Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks' [View all]struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)146. Agreed statements of facts and issues
... 11 ... on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutors decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010 , that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that: i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10<SW> would be resumed, under the offence of rape ...
14 ... On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellantscounsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed ...
15. On 27th September 2010 , the Appellants counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.
17. On 30th September 2010, the Appellants counsel was advised of theexistence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.
18. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.
19. Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellants counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview. The Appellants counsel offered to speak to the Appellant about whether he would be able to attend on 14th October 2010 ...
21. On 12th October 2010, the Appellants counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview ...
25. On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia ...
26. On the same date, the Stockholm District Court granted the prosecutors application for a domestic detention order in absentia.
27. On 19th November 2010, the Appellant appealed that order to the Svea Court of Appeal.
28. On 24th November 2010, following written argument on behalf of the parties, in which it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the domestic arrest was not proportionate and not based on sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause, but without an oral hearing, the order was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal ...
29. The prosecutors written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was requesting the arrest of Assange is in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation .
30. On 26th November 2010, an EAW was issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the Council of the European Union Framework Decision ...
33. On 28th November 2010, the Appellant applied to the Supreme Courtfor permission to appeal the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal. On 2nd December 2010, that application was refused ...
37. On 6th December 2010, the EAW was certified by SOCA ...
40. The extradition hearing took place before the Senior District Judge(Judge Riddle) at City of Westminster Magistrates Court (sitting atBelmarsh Magistrates Court) on 7th, 8th & 11th February 2011 ... On 24th February 2011, the Appellants extradition was ordered by the Senior District Judge ...
43. On 12th & 13th July 2011, the Appeal was heard before the High Court ...
44. The High Court considered four appeal grounds:
a. The EAW had not been issued by a "judicial authority".
b. The EAW did not meet the dual criminality test.
c. The Applicant was not an accused within the meaning of s.2(3) of the 2003 Act.
d. The issue of the EAW and subsequent proceedings were not proportionate ...
46. On 2nd November 2011, the High Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 2003 Act. The Court held that:
a. The Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority, because the term judicial was not limited to a judge who adjudicates and could also include a prosecutorial body, as envisaged by Article 6 of the Framework Decision (judgment §§20-54);
b. The offences in the EAW did meet the dual criminality requirement, having regard to ss.74, 75 and 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (§§55-127);
c. The Applicant was an accused person, applying the House of Lords decision in Re Ismail <1999> 1 AC 320 (§§128-154);
d. The decision to issue the warrant and the failure to take up the offer of video link questioning were not disproportionate (§§155-160) ...
47. On 5th December 2011, the High Court certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision, pursuant to section 32(4)(a) of the 2003 Act: Whether a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a judicial authority within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? ... ...
51. No grounds of appeal were left undetermined by the High Court.
The issues
52. Whether a public prosecutor is a judicial authority ...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
Assange had his year and a half in the UK courts, to argue against his extradition as he saw fit, and the foregoing provides a summary of the case as it left the High Court and headed into the UK Supreme Court. Note that any hint of the bizarre fantasia about forward extradition had already been dropped at Belmarsh. Assange's lawyers chose to quibble in the High Court about minor technical points -- such as whether the Swedish prosecutor could issue an EAW, or whether Assange could properly be described as "an accused person" for the purposes of extradition proceedings. He had his days in court, and he lost his case there
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
178 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks' [View all]
CHIMO
Sep 2012
OP
Translation: "I really really need to distract everybody from those Swedish allegations!"
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#3
Lol, you mean the allegations that have fallen apart, as we all predicted they would.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#7
I thought this point had been made clear here multiple times already. In fact I believe
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#35
Wrong! Because he already HAS BEEN ARRESTED. That was a lie. It is still a lie.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#43
Still refusing to accept facts. He took advantage of the law, and rightly so, especially
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#53
The Swedish courts said that there was valid cause to arrest Assange without an interview.
hack89
Sep 2012
#54
Why has the Swedish Prosecutor refused to interview Assange when there never was
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#63
Because he refused to recognize her authority to take him into physical custody.
hack89
Sep 2012
#64
Why did the prosecutor refuse to speak to Assange who has been available both in
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#67
Why has she not filed a case against Assange? You are now contradicting yourself
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#71
She has what she needs to arrest him. Once in Swedish custody he will be interviewed and indicted.
hack89
Sep 2012
#74
No, it is YOU have avoided the real question here. The Swedish Prosecutor, as you now
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#57
Um, that is not how the law works. On the whims of a prosecutor. You are now completly
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#75
The entire Swedish legal system has not been in charge of this case, because NO
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#84
Except for the Swedish appeals court that issued the domestic arrest warrant for rape you mean?
hack89
Sep 2012
#88
But since you said that Assange would have never surrendered to Swedish authorities
hack89
Sep 2012
#89
'If' 'if', the law is not based on 'what ifs'. The Swedish Prosecutor failed to file charges
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#92
Is it her fault that he jumped bail in the UK and is now a fugitive from justice?
