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.

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.

I don’t know who Susanne Maier is. Or what she does for a living. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Just give her a sweet.

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.

21 thoughts on “The UK Supreme Court, Susanne Maier @gerge42 and the truth

  1. Still the fact remains that Julian Assange is not charged, formerly or otherwise the formal part is important, one either stands charged, or one can be under gross suspicion, both of these matters are under the control of Sweden. In this Queens Council and Rhodes Scholar Geoffrey Robertson, ‘distinguished jurist’ member of the United Nations Justice Council agrees, Assange is not charged. Take it from his own lips

    http://youtu.be/sbz6efSN7A4

    The essence of the claim ‘not charged’ taken to be true, otherwise there would be no point to the formality of the charging process, and/or the legal status of being a person or persons under a charge, hence people would have the right to be indifferent to it.

    People will readily accept the notion that Mr Assange is a person charged, when Sweden charges him. Until then feel free to take the matter up with Mr. Robertson, QC.

    My kindest regards,
    R. Riley.

    • Geoffrey Robertson is part of Julian Assange’s legal team. His argument that Julian isn’t charged has been rejected by the Magistrates’ and High Court. The High Court ruling have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Geoffrey’s argument was declared flawed on 24 February 2011. He seems not to have understood that yet.

      I don’t think that you have listened to the interview properly. About 2:45 Geoffrey states that Julian hasn’t been charged. At around 2:55 Geoffrey states that Julian at some stage have to answer the charges brought against him in Sweden. It is correct that Julian has not been formally charged, indicted.

      Geoffrey makes another interesting comment. He is trying to argue that a prosecutor cannot be a “judicial authority”. Another one that has been declared flawed three times in English courts.

      Geoffrey’s point is that a prosecutor is not a court. That is correct in a literary sense. But that is not the issue. What it is about is if an accused is having a chance to have his case heard in an independent court before an EAW is issued. The issue is not what person signs the EAW.

      In England a prosecutor asks a Judge to issue an EAW. The Judge has to decide if the suspicions are serious enough. If so the Judge issues an EAW. In Sweden the process is slightly different. The prosecutor asks a court for an arrest warrant. If the court finds the suspicions are serious enough, probable cause, an arrest warrant is issued, “häktad på sannolika skäl”. It is not until a prosecutor has an arrest warrant that a prosecutor can issue an EAW. In both countries the suspect is having his case tried in an independent court.

      In Sweden an arrest warrant can be issued on charges on reasonable grounds. A lower level of suspicion than probable cause. A prosecutor is not allowed to issue an EAW if the suspicions are not severe enough.

      The Queens Council and Rhodes Scholar Geoffrey Robertson, ‘distinguished jurist’ member of the United Nations Justice Council has been given his chance to have his arguments tested in three independent English courts. He has lost every single time. If you want to argue this you have to bring it up to the European Court of Human Rights. Julian didn’t. I can tell you what the outcome would have been. He would have lost there too.

      • “He seems not to have understood that yet.”
        Robertson suggested that this was ‘inevitable’ (1.14)

        “He is trying to argue that a prosecutor cannot be a “judicial authority”
        A prosecutor is not a Judicial Authority, a Prosecutor remains the adversary to the defense in an adversarial case, and cannot be said to be offering a free and fair view sufficing the needs and administrations of the Courts. The only people that can offer that are Judges and Magistrates. It is as Robertson points out a contradiction in terms, something he asserted to before these matters arose in a court or hearing.

        “In Sweden the process is slightly different”
        Actually it is a lot different, in England would ordinarily require a subject be charged before an EAW can be respected, this is primarily the reason that this was discussed, because the matter had never arisen before, which somewhat explains it’s uniqueness as a decision.

        “The Queens Council and Rhodes Scholar Geoffrey Robertson, ‘distinguished jurist’ member of the United Nations Justice Council has been given his chance to have his arguments tested in three independent English courts. He has lost every single time”
        Robertson knew he would in all probability lose (2.01) in his escalated matters to these ‘hearings’.

