Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s Boss Is Still Emma Arbuthnot: Conflict of Interest in the Assange Case Makes Her Incapable of Justice

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” ~Julian Assange

Anguish. Agony. Extreme torment. Misery. Woe. Grief. Heartbreak. Fear.

Many of the words I find myself using when I discuss the current situation of Julian Assange. Many of the words I am sure he is feeling as well. Judge Vanessa Baraitser has shown such prejudice and bias towards this man terror is also another word we can use as it becomes more and more evident she intends to make a name for herself in this case.

Speaking of which, I attempted to look at this woman’s background online. Surely, I would find something about her before the trial. You would think only a respected, well known judge who was known for justice would be put on such a profound, public case but there is nothing. I mean nothing. There are no pictures, no articles, nothing. She appears out of thin air to be put on the most prolific case in this century. Of course, she is just a subordinate of Judge Emma Arbuthnot, Lady Arbuthnot or Edom, married to the Baron of Edom, who is a Senior District Judge in England and Wales. It is obvious that Baraitser takes her orders from Arbuthnot on everything. It even makes me wonder if she doesn’t wear a hidden ear piece for such instructions during the trial.

Many have the belief that Arbuthnot is no longer over the Assange case but she is. She just put a junior judge in her place once her conflict of interest was exposed. Somehow, I guess she thought this would hide the fact she is in control. The woman has good reason to hide in the shadows of this case. Her conflict of interest is deep. When it was brought to light by independent media, including myself, last year, she refused to recuse herself instead putting Baraitser in control. What is the big deal you ask? Why is she a conflict of interest? Well, let me explain.

According to the “Guide of Judicial Conduct” in England, seen here”

“Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our system of government in a democratic society and a safeguard of the freedom and rights of the citizen under the rule of law. The judiciary must be seen to be independent of the legislative and executive arms of government both as individuals and as a whole.”

What does that have to do with this case? Plenty.

In an article by WSWS, from last July, (seen here):

Her husband, James Norwich Arbuthnot, is a Conservative member of the House of Lords. He is intimately connected with the British armed forces and security services, whose criminal operations were exposed by WikiLeaks.

As a Tory MP, Lord Arbuthnot was between 2005 and 2014 the chair of the Defence Select Committee, the body overseeing the Ministry of Defence and Britain’s armed forces. His watch covered ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the wars for regime change in Libya and Syria.

He is currently co-chair of the UK advisory board for defence manufacturer Thales and is an advisory board member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI). Lord Arbuthnot is also a former director at security and intelligence consultancy firm SC Strategy, where he worked for two years alongside co-directors Lord Carlile and Sir John Scarlett.

As Assange’s legal team and UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer have argued, this “strong conflict of interest” requires Lady Arbuthnot to stand down from Assange’s case. Her husband’s entire political life has been dedicated to crushing the sort of transparency and accountability advocated by WikiLeaks.

The “Guide to Judicial Conduct” explicitly states, “Where a close member of a judge’s family is politically active, the judge needs to bear in mind the possibility that, in some proceedings, that political activity might raise concerns about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process and should act accordingly.”

Furthermore, “personal animosity towards a party is also a compelling reason for disqualification.”

Arbuthnot’s animosity toward Assange is on public record.

But there is more.

There is new evidence which shows that Arbuthnot received funds from the U.K. foreign office prior to her appointment. According to the Daily Maverick, the husband of the judge guiding the proceedings, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, has “financial links to the British military establishment, including institutions and individuals exposed by WikiLeaks.”

As well as the following:

According to the British Parliament data, the judge and her husband in 2014 accepted a gift from Bechtel Management Company, an arm of major US military corporation Bechtel – also a British Defense Ministry contractor in a deal worth £215 million. The gift came in the shape of tickets to the Chelsea Flower Show worth £1,250.

The Daily Maverick, in its article seen here, also exposes her son’s link to an anti-data link established by the U.K. government and staffed by officials employed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Alexander Arbuthnot’s employer, the private equity firm Vitruvian Partners, has a multimillion-pound investment in Darktrace, a cyber-security company which is also staffed by officials recruited directly from the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

These intelligence agencies are behind the US government’s prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secret documents. Darktrace has also had access to two former UK prime ministers and former US President Barack Obama.

