Author: admin

Three protected witnesses accuse Spanish ex-marine of spying on Julian Assange

JOSÉ MARÍA IRUJO writes in El Pais

Spain’s High Court, the Audencia Nacional, is closing in on David Morales, the head of the Spanish security company US Global S. L., and who is under investigation for spying on cyberactivist Julian Assange while he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Three people who worked for the company have testified as protected witnesses before High Court Judge José de la Mata that Morales handed over material collected from the diplomatic headquarters to US intelligence services. The three witnesses say that Morales, a former marine in the Spanish Navy, bragged about the collaboration. “I am a mercenary and I make no bones about it,” he said to one of them.

Under Morales’s express orders, the security team photographed the passports of all of Assange’s visitors

Morales traveled to the US once or twice a month allegedly to hand over the material to “the Americans”

The witnesses said that they were able to prove that the US was accessing the information

Read whole article in El Pais

UK blocks Spanish judge from questioning Julian Assange over spying allegations

2019/10/23 Melissa Kitson translated for El Pais

The British justice system is blocking a Spanish judge’s request to question Julian Assange in London as a witness in a case exploring allegations that the Spanish security firm Undercover Global S.L. spied on the WikiLeaks founder while he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

On September 25, Judge José de la Mata sent British authorities an European Investigation Order (EIO) requesting permission to question Assange by videoconference as a witness in the case opened by Spain’s High Court, the Audiencia Nacional, against the owner of UC Global S. L., David Morales, for alleged offenses involving violations of privacy and client-attorney privileges, as well as misappropriation, bribery, money laundering and criminal possession of weapons

The EIO is a new tool that speeds up cooperation between judges in the EU and circumvents laborious rogatory letters based on instruments of international law. The mechanism came into effect in Spain in 2018. With an EIO, a legal authority from an EU member state can ask a legal authority from another EU country for assistance in obtaining evidence or means of evidence (witness statements, telephone taps, DNA tests and so on). It is an automatic procedure, and requests can only be rejected in exceptional cases.

But the United Kingdom Central Authority (UKCA), the body in charge of processing and responding to EIOs, has provisionally denied De la Mata’s request to question Assange, and asked for more details. Rashid Begun, who signed the response from the UKCA, argued that “these types of interview are only done by the police” in Britain, and that videoconferencing is not available to hear witness statements. He added that the events described by the Spanish judge are “unclear,” and questioned the relationship between the events De la Mata outlined in his request. Begun said there seemed to be no link between the crime contained in the described events and the explanation of how this issue was instigated, or what Spain is specifically investigating. The response also called on De la Mata to clarify the jurisdiction under which Spain claims to be investigating the case.

The Spanish judge did not wait the 30 days given by UKCA to provide his own reply. On October 14, De la Mata sent the British agency a written reply that EL PAÍS has had access to. In the document, the judge expressed his surprise and referred to the “previous cases” in which the UKCA accepted requests for interviews via videoconference. De la Mata also quoted international cooperation treaties that say that the only obstacle in these cases would be if the person being questioned was the accused. “In this case, Julian Assange is a witness, not an accused party,” wrote De la Mata.

In the document, De la Mata also denied that his initial request was unclear: “We have provided a clear context for our case, describing all the events and crimes under investigation.” On the issue of jurisdiction, he replied: “The Spanish judicial system has jurisdiction and is able to hear cases of crimes committed by Spanish citizens outside of the country as long as the event is a crime in the place where it was committed, the victim or the public prosecutor present a criminal complaint, and the suspect has not been sentenced or acquitted in another country.”

De la Mata added that the suspect (David Morales) is Spanish, the victim (Assange) has filed a complaint, and the crimes (unlawful disclosure of secrets and bribery) are crimes in the UK.

In the document, the judge highlighted that both crimes have been committed in Spanish territory because the microphones used to spy on Assange were bought in Spain, and the information obtained was sent and uploaded to servers at UC Global S. L.’s headquarters in Jerez de la Frontera, in the southern Spanish province of Cádiz. De la Mata recognized that these crimes were also “partially” committed in other countries, but said the “requisites outlined in the law to assign jurisdiction to Spanish judicial bodies are fully met.”

Spanish legal sources have not concealed their discontent with the response by UKCA and highlighted that, in the EIOs they process, a country’s jurisdiction is not questioned, nor are hurdles placed for taking witness statements by videoconference.

Read whole article and rest of WikiLeaks threads El Pais

AnOnymous calls for Julian Assange’s immediate release in the name of human right’s the right to inform!

RELEASE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW!