        This is quite different from suggesting these matters are cleared to proceed to a Court, where in which matters of evidence would have been tested, something as it seems you have had some difficulty with yourself, having used the label ‘deliberate and calculated lies’ in speaking of one of these women. These hearings merely looked at the matter of the provisions of the EAW had been met, forwarding to Extradition. These Hearings are (one would hope) not an indication of how the matters would proceed in a Court.

        Sweden could at any time been more accommodating in any number of ways to settle this matter, having interviewed Assange in London as they have had before, or having Assange charged as would ordinarily be required in the UK, or having removed the impost or likelihood of further extradition/rendition to the United States, which the politicos are quite entitled to do.

        Quite why the Swedish system is seemingly unable to fairly deal with its own matters of procedural fairness ought not be allowed to go unmentioned either.

        (1) The collaboration between the women via SMS prior to the original order for arrest being given.
        (2) The attempted removal of evidence by one of the women which one would assume did not fit favorably with her statements to Police.
        (3) The additional collaboration with the Police Officer Krans, friend and associate of one of the women also socially connected to Assange.
        (4) The matter of releasing/leaking information to the tabloid Expressen, where Assange first learns of his plight.
        (5) Assange sub-judice treatment in printed media (including the internet) both in Sweden and abroad.

        One could easily establish in their mind, the impression that Sweden’s legal system was so awash with corrupted activity so much so as to make a fair trial impossible. I must say I wouldn’t be keen to arrive in such a place if at all avoidable.

        My kindest regards,
        R. Riley.

        • Robert Riley,
          strong>Julian is charged. Two English courts have ruled he is. If Julian wasn’t charged the courts could have ruled he should be extradited to Sweden. What Geoffrey thinks is maybe interesting to you and to Geoffrey.

          The Supreme Court ruled that the a prosecutor can be considered a judicial authority. The matter has arisen many many times before. It is a standard argument in extradition hearings. What was unique was that it was the first time it was appealed to the Supreme Court. The argument was killed by the court. Geoffrey may think whatever he likes. Geoffrey lost the argument. You know he lost. Why do you go on about this? It is over and done.

          My opinion about one of the accusers is not relevant. I am not a judicial authority. We don’t need to ask the Supreme Court about that.

          I note your opinion of the Swedish legal system. Maybe it is of interest to Geoffrey Robertson.

  2. Can I ask for clarification on three points

    Is the Swedish prosecution’s investigation into the facts of the case complete?

    Has the Swedish prosecution decided to prosecute JA in the courts for the substantial offences?

    What exactly is the purpose of Prosecutor Ny interview with JA?

    You may not know the answer to these questions, but an answer to these questions would unscramble much of the muddle around the term “being charged.”

    • Ben,

      You can ask me anything. If I don’t know the answer I will try to find the information for you. I cannot guarantee that I am always right but I can assure you that I will do everything I can to find the truth. Your questions are really good. Here are the answers.

      “Is the Swedish prosecution’s investigation into the facts of the case complete?”

      No. The suspect is not yet heard about the charges. When Julian is interviewed new information may surface that warrants new questions for the accusers.

      “Has the Swedish prosecution decided to prosecute JA in the courts for the substantial offences?”

      No. I think the prosecutors are convinced there is a case against him. They are not allowed to decide to indict Julian until he is interviewed and he has entered a plea.

      “What exactly is the purpose of Prosecutor Ny interview with JA?”
      I don’t know if Prosecutor Ny will be interviewing Julian. The Prosecutor in charge of the case is Prosecutor Lejnefors.

      Basically there are three main purposes of the “final” interview. Firstly they want to hear Julian’s side of the story. He may give information that warrants new questions to the accusers. Secondly they will ask him to enter a plea. Thirdly Julian will be given a chance to ask for new and/or extended investigations. Are there more witnesses to be interviewed? etc.

      • In short, if your answers are correct, the investigation phase is on-going and is legally stalled because JA cannot be brought before the prosecutor for interview.

        That would lead me to make one judgement, and to re-ask one question.

        JUDGEMENT: if this is indeed the state of the investigation, one would not say in English law concepts that that the suspect has been charged – even though this word could be used differently to describe the state of affairs in Sweden.

        QUESTION: why can’t that part of the prosecutor’s interview with JA that only concerns his version of the events that constitute the alleged crime be held in London?