The revelations raise further concerns about potential conflicts of interests and appearance of bias concerning Lady Arbuthnot and the ties of her family members to the UK and US military and intelligence establishments. Lady Arbuthnot’s husband is Lord James Arbuthnot, a former UK defence minister who has extensive links to the UK military community.

As far as is known, Lady Arbuthnot has failed to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in her role overseeing Assange’s case. However, UK legal guidance states that “any conflict of interest in a litigious situation must be declared.”

Why is the U.K. judicial system allowing this woman to oversee this case and guide a subordinate on how to handle it? Anyone who wants justice sees how wrong this is.

If you care about justice in any way or are a supporter of Julian Assange, please write to

the United Kingdom magistrates complaint department at:

LondonACConduct@justice.gov.uk

or call them directly at:

Telephone number: 0203 126 3390

The Persecution Of Julian Assange By Judge Vanessa Baraitser

The farcical trial of Julian Assange continues as though it is a bad B movie where the hero loses. More like a horror movie, the show continues on as the hero is slowly murdered right before your eyes.

Today was the final day of court during the farAssange extradition hearing until May. However, the court proceedings bore the resemblance to a Roman court in ancient times as the judge showed more prejudice towards the accused than the prosecution did. Judge Vanessa Baraitser once again bore her teeth and took a bite out of Julian Assange by denying him the right to be able to sit next to his lawyers. At current time, Assange is in a bullet proof thick glass cage positioned behind his lawyers with no way to communicate problems without the whole court knowing about it.

When solicitor, Gareth Pierce went to speak to Assange, Judge Baraitser pointed to this as example of him being able to give instructions. Assange spoke loudly through the glass, “That’s exactly, exactly the problem. You can see when I’m having a problem!”

“Assange then stood up in the dock and said, “The problem is I’m not able to get representation.”

Judge Baraitser then told him to “keep quiet and speak through his lawyers.” He replied, “That’s the problem, I can’t.”

The first part of the hearing ended with a row about whether Assange was even receiving a fair and just trial. Which he is not.

One of Julian’s lawyers pointed out that the dock didn’t even exist twenty years ago and that every other country and rid itself of it. He also pointed out it was impossible to speak confidentially with his client. The U.S. prosecution literally sits a few feet away from the dock which has microphones. There is no privacy whatsoever.

The U.S. attorney’s even stated they were neutral on the matter and Baraitser still refused. Her answer to the issue was to give Assange headphones to better hear what was being said.

It is obvious that Baraitser is so used to torturing Assange that she forgot she was in the court room. When even the prosecution has no problem with him sitting with his lawyers and the judge refuses, what kind of court room are you in? The actual ruling on him sitting with them was actually written before his lawyers had the chance to ask for it today.

We all need to point out that this extradition hearing of Julian Assange makes complete nonsense of legal process. There is nothing fair or balanced in the hearing or in anything that has led to it. His human rights are being violated by a sitting judge and her boss, Emma Arbuthnot, who it appears is giving explicit instructions on how she should act. According to many, she often asks Assange how he is feeling and then completely ignores his response. It is so obvious to those watching this farce play out that she is acting a part and already knows her decision.

Even with excellent defense, Assange stands no chance of justice or due process in this court room. He will only remain in the jaws of Hellmarsh and end up facing even more torture by the U.S. empire at the rate this is going. I feel like I am in a nightmare that I cannot wake from so I cannot imagine what Julian is feeling like. It must feel like hell on earth.

If this trial continues as it has, Julian Assange will become history. He will simply die in prison. Even with protests going on outside the courthouse showing great disgust and disapproval, Assange’s torture goes on inside like he is terrorist. The continued persecution will result in the death of a hero if we do not do something to stop this display of government overreach and excessive power. Judge Baraitser and her superior, Emma Arbuthnot, must be removed from the case on the basis of prejudice and conflict of interest.

From Fox News:

“When lawyers blatantly reject well-accepted law for some political gain, they violate their oaths to uphold the law. When govt lawyers do this, they also violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.”