hack89
Sep 2012
#94
Again, the Swedish Prosecutor refused to do her job when this case was handed to her.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#96
Why did the Swedish Prosecutor not speak to Assange while he was in Sweden for
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#100
Read the High Court's transcript - the Swedish legal witnesses explain it better than me. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#102
Assange will find out how credible she is when that cell door shuts behind him. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#103
Still can't answer the question. Why did she fail to lock that cell door when she
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#105
He has been arrested. What is it that you do not get about this case, or rather, that you
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#110
I don't ignore testimony from Swedish legal experts. I have read the opinions of this
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#120
My arguments have never been presented in court. Motions were presented, no case
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#80
All of those issues were addressed by the British High Court. It is time you read the transcript. nt
hack89
Sep 2012
#83
The British High Court did NOT rule on this case. What are you talking about?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#85
Every argument you have made about the interview and the prosecutor doing her job
hack89
Sep 2012
#91
Lol, no, it was the anti-Wikileaks contingency who were fixated on the interview. Now
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#95
Except they were not debunked. What I said has been confirmed by Swedish legal experts
hack89
Sep 2012
#97
So 'they' convinced Assange to fight extradition, and then, appeal for two years, all because 'they'
msanthrope
Sep 2012
#150
Thank you for you posts. I think her failure to conduct this case in a professional manner
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#178
Fugitives don't get to dictate to prosecutors. That is how the world really works.
hack89
Sep 2012
#61
He was never a fugitive, he was in Sweden asking to speak to her, then in London
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#77
He did not flee Sweden, he was told by the Prosecutor on Sept 15 that he was free to
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#82
And none of that has anything to do with Assange who was told by the prosecutor,
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#112
As I said, signs someone has lost the debate, when they resort to non-facts,
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#133
Because the Court does not investigate a crime, they accept the documents presented
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#44
They expected her to do her job, she did not. But you still have not explained
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#113
Resorting to 'Swedish Experts' some of whom were brought there by the Prosecution
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#122
Lol, have you run out of excuses? The prosecutor ran out of options two years ago. She was out
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#138
And you still refuse to even try to answer the question as to why a Prosecutor
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#163
Assange must think there's a credible Swedish case against him, or he wouldn't have jumped bail
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#15
Assange, of course, didn't argue that "US-conspiracy-against-me" in UK court, because
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#23
So, why should we take any Wikileaks-related remarks in the Stratfor emails seriously?
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#34
I provided several links and cogent argument: you retort with personal remarks
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#129
I think you should read or watch or something so that your posts come from an informed place
xiamiam
Sep 2012
#25
Your author, "Israel Shamir", is a known anti-Semite and holocaust denier, who is a close friend
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#131
How does Assange's boinking of a Swedish woman and her dubious accusation of rape
wtmusic
Sep 2012
#135
Lol, you are funny. Speaking of 'jumping'. Maybe you can explain what someone else
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#141
And once again you jumped right over the question. Not surprising, it was what I expected.
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#147
It would be nice to see the actual declassified documents, rather than Dorling's interpretation
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#16
Scoop has a link to pdf of the actual FOIA release: it doesn't seem to show what Dorling claims:
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#18
The military will, no doubt, exercise some diligence to ensure that no personnel repeat the stunt
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#124
... In a statement the Guardian rejected the accusations from Wikileaks, explaining
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#137
The Der Spiegel article is worth a read, but you clearly didn't bother to read it
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#144
Thank you, this truly is Orwellian and very scary. But it proves Assange was correct
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#148
His complaint of "having been detained for 659 days without charge" brought tears to my eyes!
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#24
It's evidence, at least, that the dude is a self-absorbed blowhard and careless with his words
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#128
No cigar for you: "I speak to you today as a free man, because despite having been detained
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#121
But once again, you attempt to distract from the facts. Was his claim correct or not?
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#149
Nobody else ever counts time spent out on bail as time in detention, nor does anyone else
struggle4progress
Sep 2012
#151
Wrong, he has been detained under house arrest for two years, required to report
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#152
excellent speech. freedom of speech and press are the foundations of a democracy
xiamiam
Sep 2012
#21
if sunlight is the best disinfectant then he should stop hiding from it neh? nt
Bodhi BloodWave
Sep 2012
#93
if that's the extent of your understanding of events surrounding Assange's persecution...
mike_c
Sep 2012
#145
Assange should've focused on corporate leaks more than US government leaks. nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Sep 2012
#39
So it wasn't a good idea for TuniLeaks ( works in partnership with Wikileaks) to
Luminous Animal
Sep 2012
#73
RT is one of the best news outlets available here in the US. Their coverage of foreign
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#160
Yes, one woman has accused him of raping her and is going through with the prosecution.
joshcryer
Sep 2012
#170
Still trying I see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you still insist
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#174