        • The investigation, in Swedish called “förundersökning” (preliminary investigation), is still ongoing and stalled because JA cannot be brought for a prosecutor. You are correct.

          I disagree with your judgment. After a suspect is charged in England there is an investigation. The suspect can be free on bail or held in a remand prison. It is not until the investigation is finished, charges brought and the suspects has entered a plea of not guilty that a prosecutor can make a decision to indict.

          In Sweden it is similar. The legal terms are different. A person is considered charged when the police/prosecutor suspects a person on at least reasonable grounds. An investigation by the police cannot be started unless a person is charged with a crime.

          I am working on an article explaining why the prosecutor cannot and shouldn’t interview Julian in London. This is just a short reply. Julian is charged on probable cause. A high level of suspicion. The prosecutors think they have enough evidence to indict him. In an interview Julian will be asked to enter a plea. If he enters a plea of not guilty, most likely, the prosecutors will likely indict him. In a trial Julian has to be in Sweden. To interview Julian in England is meaningless since Julian cannot be tried in a Swedish court in the Embassy of Ecuador.

          • Just for you information: from England’s Crown Proseuction Service

            http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/decision_to_charge/

            How do Crown Prosecutors make the decision to charge a suspect with a crime?
            The Crown Prosecutor will read the papers in the file and look at the evidence collected by the police. They then consider whether the case passes the two tests laid down in The Code for Crown Prosecutors.

            1.The Evidential Test
            The prosecutor must first decide whether or not there is enough evidence against the defendant for them to be convicted of the crime in a court of law.

            This means that the magistrates or jury are more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge. If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.
            It is the duty of every Crown Prosecutor to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence. In doing so, Crown Prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not just to get a conviction.

            (end of quoted text)

            It seems to me from your own answers that the Assange case is not at the “charge stage” if one applied English law concepts to the Swedish system. That is why so many people object to the statement that JA has already been charged.

          • The High Court ruling again:
            “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.”

            The Judges are very clear. If the English standard would be used Julian would have been charged. It is a similar standard in Sweden. Julian is an accused person and charged with a crime. If this was not a correct the Supreme Court would have overruled the High Court.

            In England rape is an indictable offence. If Julian would have committed the crime in England he would have been charged and the police would started an investigation. Once the investigation was finished charges would be brought and Julian had to enter a plea. After a not guilty plea the prosecutor would then decide whether or not to indict. It is not until indictment (enter a plea) that the case file is disclosed. Rarely there are investigations after indictment. After indictment a time would be set for trial.

            The CPS documents you link to are not well written in my view. The “investigation” the documents refer to prior to a charge should be named preliminary inquiry or something to distinguish it from the investigation after a charge.

            Our original disagreement is whether or not there is an investigation after a charge. Of course there is. Look at it like this. In England if you are suspected of murder the longest time you can be arrested without a charge is 96 hours. If you would be correct, that there is no investigation after a charge, most murderers would be set free since it is extremely difficult to conduct a full murder investigation in 96 hours.

          • Ben,

            After some work I have found the relevant text from CPS and the relevant test for a rape case similar to the Assange case. The text is the The Code for Crown Prosecutors and you find it here. The relevant test is the Threshold test, pages 16-18. From the first paragraph:

            “However, there will be cases where the suspect presents a substantial bail risk if released and not all the evidence is available at the time when he or she must be released from custody unless charged.”

            As you can see from the text it is evident that the suspect is charged and the investigation continues until there is either enough evidence to indict or lack of evidence to drop the charges.

          • “I am working on an article explaining why the prosecutor cannot and shouldn’t interview Julian in London.”

            Good, I look forward to reading it. It would be better, however, to examine both sides of the issue and come to a conclusion at the end.

        • “In short, if your answers are correct, the investigation phase is on-going and is legally stalled because JA cannot be brought before the prosecutor for interview.”

          Let us remind ourselves of two very usual caveats:

          That one has the right to the presumption of innocence, even in Sweden.

          Under the European Court of Human Rights it is held that the (subject) right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6

          one wonders just what the power of ‘Interview’ would produce in such a circumstance. If Sweden has a case it would have done well by all concerned to have charged Assange.