“When government lawyers do this, they also violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

“If “no law” doesn’t really mean no law, we are deluding ourselves, and freedom is not reality. It is merely a wished-for fantasy.” Judge Napolitano of Fox News

Please write a letter of complaint to the United Kingdom magistrates complaint department at:

LondonACConduct@justice.gov.uk

or call them directly at:

Telephone number: 0203 126 3390

The Show Trial of Julian Assange Continues: Day 3

The show trial of Julian Assange continues to baffle me as the prosecution continues to insist that the law does not stand, that Assange has no rights and insists they are in the right with no evidence. What angers me is the obvious bias of Judge Vanessa Baraitser against Assange himself as she continues to show prejudice. Also, I cannot understand why his lawyers have done nothing about the situation with Emma Arbuthnot, Assange’s obvious deteriorating health or his mistreatment. I wonder why they haven’t called for a dismissal based solely on his health care crisis.

Today, Julian made the following statement directed at the judge:

“I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am watching Wimbledon. I cannot meaningfully communicate with my lawyers. There are unnamed embassy officials in this court room.”

‘I can not communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing. There has been enough spying on my lawyers already. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day.”

“What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate.”

Julian is being held in a bullet proof glass box, with a guard on each side, as though he is a violent criminal. He is unable to hear clearly the proceedings, or speak to his lawyers. When he stood to shake hands when allowed to speak to one pertaining to if he needed a break, the guard stopped him immediately. He is being treated as though he is a dog who bit his owner.

The persecution continued through Judge Baraitser in Court today. Prosecution was even willing to allow Assange to sit with his lawyers, yet Baraitser says she will decide tonight. She also claims she can do nothing about Assange’s inhumane treatment at Belmarsh. Is she a judge or a puppet?

It appears Assange lawyers will apply for bail in order for him to be able to speak freely with his lawyers as it appears the judge feels that is the only condition in which he can be with his defense team. I find it tremendously horrific that even after the prosecution agreed to allow it, she continues to torture him. It is obvious they want to isolate him as much as possible as though he is a vicious animal they want to tame.

It really is something when the prosecution QC argues for some minutes with the judge, citing previous examples, to let Assange sit with his lawyers. Yet Judge Baritser still refuses to allow. There is no way this trial can end well with such obvious animosity being shown. It is to the point, this could end in a mistrial.

Judge Baraitser even claimed if he was allowed out of the dock, he was no longer in the custody of the court. In other words, he would be free to leave.

Furthermore, the prosecution seems almost comical in their reasonings. For instance, QC argued that it doesn’t matter that the extradition treaty is unbalanced. That just because the U.S. may enact it is political, the U.K. doesnt have to.

“The defense is trying to get a non-established right in through the back door, by attempting to create that right using the guise of “abuse of process,” Lewis is arguing, saying that if you incorporate a right using an unincorporated treaty, you deny Parliament’s sovereignty.

Clair Dobbin confered with Lewis, who clarified: “It would not be right to say that a right has been abolished by omission: the [2003] Act describes what the court can take into account, “Is there a bar to extradition or is there not?”

“Parliament has expressly abrogated the ‘political offence’ exception,” Lewis says. “The Parliamentary intention was to remove it.”

“Madam, that really is determinative of the issue,” Lewis says, adding that extradition hearings have very limited jurisdiction.

Is this a court room or a Comedy Central skit? It is just bizarre. I thought Britain was so proud of their supposedly just courts? Apparently not.

At this point, Assange was unable to continue. As he left the dock, he raised his fist in the air towards his supporters.

It is clear that this trial is taking a severe toll on his health. Why hasn’t this issue been brought up? Why aren’t his lawyers advocating for him to be seen by professionals outside the prison?

We learned yesterday that after the proceedings in Monday, he was handcuffed 11 times, strip searched twice and his carefully written notes were seized by Belmarsh. He was also moved between 5 holding cells. Not to mention that on Saturday, Belmarsh staff further harassed him by going through his belongings in his cell.

Julian Assange is a gentle, soft spoken, intellectual man with no history of criminal activity. What Belmarsh is doing to him is incredibly barbaric. I fear for him. How much more can he take? It was obvious today that he was not well.

Basically, they are killing him in a slow painful manner as though they are slow cooking a roast. There are not enough words to describe my disgust at what they continue to do. Even the slow torture of the Dark Ages was more humane than this in that it was quicker and eventually they put the person out of their misery. I can barely watch.

