AssangeFacts and a flock of Assange zombies thinks this is to be interpreted as if the Supreme Court has ruled that Julian Assange is not to be considered charged. How they come to this conclusion is difficult for a normal person to understand.
The zombies have no idea of what “stands charged” mean. It means standing formally charged in a court of law. Or as I put it, being indicted. Everybody knows that Julian Assange is not yet indicted. That is why the Supreme Court changed the wording.
If the Supreme Court thought that Julian Assange was not considered charged, accused, he could not have been extradited to Sweden. I guess this is beyond Assange supporters comprehension. Way beyond Susanne’s.
To the left is one of Susanne’s tweets. From it one can easily draw the conclusion that she is of the opinion that Julian is not charged. She does not understand that the Supreme Court ruled that the High Courts ruling should stand. Julian Assange is an accused person and to be considered charged:
“In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.”
It is hilarious that Susanne is criticizing me for not agreeing with the Supreme Court. I do agree with the Supreme Court. She does not have a clue that she’s the one that is disagreeing. Give her a sweet. She just doesn’t understand.
When I read Susanne’s zombie tweets I smile. Can I detect a tone of prejudice against taxi drivers? It is true that I sometimes drive a taxi. It is true that I don’t call myself a Human Rights Taxi Driver. It is true that I don’t write briefs to Australian MPs containing 57 varieties of “truth”. I am not saying taxi drivers are Nobel laureates. But most of them can identify a zombie. Even the one-eyed one’s pulling rickshaws.
It is enough for me to know that she is full of the stuff most of us leave behind after sitting down briefly in the smallest room in our houses.