From a reposting on Facebook . . .

Greetings world. We are anonymous.
When governments violate human ́ s rights, rebellion is a fundamental duty, a citizen act.
Also, we are United, Anonymous, Whistleblowers, Yellow Vests and Resistants to alert the world to the fate of Julian ASSANGE, a great journalist who has won many awards.
Global surveillance and liberticide laws are ubiquitous. We are increasingly watched by the powerfullest people of the world, but who is watching them? Journalism is the last sentinel of peoples.

A man, Julian Assange rose to denounce their crimes by creating the WIKILEAKS platform which allows the deposit and dissemination of confidential documents.
WIKILEAKS has been operating since 2006 and has brought to light the abuses committed by the American army in 2007 in Iraq.

Let us also mention the MACRONLEAKS, documents denouncing the lies of the MACRON mafia and in particular the scandal of the carbon tax diverted in favor of the biggest enterprises. Since then, the people manifests every week to denounce this corrupted system .
Since his revelations on Iraq – COLLATERAL MURDER video showing the assassination of civilians by the US army – Julian Assange has been chased. He is currently illegally detained in a high security prison in England. A trial for his extradition is scheduled for late February, if he is still alive. He is kept in solitary confinement and tortured. The alerts from the UN and more than 60 doctors do not change anything.

No more mainstream media talks about him although they have profusely benefited of his work. It only remains us, the people, as the only bulwark!
The United States cannot destroy the message, so they wants to kill the messenger, in order to send a strong signal to all journalists and whistleblowers to dissuade them from exposing the truth.

Open your eyes, inform yourselves, resist , telling the truth is not a crime, it is the journalist’s first duty.

We demand his immediate releaseJulian Assange .
Remember who we are. Corruption fears us.
We are anonymous. We are legion.
We are fighting for the truth. We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us!

#FreeAssangeNow

#FreePRESS #Unity4J #JulianASSANGEfree #NoUsExtradition
#DontExtraditeAssange #FreeASSANGE #SaveJulianAssange #NoExtradition
#BringJulianHome #BringAssangeHome #YouCanResist #HandsOffAssange
TF1 BFMTV Le Monde HM Prison Belmarsh Emmanuel Macron President Donald J. Trump Donald J. Trump
source : https://peertube.slat.org/videos/watch/59b7522e-b616-4f9b-992c-202b4c2cf261

Head of Swedish Bar Association condemns the handling of the Assange case in UK and Sweden as “deplorable”

From the April 2019 Issue of the Indicter a Swedish article by Ms Anne Ramberg headed “Assange – en bisarr historia – som kräver svenskt agerande“ and translated by Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli
MONTHLY EUROPEAN REVIEW ON GEOPOLITICAL & HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

In “Assange –a bizarre story– which demands Swedish response”, the Secretary General of the Swedish Bar Association, Ms Anne Ramberg, criticizes prosecutor’s deeds in the pre-investigation of the case, and says that Sweden has a great responsibility for the situation that has arisen.

“My knowledge about this matter, now an almost unique one, is not entirely in-depth.  It is a matter featured by everything from prodigal conspiracy theories deprived of any reality support, to a deplorable legal handling from both Swedish and British side.

The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time is established both in the Swedish legal system [Regeringsformen, 2 kap. 11 § andra stycket 1) and in the European Convention (Article 6). This legal right also applies during the preliminary investigation stage. To this has to be added the so-labelled presumption of innocence. It may well be questioned whether the result of the Swedish managing [of the case] was done in accordance with the principle of proportionality. I have previously stated that I find it remarkable that the Prosecutor did not implement the preliminary investigation forward at the pace and with the care one could have demanded. In this context, the courts have a very great responsibility. They could have put tougher demands on the prosecutor, to move the preliminary investigation forward. The conclusions that the prosecutor had as ground to dismiss the case [the pre-investigation], should also have been communicated considerably earlier than what happened. This leads to the conclusion that Sweden has a great responsibility for the situation that has arisen. Now the question is whether Sweden should resume the preliminary investigation that prompted Assange’s asylum request to Ecuador –and his subsequent involuntary lock-in–, and demand his extradition to Sweden.

I fear that the treatment of Assange has damaged the reputation of the Swedish judicial system, even though Assange did not actively contribute to participate to any significant extent. That being said, I have sympathy for Assange’s concern that Sweden would acquiesce with the United States in the event of a request for his extradition. One can only speculate on this. I am of the personal opinion that the Supreme Court would not extradite Assange to the United States. If my assumption is correct, a Supreme Court review [of the extradition case] would result in that Assange could not be extradited,  even if the government so wished.