The defense team has pointed out that if Assange is extradited, he most likely will commit suicide rather than go through the hell the U.S. government has in store for him.

Yesterday the defense proved that it was in fact the Guardian that published the password to the cables before it was redacted. In fact, Assange attempted to contact the U.S. several times to warn them as well as the UN to save the lives of the people the Guardian put in danger. Why is Assange standing trial and not the man who published the password? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It is unbearable to imagine what is going through his mind as he only wanted to give justice to the innocent who were so horribly victimized by the war crimes the military committed. He should be hailed a hero. Instead, he looks at more torture and life in Gitmo while the real criminals are free. There is no justice for the poor, the weak and the innocent anymore.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser will be remembered in history as the woman who condemned the greatest journalist of our time to certain death if she rules for the extradition of Assange.

After seeing this catastrophe of a trial unfold, tell me, are you on the right side of history? Or are you sitting back complacently watching as a man is slowly martyred and doing nothing to stand up for your own rights? Are you fighting for his freedom or are you as guilty as though who are violating human rights? That is the real question.

U.S. Attorneys Mimic Chelsea Mannings Trial In Court Today

Julian Assange in Court today.

It appears the United States Attorneys learned nothing since the Manning trial in 2013 as they are using the same dumb downed arguments used 7 years ago. The extradition trial has started but it appears the attorneys presenting evidence of wrongdoing have no clue. Kevin Gosztola, an up and coming journalist, reported from the court on Twitter as seen here:

This is a thread for Day 1 of Julian Assange’s one-week extradition hearing. Prosecutor (unsure of name at moment) has started opening argument and emphasizes there have been “misstatements of the charges against him.”

Prosecutor: First charge is “straightforward criminality and a conspiracy to steal and hack into Department of Defense computer system. This is an ordinary criminal charge and any person, journalist, or source, who tried to gain unauthorized access to computer system is guilty.”

Prosecutor: “Reporting our journalism is not an excuse for criminality.” “True in the United Kingdom as it is in the United States of America”

Prosecutor says they are not criminalizing the publication of classified materials but rather the publication of names of informants or dissidents who help the US and allies in military operations.

James Lewis QC suggests identities revealed in documents were all individuals who passed information about countries, specifically Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

James Lewis QC said Assange is raising abuses of process to “deflect from his criminal behavior” and those issues can be dealt with once he is “returned” to the United States.

James Lewis QC states Assange knew publishing documents to the internet would be so damaging to security and intel services in United States and damaging to armed forces, as well as US interests.

James Lewis QC is essentially reciting summary of Chelsea Manning’s trial, which I’m not going to bother to share details from unless he says something we didn’t hear in 2013 during her trial. But all her conduct is being recited because US is prosecuting as conspiracy case.

Much of this is recycled, and crucially, James Lewis QC shares details about the digital media found in Bin Laden’s compound in Abottabad which was a sensational piece of evidence in Manning’s trial to argue she aided the enemy. Manning was acquitted of that charge.

It would appear they had a great day in court, but with proceedings so far, what happens in court may very well be irrelevant in the final decision with Judge Arbuthnot reigning terror with her bias. It has been well documented that the woman should recuse herself due to her son and husband’s dealings with U.S. intelligence agencies, yet she refuses.

In a tweet by John Pilger seen below, he states that the U.S. attorneys have definitively admitted that journalism and free press are on trial here.

In a tweet from the Courage Foundation, it becomes obvious what was stated in court today.

From, “If we don’t win, newspapers could publish anything” troll argument, to #headonapike hashtag, the prosecution is laughable. Losers, unless Her Majesty’s court is thoroughly corrupt & humorless, which is very likely.

According to rawstory.com:

Julian Assange lawyer tells court: After pardon fell through, Trump administration resorted to ‘extortion’

Assange was asked to give up the source of the DNC leak which Assange refused. In retaliation, Trump had him arrested. This is a horrific example of using power to get even on Trumps part.

The prosecutors argument contained no evidence of harm done by Wikileaks revelations, yet Assange’s revelations have been shown to be true about U.S. war crimes. By hasn’t he defense brought up that fact yet?

