Author: admin

Businessman and activist Joe Corré had been trying to organise a meeting with an invited audience to openly debate Julian Assange’s probable extradition to the United States. His plan was to hold the event at Chatham House where people could speak freely, and he approached establishment figures as well as campaigners so that all views could be heard in a balanced and fair way.

But the organisers say that in the week before the event was due to happen, despite a booking and deposit made last November, Chatham House cancelled the reservation without discussion. As a result, the meeting was hastily relocated to The Frontline Club in Paddington, but at the last minute the former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, also pulled out.

The only establishment figure remaining, former foreign diplomat Claire Smith, wished to maintain Chatham House rules and requested her views were not shared, but the rest of the panel have all given their permission and this exclusive Real Media film presents highlights from their contributions along with interviews with the organiser, and Julian Assange’s biological father, John Shipton.

James Goodale, the former vice-president and general counsel at the New York Times (who won a court case the US administration over publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971) spoke via Skype from America. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, spoke alongside former political commentator at The Telegraph, Peter Oborne, and former director at Reprieve, eminent human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith OBE.

‘Assange Would Only Get 40 Years For Genocide, But 175 Years For Leaking The Truth About American War Crimes’ – UN Special Rapporteur On Torture, Nils Melzer

Watch video and read whole article in Real Media ‘The News You Don’t See’

Ray McGovern writes on 6th February 2020

A major German TV network has aired an interview with the UN rapporteur on torture that reveals the invention of the Swedish “rape” case against Julian Assange.

Truth has broken through for those confused about how a publisher ended up in a maximum security prison in London with a one-way extradition ticket to court in the U.S. and the rest of his life behind bars.

One of the main German TV channels (ZDF) ran two prime-time segments on Wednesday night exposing authorities in Sweden for having “made up” the story about Julian Assange being a rapist. 

Until last night most Germans, as well as other consumers of “major media” in Europe, had no idea of the trickery that enmeshed Assange in a spider-web almost certainly designed by the U.S. and woven by accomplices in vassal states like Sweden, Britain and, eventually, Ecuador. 

ZDF punctured that web by interviewing UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer. One ZDF “Heute Sendung” segment (in German) is especially telling from minute 13:00 to 15:30 . The second is ZDF “Heute Journal” (minute 25:49 to 30:19.)

Both ZDF programs show Melzer being interviewed, with minimal interruption or commentary, letting his findings speak for themselves about how allegations against Assange were “made up” and manipulated to hold him captive. 

The particularly scurrilous allegation that led many, including initially Melzer, to believe Assange was a rapist — a tried and tested smear technique of covert action — was especially effective.  The Swedes never formally charged him with rape — or with any crime, for that matter.  ZDF exhibited some of the documents Melzer uncovered that show the sexual allegations were just as “invented” as the evidence for WMD before the attack on Iraq.

. . .

Read Full Article in Consortium News

Editor’s Note: Julian believes Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli’s work leads to the ever accellerating unravelling of Sweden’s case against him.

Download whole book in pdf format

On 6th February 2020 Greg Barns is a barrister and Adviser to the Australian Assange Campaign.  Lisanne Adam is a Netherlands trained lawyer and an adviser on EU Law write

Julian Assange’s fight against extradition to the United States from the UK highlights breaches of his rights under European human rights law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is likely to take a very dim view of the United States’ conduct because to allow extradition would breach a number of Mr Assange’s human rights. But it is a long road to the EctHR.

. . .

Effective participation in proceedings

The right to a fair trial has been enshrined in the ECHR and has been strongly supported by the ECtHR. This right protects individuals against arbitrary government and prescribes fair procedures. Relevant to Assange are a few specific protections.

The equality of parties to proceedings is imbalanced. Equality of arms is a right encompassing the protection of many elements in proceedings. Relevant to Assange’s case is access to the right to counsel, documents needed to effectively prepare his defence and fitness to stand trial. The importance of these rights has been recognised in Strasbourg. The right to be effectively defended by counsel is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial. The ECtHR has firmly protected the right to counsel on numerous occasions and argued that access to counsel is of critical importance for an individual to effectively defend him or herself. Despite this, Assange’s access to liaise with counsel has been restricted, demonstrating a clear violation of the ECHR. In the same vein, Assange has been denied access to relevant documentation underpinning the charges against him. The ECtHR has scrutinised prosecutorial conduct involving withholding material from defence stressing that an accused must be provided with an opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on evidence adduced by the prosecutor. Lastly, the importance of competence to undergo legal proceedings is a right implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure.

The ECtHR has confirmed several cumulative conditions that governments and the courts are required to protect. . One of these conditions is to ensure the defendant is in a position of sound decision making – that is, to make well-informed choices when defending oneself against criminal charges. Fitness to undergo legal proceedings is assessed on the ability to understand the situation and subsequently effectively instruct counsel based on rational decisions. Due to his prolonged exposure to psychological torture, Assange’s mental and physical health is rapidly deteriorating. This affects his sound decision making and therefore, violates his right to a fair trial.

. . .

Although the circumstances outlined above indicate Assange has a strong case, it can take years before the ECtHR could consider his case and ensure justice. Other cases involving extradition requests to the UK have demonstrated that these lengthy proceedings can take up to 15 years.

. . .

Read Full article in John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations

On 23/11/2019 Mohamed Elmaazi writes an article

Editors Note: This is being included for completeness of records here. There is a feeling there is a lot room for movement in this story even though it starts as early as 2018

The extent of undisclosed conflicts of interest involving the Chief Judge overseeing the case of WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange were revealed in a detailed analysis by British historian Mark Curtis and investigative journalist Matt Kennard, published on 14 November 2019.

In 2018, former British diplomat and whistleblower Craig Murray revealed that the husband of Senior District Judge Lady Emma Arbuthnot, the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, ran a security firm with the former head of the Secret Intelligence Services (SIS, aka MI6). Judge Arbuthnot made rulings which directly, and negatively, impacted the case of WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange; a case she continues to oversee as Chief Magistrate.

Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard’s new report, published on 14 November in the DAILY MAVERICK, significantly builds upon Murray’s article, revealing an expansive web of national security state connections, all of which Judge Arbuthort failed to disclose as potential conflicts of interest while she dealt with Assange’s case.

. . .

Curtish and Kennard point out that while Judge Arbuthnot, “has recently appointed a district judge to rule on Assange’s extradition case”, as Chief Magistrate she, “remains the supervising legal figure in the process”.

Failing to Disclose a Conflict of Interest

As the report’s authors point out, there is no evidence to suggest that the Turkish state, or the UK or US intelligence or military organisations directly pressured Judge Arbuthnot. However, that is not the test as to whether certain relationships must be disclosed. A reading of the guidance already quoted reveals that conflicts of interest do not require evidence of a quid pro quo in order to be disclosed.

Interestingly, Curtis and Kennard also point out that in two separate cases in 2017 involving conflicts of interests Lady Arbuthnot only stepped down after conflicts of interest were revealed by the press. One of which involved a case where she had already made a favourable ruling on behalf of UBER, The Observer revealed business links between her husband and the taxi company.

The extent of Lord Arbuthnot’s connections to security state-linked organisations and institutions exposed by WikiLeaks is legion. It is unclear therefore why, despite these connections, along with the gifts that Judge Arbuthnot and her husband received from Becthel and the Turkish state, were never disclosed while the Judge was overseeing the case of Julian Assange. Especially given the clear conflicts between the activities of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange on the one hand, and the US, UK and Turkish national security states on the other.

Read full article in Sputnik News