Let us not forget that whatever we may think of Assange or the deeds he is suspected of, this is about much more. It is about freedom of speech and the rule of law principles. It is ultimately about the right and the moral obligation to expose war crimes. Assange and Wikileaks did it. The revelations about US abuse were necessary and particularly important. Should we extradite to Germany’s Hitler someone who has revealed the existence of concentration camps and genocide, regardless to how that information was obtained?  I don’t think so.”

Former Brazil President Lula backs Julian Assange

Reported 10 December 2010

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has criticised the arrest of the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as “an attack on freedom of expression”. 

Former President Lula said the internet publication of secret US cables had “exposed a diplomacy that appeared untouchable”.

He also criticised other governments for failing to condemn the arrest.

Read article in BBC News

Editors Note: Is there need for a WorldLeaders4Assange group?

News from Assange At Court 2020/1/13

Video courtesy RT News

Read whole article in RT News

Tareq Hahhad comments from the Court room on twitter

Tweets from Tareq Haddad in the court room

Assange has just walked into court 1 of Westminster Magistrates Court. Looking much better compared to earlier reports and is able to hold a conversation with his lawyer, Gareth Peirce. Updates to follow.

Will do a thread with key points very shortly. Thanks all.

(1/10) Summary from #Assange hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court this morning: As was the case in previous hearings, main issue discussed was the amount of time lawyers had access to their client.

(2/10) His lawyer Gareth Peirce raised concerns about this lack of access and told District Judge Vanessa Baraitser she has only had 2 hours with Assange since the last hearing.

(3/10) Baraitser said 47 people were currently in custody at court with only 8 rooms available for interviewing so Peirce would only be given an additional hour today. The judge said it would not be fair or just to delay or restrict the access to counsel for others in custody.

(4/10) Peirce told the court she had 3 substantial sets of documents and evidence she needed to go through with Assange and have him sign off on before they could be submitted to prosecution for response. Said she would struggle to do this under current time constraints.

(5/10) Peirce added that the last-minute change to move the hearing from tomorrow to today means she lost additional time with Assange. “This slippage in the timetable is extremely worrying.”

(6/10) Peirce also added she was considering filing a claim for a judicial review regarding this lack of access to Assange as it was a breach of his rights. She said access was restricted at Belmarsh prison in spite of several empty rooms being available.

(7/10) Baraitser adjourned the hearing to 2pm this afternoon so Peirce could have the intervening time with Assange and she will have another hour with him on Thursday to finalise the exhibits to be given to prosecution prior to Friday, 18th January.

(8/10) Peirce said she would do her best to have the documents submitted by Friday and the government’s prosecution team said they will have sufficient time to respond to the documents by their deadline of 7 February.

(9/10) In the hearing this afternoon, the case will be adjourned to 23 January. Peirce will tell the court whether Assange wishes to have the hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court or Belmarsh.

(10/10) As he left the dock, Assange raised his fist at those in the public gallery. As mentioned previously, he looked in much better shape than previously reported.

Another article from AAP in the Hepburn Advocate and Moree Champion which adds

Academy and Grammy award-nominated hip-hop artist M.I.A., who visited Assange in prison last year, said authorities had even denied him simple things like a pen and paper.
She said some books were denied as well due to concerns he could use them to secretly communicate with outsiders.
“It blows my mind that England can have this going, and with the support of Australia,” M.I.A. told AAP.
Mr Farrell said given the amount of stumbling blocks presented to Assange it raised the question of whether the “biggest media freedom case this century” was actually a fair trial.

And an article in Reuters stressing inability of access by Julian’s lawyers

Assange’s Indictment and the Ellsberg precedent

Daniel Ellsberg’s defence is being used by Julian’s legal team in relation to surveillance of Julian and lawyers in conference 

Extracted from Daniel’s extended biography

After still another invasion, of Laos in 1971, I gave most of the study to the New York Times.  When the Times was enjoined from publishing it further after three installments—the first such prior restraint in American history, a clear challenge to the First Amendment—I gave copies to the Washington Post and eventually, when the Post and two other papers were also enjoined, to nineteen papers in all.  For all these papers to publish these “secrets” successively in the face of four federal injunctions and daily charges by the Attorney General and the President that they were endangering national security amounted to a unique wave of civil disobedience by major American institutions.