The trial is not only being held by a kangaroo court with circus clowns in the prosecution but is nothing but a show trial with a preset verdict.

God Save Assange because the queen doesn’t care.

Julian Assange Harassed By Belmarsh Ahead of His Extradition Trial

According to a report in the Evening Standard, John Shipton said his son was harassed prior to their meeting today.  Belmarsh staff searched his cell according to his father.  in the article by the Evening Standard seen here:

John Shipton visited the WikiLeaks founder at Belmarsh Prison in south-east London for two hours on Sunday.

Speaking to reporters afterwards outside, Mr Shipton said his son had his prison cell searched and demanded he be released on bail

“For the life of me I can’t understand why Julian Assange is in jail having committed no crime, with family here that he can come and live with,” he said.

Julian Assange protest: Father speaks of son’s ‘arbitrary detention’

“Bail ought to be given immediately if the extradition order isn’t dropped.

Julian Assange protest: Father speaks of son’s ‘arbitrary detention’

“Bail ought to be given immediately if the extradition order isn’t dropped.

Julian had a harassment today. He goes to court tomorrow. They searched his cell this afternoon just before he came down to see us.

“This plague of malice that emanates from the Crown Prosecution Service to Julian Assange must stop immediately.”

Mr Shipton was accompanied on his visit by Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis, with both met by representatives from Reporters Without Borders as they left the prison.

The continued torture of Assange has relented little in the 9 months since his arrest as they are still keeping him in his cell over 20 hours a day.  Solitary confinement, as in the case of Assange, is considered torture after 15 days.  Assange has spent most of his incarceration in solitary.  The treatment of Assange is a disgusting display of what Belmarsh stands for.

Also in an article by the Evening Standard seen here:

A murder inquiry has been launched after an inmate was battered to death inside top-security Belmarsh prison. 

Officers were called to reports of an assault at 8pm on Tuesday. Police and paramedics arrived at the category A men’s jail to find the 36-year-old man with head injuries. 

He was rushed to hospital in a critical condition but medics were not able to save him and he died the following evening.

There is no indication that the attack was terrorist-related. 

Why is the British justice department keeping a journalist with no record or history of any kind of violence in its highest security prison in the first place?  This is dangerous and unsafe for Assange who is only being held to be extradited.  Keeping him in such a prison is vile and torturous.  The U.K. Crown Prosecution Service should be removed and replaced with more qualified people who take into consideration justice.  What is being done to Assange is beyond description.  He simply published documents and a video given to him like any other news organization.  Why hasn’t the Guardian or the New York Times publishers been arrested as they published the information before Wikileaks had a chance to redact it?

The whole case is biased and prejudice beyond comprehension.  One person against an empire who has had 10 years to prepare its case while stealing any data Assange kept in the Embassy.  Unfair and cruel are just a few words that come to mind.  The government overreach, in this case, is abominable and will effect journalism for years to come putting journalists in the line of fire by a corrupt government who intends to silence them.

All Julian wants is justice and so do his supporters.  When will this travesty end?

 

The World Protest To Free Assange Starts in Just a Few Hours

The World Protest To release Assange and against his extradition kicks off in New Zealand and Australia in Just few hours as his court hearing begins on Monday. The extradition trial will be quite surprising as his lawyers have stated. They have much information that should be very interesting with literally 40k documents. More importantly, however, is the response of the U.K. judiciary system in this case.

As more information becomes available, it is obvious that the main judge in this case is compromised and biased. That is why we must protest his extradition in huge numbers.

Please attend a protest in your area. Support freedom. Free Assange.

See list of protests worldwide here.

Special thanks to Alex Hills from Candles4Assange for publishing this list and all her hard work.

Julian Assange Extradition: Our Freedom on Trial Starts Monday in London

On Monday, February 24th, our freedom goes on trial in London, England as Julian Assange’s extradition trial begins.  Many still do not realize what will happen if he is extradited and tried in the U.S. courts.  They do not understand the precedent it will set or what will happen to the genius who revolutionized journalism.  They do not understand that by being brought to the U.S., it will be the finale of the life of a man who changed the world.

