Category: Uncategorized

1. Mr Wilkie Mission Statement 11th Feb

2. Sky News: Interview with Mr Wilkie 12th Feb

3. Wilkie and Christensen discussions with Nils Melzer 17th Feb

Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “In London and we met with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture @NilsMelzer to discuss Julian Assange. Nils left us in no doubt that Assange is showing the effects of psychological torture and feels betrayed by the justice system in the UK, the USA & Aus #auspol#politas#FreeAssange“

4. Ruptly: Press Scrum outside Belmarsh Prison 18th Feb

5. Sky News: Catch up with Mr Wilkie 18th Feb

6. ABC News coverage at Belmarsh Prison with Christensen Wilkie and Jennifer Robinson 18th Feb

7. ABC News coverage with Joyce, Wilkie, Christensen and Shipton
Editors Note: ABC News is confused about Julians current prison status. Julian is an unconvicted prisoner and the status is ‘awaiting extradition’ or remand.

8. Jeremy Corbyn and Andrew Wilkie Feb 18

ABC News report

Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “Impressed today by British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s clear position & strong leadership on Julian Assange. This is what we need from Australian Labor Party right now where precious few members are prepared to take a stand over Assange injustice #auspol #politas #FreeAssange“

9. Press Conference Feb 19

Andrew Wilkie MP tweets “One of my press conferences today in London. The world is watching what happens to Julian Assange. Beyond time for Scott Morrison to pick up the phone to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and bring #Assange home. #politas #auspol“

Editors Note: The apparent difference in foreign press interest to Australian press interest.

10. Alan Jones interviews Mr Christensen on Return Feb 29

Overview in 2GB (837AM)

Alan and George talk about many things including:
– trials and tribulations just getting to see Julian in Belmarsh Prison.
– a fellow prison who points to Julian when he walks in and says very loudly to Andrew and George “They’re doing really bad stuff to him. They’re doing really bad stuff to him, mate. He shouldn’t really be here.”
– the role Scott Morrison could play

Editors Note: Alan Jones mistakenly refers to rape charges being dropped. No charges were ever made in the Swedish investigation.

Doctors for Assange launch their website

New email address info@doctorsassange.org

And a new web form allows doctors to easily join up

Mohamed Elmaazi writes on the 12th February 2020

Leader of the UK opposition Jeremy Corbyn challenged Boris Johnson as to whether he agrees with a resolution by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US.

Corbyn’s query was part of a wider debate over what he called Britain’s “lopsided” extradition treaty with the US, during Prime Minister’s Questions on 12 February 2020.

“This deep disparity with the US is about to be laid bare when the courts decide whether the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange will be extradited to the US on charges of espionage for exposing of war crimes, the murder of civilians and large scale corruption”. Corbyn said.

Corbyn went on to ask Johnson whether he agreed with a report from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “that the extradition should be opposed and the rights of journalists and whistleblowers upheld for the good of all of us”.

Johnson refused to comment on Assange’s case, but noted that it is “obvious” that the rights of journalists and whistleblowers should be upheld, adding that the government “will continue to do that”.

Read whole article in Sputnik News

Corbyn question and Johnson response in Twitter

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.

Swedens-Geopolitical-Case-Against-Assange-2010-2019-–-Marcello-Ferrada-de-Noli

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

Gianni Marilotti speaks

Dear colleagues, 

I am honoured to be here, both as a member of the Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe and as a coordinator of the Italian Parliamentarian Intergroup for the Monitoring of Julian Assange case (which includes both Italian members of Parliament and Italian members of the European Parliament). The group has been founded just after a conference organised at the Italian Senate, where also Julian Assange’s father John Shipton spoke. Our aim is to monitor the upcoming hearings scheduled in the UK in relation to the extradition request to the United States.

The cross-party observatory which we have been building will focus on the human rights violation that the Wikileaks publisher is facing. In relation to this, I was impressed by Professor Melzer’s words. We will also focus on the further human rights violations that Mr Assange could face in case he is extradited to the US. We are aware the violations he is facing at the moment damage his health at such a level that according to a report by independent doctors also his life is actually put at risk.

Since the use of the US Espionage Act against a publisher generates serious concerns regarding the impact that this will have at a global level on the freedom of the press and on the protection of investigative journalism, our parliamentarian Intergroup aims to bring to the attention of the European and Italian institutions the conflict between the extradition of Julian Assange and the freedom of information and of speech considered as fundamental principles which we put as foundation of the European democracies.

For this reason we monitor the extradition hearings with the aim to verify and discourage the irregularities which have been often reported by segments of the civil society committed to build an independent observatory on the facts.

We believe it is important to highlight the fact that the unfair treatment and human rights violations that he is apparently facing are not compatible with the foundations of the European democracies, which gave themselves laws and principles related to the respect of the human being, principles that are not negotiable.

This failure in ensuring the respect of fundamental rights is even more unbelievable if we consider that the individual who is facing them is only accused of having disclosed real facts.

We should be surprised and in a certain way outraged by by the cautious silence kept by some states not only on Julian Assange’s situation but also on the facts revealed by him through the Wikileaks work.

These silence seemed to authorise or support the US and the United Kingdom’s behaviour in relation to an individual who is apparently deprived of the right to prepare his defence and deprived as well of his right to dignified psychophysical conditions.

We have the duty to stop being silent and to stop the one that seems to be a global warning according to which we don’t have the right to know the truth about the facts and not even the right to disclose it to the public.

Who is actually determining that Assange violated some kind of rule when he was acting according to his right to be a journalist or a publisher? Who wants to claim the right to say that the citizens must be prevented from becoming aware of the truth?

All these are questions that free and democratic institutions like this Council of Europe should ask themselves.

As well as we have the duty to ask ourselves if a possible extradition to the United States could put the latter above the human rights obligations or above the national and international regulation of the freedom of the press, which is crucial in the democratic states.

Let’s remind ourselves that in the United States there is a prison called Guantanamo where one can stay locked without time limitation and without having been convicted through a normal, fair trial.

We have the duty to question ourselves, to monitor the facts and, if necessary, to take action. This duty comes directly from the democratic mandate whom we received by our free parliaments and by our citizens.

Thanks everyone.

An interview by Daniel Ryser, Yves Bachmann (Photos) and Charles Hawley (Translation),
31st January 2020

A made-up rape allegation and fabricated evidence in Sweden, pressure from the UK not to drop the case, a biased judge, detention in a maximum security prison, psychological torture – and soon extradition to the U.S., where he could face up to 175 years in prison for exposing war crimes. For the first time, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, speaks in detail about the explosive findings of his investigation into the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

“I have never seen a comparable case” Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Read whole interview in the Republik