Just before the Supreme Court voided the injunctions as conflicting with the First Amendment, I was indicted on twelve federal felony counts, posing a possible sentence of 115 years in prison.  My friend Anthony Russo, who had found a copying machine for me and helped with the initial copying, was charged on three counts.  These criminal charges against a leak to the American public were just as unprecedented as the earlier injunctions. But after almost two years under indictment and over four months in open court, all charges against us were dismissed—“with prejudice,” meaning we could not be tried again—just before closing argument, on grounds of governmental criminal misconduct against me.  That was another first, in American jurisprudence.

What had happened was that when President Nixon had learned, shortly after my first indictment, that I had also copied the Top Secret NSSM-1 from his own National Security Council and given it to Republican Senator Charles Mathias, Nixon reasonably–though mistakenly–feared that I had other documents from his own Administration, including nuclear threats and plans for escalation which had yet to be carried out.  He secretly directed criminal actions to prevent me from disclosing such embarrassing secrets, including the burglary of my former psychoanalyst’s office in search of information with which to blackmail me into silence, and later an effort to have me “incapacitated totally” at a demonstration at the Capitol.

When these crimes became known, they led—besides the termination of our trial—to the criminal convictions of several White House aides.  The same offenses, originating in the Oval Office, also figured importantly in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon that led to his resignation in 1974.  Meanwhile, in the political atmosphere accompanying these revelations of White House crimes and cover-up in the spring of 1973, Congress finally cut off funding for further combat operations in Vietnam:  initially, in the House with respect to Cambodia, on May 10, the day before our trial was dismissed, and totally on August 15, 1973.  Together, these developments were crucial to ending the war in Indochina in 1975.

Further Reading:
William H. Freivogel writes Is Julian Assange an International Version of Daniel Ellsberg and WikiLeaks the Modern Equivalent of the Pentagon Papers?
Searching Ellsberg fro Assange
Searching Wilkileaks for Ellsberg

CoE Media Freedom queries UK on Continued Detention of WikiLeaks Founder and Publisher Julian Assange

2020/1/7 The Council of Europe Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists raises this query to the UK

The Official Notification reads

Julian Assange, founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, is currently detained in Belmarsh high-security prison, United Kingdom, pending extradition to the United States of America. On 11 April 2019, after the Government of Ecuador had decided to stop granting him asylum in its London embassy, Assange was arrested by the British police, and found guilty that day of breaching the UK Bail Act. On 1 May 2019, he was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison in the United Kingdom, and the Government of the United States unsealed an indictment against him for alleged computer intrusion, based on a series of leaks provided by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. The charges were extended on 23 May 2019 to violating the US Espionage Act of 1917. 

Several lawyers, politicians, journalists and academics consider Assange’s arrest in the United Kingdom and prosecution in the United States for publishing leaked documents of public interest an attack on press freedom and international law. After examining Assange in prison on 9 May 2019, UN special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Nils Melzer concluded: “In addition to physical ailments, Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.” In a letter sent on 29 October 2019 to the UK Government, Melzer wrote: “I found that the UK had contributed decisively to producing the observed medical symptoms, most notably through its participation, over the course of almost a decade, in Mr. Assange’s arbitrary confinement, his judicial persecution, as well as his sustained and unrestrained public mobbing, intimidation and defamation. (…) British officials have contributed to Mr. Assange’s psychological torture or ill-treatment, whether through perpetration, or through attempt, complicity or other forms of participation. (…) Recurring and serious violations of Mr. Assange’s due process rights by UK authorities have rendered both his criminal conviction and sentencing for bail violation and the US extradition proceedings inherently arbitrary. (…) The detention regime currently imposed on Mr. Assange appears to be unnecessary, disproportionate, and discriminatory and to perpetuate his exposure to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Additional Information

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange awarded Dignity Prize from Catalans

JANUARY 10, 2020

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being kept in a prison cell for up to 23 hours a day, but that has not stopped him from winning an award for raising the plight of the Catalans.

The Catalan Dignity Commission has honoured him with its 2019 Dignity Prize for raising awareness around the world about the plight of the Catalans in the lead up to the 2017 independence vote.

Announced on Friday, the prize recognises his efforts to correct misreporting of events and to provide live video updates to the world of the peaceful Catalan protesters and the brutal crackdown on them by Spanish police.

The advice Assange gave to Catalans on how to use apps to avoid Spanish Government shut downs was also acknowledged.

He also tweeted information about the historical background to the struggle for independence by the Catalans, giving context to the referendum vote.

He undertook to help the Catalans despite the risk it would create his own problems with the Ecuadorean Government.

As a result, Assange’s support for the democratic process led to a backlash from Spain sparking concerns within Ecuador’s government.

Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped.

Read whole article at News.com