Today in London, many supporters who understand the importance of this trial joined in a march that ended at Parliament Square.  They understand the dangers involved in extraditing Julian Assange.  They know that he will be martyred in the states.  They know that once he is extradited and condemned to 175 years in the darkest corners of American prisons that it opens doors to prosecute any journalist who publishes crimes committed by the United States government and military.  They know that human rights are at stake and that free speech for the individual will literally disappear.  They know that Assange is more than just a man but a hero who stood up for truth and justice.  They know a hero when they see one.

Monday, the world’s citizens are being put on trial as well as journalism.  The horrific treatment of Julian Assange over the past decade will become a norm if he is extradited.  Psychological torture will be accepted for journalists and any whistleblower who attempts to give the public the truth.  It will destroy American journalists as well as foreign publishers.  It will enable superpowers to hide their atrocities behind the name “classified.”

Yes, Julian Assange’s freedom is literally our own.  If we allow his extradition and destruction to take place, we are giving our own freedom away by doing so.  We are giving away future generations hope and rights by being complacent.  What they have done to this man is torture.  It is barbaric.  The media has attempted to dehumanize the man in order to please a government that has committed frightening, horrific war crimes against humanity and have gotten away with it.  Instead of the war criminals being put on trial and those who have allowed it, it is the publisher who exposed them.  Assange wanted justice for the innocent.  Instead, he received punishment and abuse.

The government of the United States was embarrassed for being exposed and like the evil empire it has become, it is seeking vengeance against one man.  Many say this is simply a show trial for the public.  However, the public already knows it is.  We must continue to protest, write letters and fight for our freedoms.  Simply put we are all Assange and we must fight against this disgusting unfair treatment of a citizen and fellow human being.  We must stand up and tell the government, “NO MORE!”

There is nothing scarier than a compromised justice system.  If you want freedom, sometimes it costs.  However, it shouldn’t cost this man his life for standing up for us. We own our governments, not the other way around.  They do not have the right to trample our freedom underfoot unless we allow it.  Any injustice due to simple complacency makes us just as guilty as those who did it.

The attack on Julian Assange is a full-scale assault on you as an individual.

From Sputnik News, (article available here):

Julian Assange is our collective conscience, our cause of speaking truth to power. Since the establishment of WikiLeaks in 2006 Julian Assange has performed an essential role in exposing the lies and dark crimes of the rich and powerful that normally operate above the law and beyond reproach.

For performing that role he has been the victim of a vile and vituperative campaign of lies, distortions and slanders. The allegations of rape and sexual assault which were so enthusiastically highlighted and spread across the world by the billionaire controlled mainstream media were deliberately designed to undermine Assange’s credibility and reputation as a precursor for the US and UK authorities to justify aggressive pursuit of the man as a loathsome criminal who deserved to be taken down. Many people were deceived by the lies.

Freedom of the press is necessary to keep politicians in line as well as other branches of government.  Without it, the government can do as it wishes behind closed doors and can commit horrendous crimes against its own citizens and foreigners. What is happening is the tip of the iceberg. The press is the purveyor of information necessary to hold governments accountable. The publishing activities related to the indictments against Assange are simple journalistic necessities to continue their work.  

According to Amnesty International (petition as seen here):

Amnesty International strongly opposes any possibility of Julian Assange being extradited or sent in any other manner to the USA. There, he faces a real risk of serious human rights violations including possible detention conditions that would amount to torture and other ill-treatment (such as prolonged solitary confinement).

The fact that he was the target of a negative public campaign by US officials at the highest levels undermines his right to be presumed innocent and puts him at risk of an unfair trial. Julian Assange’s publication of disclosed documents as part of his work with Wikileaks should not be punishable as this activity mirrors conduct that investigative journalists undertake regularly in their professional capacity. Prosecuting Julian Assange on these charges could have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression, leading journalists to self-censor from fear of prosecution.

All charges underpinning the US extradition request should be dropped to allow for Julian Assange’s prompt release.

Please make sure to sign the petition.

According to the Human Rights Commission of the COE as seen here:

I have been following with great attention the developments concerning Julian Assange’s case, in particular the charges against him and the extradition request submitted by the United States government to the United Kingdom. In addition to my own monitoring and analysis, I have received information from medical professionals, civil society activists, human rights defenders, journalists’ associations and others on this case.