          My kindest regards,
          R. Riley.

  3. Maybe u should continue to worry about your small p.enis Göran. At least that keeps u occupied and leaves u no time to insult others.

    PS:I can see how being betrayed by your special friend braingarbage must have hurt but this article is no approbriate response. Or in other words: don`t attack the messenger (insulting strangers isn`t going to undo what braingarbage did to u)!

    • Sometimes I just don’t get it. Who is the messenger? Who are the strangers? What is the message?

      For some time I’ve been asked by people why I disagree with the Supreme Court. Since I don’t I was baffled by the questions. When one source for the claim was pointed out to me, Susanne Maier, I tried to find the facts she based her claim on. I couldn’t find any. Have you?

      When I realized Susanne Maier doesn’t even understand how to interpret the Supreme Courts correction I thought is was really funny. She doesn’t even understand that Julian is charged.

      If you get into to contact with Susanne Maier tell her to contact me on this page.

  4. Regaring the subject matter of your eh article. I have never said that JA isn`t CONSIDERED charged by the UK courts for the purpose of extradition (as he WOULD have been charged by now had the alleged crimes taken place in the UK which they have NOT:
    However these are Swedish allegations that will be treated acc.to Swedish law (once he is extradited). As the High Court said suspects in the UK are formally charged very early contrary to Sweden were suspects are indicted very late (2 weeks before a trial takes place).

    PS: Not that I really care one way or another as nothing said on your blog (except for your report on the deleted tweets) has the slightest influence on this case. I generally enjoy a good argument but certainly not with someone who personally insults everyone who disagrees with him. Seems to be a characteristic of many WL crtiics eg. u, Alan Tayler, Heather Brooke,…I wonder why that is?

    • Susi2,

      Please read and consider what you write.

      In England a person is charged at an early stage and indicted late in the process.

      This exactly as in Sweden. A person is charged at an early stage and indicted at a late stage.

      The only difference is that in England a charge is a formal decision. In Sweden it is not a formal decision.

      We agree. But it seems like you don’t understand that.

  5. BEING CHARGED

    Of course, in England, investigation into the case may go on after a suspect has been charged (and in many cases, as you point out, it must), though the suspect is not normally interviewed after charge; and historically he never was.

    The point is that if you say in England that Mr X has been charged, it implies (i) the CPS has sufficient evidence to convince a jury or magistrate of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) the CPS thinks it in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution. The suspect will then be brought promptly before a court and the evidence supporting the charge must be stated. The court may release the suspect on bail or else remand him in custody pending trial.

    Now it is my understanding that conditions (i) and (ii) above have not yet been reached in the Assange case in Sweden. That is why persons familiar with Anglo-Saxon law find the use of the term “charged” confusing and say that JA has not been charged yet. Swedish use of the term may be different.

    That said, there is actually no dispute about the how far the case has got in Sweden.

    • I think you are disagreeing with High Court and the Supreme Court:
      “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.”

      The Judges don’t have any problems? I don’t really understand your problems. Can you explain?

    • What I just came to think of is if what you are saying is true it means that you say an arrest warrant can be issued without specified suspicion. I know that is not true. So your claim that Julian isn’t charged in an Anglo-Saxon context is false. Add to this the weight of the Judges in High and Supreme Court.

      • In England someone can be arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence. If the police wish to keep the suspect in custody, they must charge him within hours of the arrest. Alternatively, he may be released on “police bail” and given a date on which to re-appear at the police station, when he is charged or the case is dropped.

        Charging doesn’t mean an end of the inquiry, but it does signal a decision to prosecute, evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (in the prosecutor’s opinion) and a need to produce the suspect and preliminary evidence in a court for committal proceedings. After charge the suspect is no longer interviewed.

        On the evidence in this case (as far as I understand it), I doubt whether JA would have been charged at all by CPS, and if he had been, a jury would almost certainly acquit him.

        What is clearly going on in Sweden – to use simple English – is that the prosecution is engaged in an on-going inquiry into the facts of the case, is legally obliged to interview the accused, but because that interview has not taken place the investigation has stalled. JA is under arrest (by means of an EAW) but that arrest cannot be effected because he is inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Leave a Reply

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

*