Julian Assange’s potential extradition has human rights implications that reach far beyond his individual case. The indictment raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including those that expose human rights violations. The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Julian Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond. Consequently, allowing Julian Assange’s extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies.

Not to mention that Julian Assange was unlawfully seized from the Ecuador Embassy in London and his political asylum illegally revoked setting a precedent against all asylum seekers. So many human rights have been violated in this case it is unreal.  Ecuador also snatched his personal effects and gave them to the U.S. to use as evidence in the case as well as allowing a security agency in Spain to spy for the CIA during meetings with his lawyers. Exactly how much is the U.S. going to get away with before people wake up and do something about it?  Will it take this man’s life?  I certainly hope not.  Assange’s treatment breaks my heart.

I agree with Trevor Fitzgibbon’s statement on this.

THE #1 MESSAGE: If the Trump administration can prosecute a foreign journalist under US laws for PUBLISHING factual documents then NO JOURNALIST is safe- not in America or anywhere around the world.

Monday is the beginning of the Assange extradition trial. The future of #FreeSpeech will be decided by that trial. More than that the future of an extraordinary man who made the world a better place will be determined. Whose side will you choose the government’s side or humanity’s?

Shocking News: The Truth About The Pardon Trump Offered Assange

Today most of the headlines are reading that Julian Assange’s lawyers stated that Assange was offered a pardon if he testified that Russia didn’t steal the DNC leaks.  All the MSM is having a field day with this claiming that Trump offered it on the condition that Assange help “cover-up” the Russian hacking.  The problem with these articles is it simply isn’t true.  Assange stated months before in January of 2017 that he did not receive the emails from Russia.  (For a video with Hannity where he states this see here. or a video with John Pilger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4).

Interviews and articles dating back to when January of 2017 prove that Assange was already stating he didn’t receive the emails and leaks from Russia.  According to the headlines today, Dana Rohrabacher offered the pardon to Julian Assange on his visit.  The problem with it is that Rohrabacher didn’t visit Assange until August of 2017.  So, Assange was already stating Russia didn’t give him the info months before, as seen in the Wikileaks tweet below).

Of course, the White House insists that Trump does not even know Rohrabacher and no such offer was made.  The MSM needs to get this right. First Trump tried to coerce Assange with a pardon when that didn’t work, he had him indicted.

Assange did not want to be pardoned because it would be an admission of guilt.  What matters to Assange was the effect it would have on free speech and free press.  Rand Paul suggested Assange be given immunity if he was willing to testify in this case. (Article can be seen here.) This is a totally different scenario than what MSM is trying to produce.  Finally, Trump has remained silent on the extradition of Assange after saying he loved Wikileaks 150 times pre-election.  He claims now that Wikileaks is not his thing

So, since the White House is denying offering Assange a pardon, the question you must ask yourself is who is lying?  Let’s look at the evidence of Trump talking about Wikileaks.  Here is a youtube video showing Trump pre-election:

Then in April, after Assange was brutally kidnapped from the Embassy and arrested, Trump said the following according to washington post article:

But on Thursday, after the Justice Department unsealed an indictment charging Assange for actions stemming from WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of classified diplomatic and military documents, Trump acted as if he’d never heard of the anti-secrecy group.“I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange.”

Wait… what?  So, who is the liar in this?  How can you love something and not know nothing about it?  His statement is recorded by many MSM articles if you would like to see.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/11/trump-julian-assange-wikileaks-1269954

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/wikileaks-donald-trump-julian-assange-campaign/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/hatred-love-cold-indifference-julian-assange-trump-wikileaks

Sadly, even the Guardian calls out the obvious lie.  It’s either Trump is lying or he has a memory issue.  If the case is his memory, then he doesn’t belong in the oval office in my opinion.

My point being, if you lied about loving Wikileaks when they were exposing your opponent, why wouldn’t you lie now? Here is another question I ask you the reader, are the indictments against Assange revenge for him refusing to be coerced or are they an attack on a free press or both?

The trial starting next Tuesday should be interesting, to say the least. I think we are in for an explosive amount of details that most never heard before.  Hopefully, it ends with a free Julian Assange.

 

 

Buckingham Palace Has Called Assange’s Case Political: Why That Matters

A tweet from Chris Lonsdale, shown below, contains a response to a letter he wrote to Buckingham Palace concerning the extradition of Julian Assange to the U.S.  In the response, a spokesperson stated that the case was political.

A lot of people are upset by the statement above which reads specifically:

“I must tell you, however, that as a Constitutional Sovereign, Her majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers and remains strictly non-political at all times. This is, therefore, a matter which the Queen cannot intervene.”

This statement actually may backfire.  You see, according to the Extradition Treaty between the U.S. and U.K.  According to an article by justsecurity.org:

“Another defense available to Assange—and perhaps his most formidable one—will be to assert that he is being charged with a political offense. If that assertion is deemed correct, it could block his extradition, because, like many extradition agreements, the US-UK treaty forbids any transfer based on such charges. The categorical prohibition under Article 4 of the treaty could not be clearer: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.”

But what is a political offense? Transgressions such as espionage, sedition, and treason are what are known as “pure” political offenses, including underUK law—that is to say, activities that directly target the state but that would not necessarily be criminal in other contexts. A related category, known as “relative” political offenses, covers common crimes that are incidental to purely political activities. Because various jurisdictions have interpreted the expansiveness of this political exception differently over time, a universal definition of a relative political offense is difficult to articulate, but the basic principle of the political exception in extradition has remained unchanged since its origins in the late nineteenth century. It states, in brief, that nations should not return political opponents to face prosecution for challenging the states that would sit in judgement of them.”

The Queen’s statement just made Assange’s extradition illegal according to their extradition treaty.  Technically, he cannot be sent to the United States.  Keep in mind, the U.S. is refusing to extradite a woman accused of killing Harry Dunn on diplomatic issues, claiming she is a diplomat’s wife when in fact she is CIA.  The U.K. could easily back out of this case by using its own treaty to justify saving Assange.

The only question that remains then is will the British judicial system abide by its own laws?

Julian Assange Today: New Updates

It appears that even Queen Elizabeth views the extradition and persecution of Assange is politically motivated. In an article by RT, (seen here), a Buckingham Palace spokesperson stated the following:

“The Queen will not intervene to release Julian Assange, vowing to remain “non-political.”

This statement alone makes the extradition of Assange illegal through the extradition treaty between the U.S. and U.K. governments as it states the following:

“Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.”

When even the Queen of England won’t intervene because it is a political matter, it is obvious to extradite him would be illegal and against the very treaty he would be extradited under. Why are more people not out on the streets screaming about this?

George Christensen, a federal MP in Tasmania, posted this on Facebook today:

“Earlier today, Andrew Wilkie MP and I met with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer. Prof Melzer advises that he and other medical experts had examined imprisoned Australian journalist Julian Assange and recognised he had the symptoms of psychological torture. Prof Melzer believes this to be the result of ongoing isolation and also the lack of fairness and adherence to protocol in the legal and juridical systems that Assange had been exposed to.”

pictured left to right, George Christensen, Nils Melzer and Andrew Wilkie MP

Wilkie and Christensen will be visiting Assange in Belmarsh on Tuesday. In an article by the Sydney Morning Herald, seen here:

Mr. Wilkie said, “Mr. Assange “was clearly publishing information in the public interest”.

“He had hard evidence of US war crimes,” he said. “Now the country guilty of the war crimes is trying to get a hold of him. For the Australian government to be going along with this is unconscionable.

“The whole thing is mad from start to finish.”

Mr. Wilkie said his two objectives were “for the extradition to be dropped and for Assange to be returned to Australia”.

When you add to the fact the Queen sees this as political, the CIA spied on Assange and his lawyers using a Spanish security agency, they have tortured Assange for over 9 years and the U.S. refuses to extradite Anne Sacoolas, a CIA agent, claiming she is the wife of a diplomat, the U.K. would literally be showing their submission to the U.S. empire. There is nothing worse than a western country bowing as though it is a servant to another country in an act of fear.

Support for Assange is growing worldwide, the question that remains is will it be soon enough to save the Wikileaks founder. Will enough people fight for free speech and free press to end this travesty? We will know soon enough.