Skip to main content

View Diary: Assange Consented To Be Extradited, Says British Home Secretary (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, that isn't true (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, bluedust, JesseCW

    The original prosecutor questioned and released him. He was free to leave Sweden and he did so.

    They had to go find a different prosecutor to re-open the case.

    In any event, it is all moot.

    Where is the undertaking not to extradite him to the US?

    That is the sole basis of his refusal to return, and the only reason Ecuador granted asylum.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:16:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Please stop saying these things without (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      reading the court document.  It's all in there.  You can read how it unfolded, but the summary is:

      "Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Nye made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sunderberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem. Had they been given the true facts then they would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way."
      To reiterate: When Assange left he was indeed wanted for questioning (by the second prosecutor) and had been wanted for over a week.  His attorney knew this but deliberately hid the information, both from the court and witnesses, and continued repeating the lie to the public.

      As a followup, after arriving in the UK, his legal team kept lying to the Swedish authorities, telling them he was coming right back when in reality he was preparing to stay in the UK.

      Concerning the switch in prosecutors: that was a result of an appeal by the attorney of the women, who argued (quite rightly) that the case had been closed before even all of the witness statements were filed and before forensic evidence had been collected.  Most critically, one of the statements that was not yet taken was Wilén's.  Ardin's case is not listed in the EAW as a rape charge, but as a lesser charge.  It is Wilén's case that is listed as the rape charge.  It would indeed have been quite shocking if this argument - that all of the statements, including the most serious, weren't in yet - hadn't gotten the case re-opened.

      •  And still you ignore (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, bluedust

        the only pertinent question.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:31:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  RiiiIIIIIiiigh. That makes total sense. Assanges (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming

        attorney hid from a Swedish Court the fact that Assange was wanted for questioning in Sweden.

        To reiterate: When Assange left he was indeed wanted for questioning (by the second prosecutor) and had been wanted for over a week.  His attorney knew this but deliberately hid the information, both from the court and witnesses, and continued repeating the lie to the public.
        Because, well, it's not there was any way a Swedish judge could find that out.

        ‎"I weep for you," the Walrus said: "I deeply sympathize."

        by JesseCW on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 07:37:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a *British Court* (0+ / 0-)

          What is so hard about clicking a link and reading for once?  That you might learn something from outside of the echo chamber?

          •  Three rec's. (0+ / 0-)

            You're just not that good at this.

            That aside (as I waste time in a smear peace so biased and transparent that even the Assange Hate Squad didn't want to be associated with it) what you said is what's being addressed.

            You claimed that Assanges lawyers hid from witnesses - and the only witnesses are the women alleging they were assaulted - the fact that Assange was wanted for questioning.

            When confront with the fact that he was freely allowed to leave Sweden without impediment, and the simple forthright fact that no charges were being pursued when he left (the case having been dropped by the previous prosecutor and not yet picked up by the political extremist currently pursuing it) you claim it's all because his lawyer was misleading judges.

            Your entire argument, from start to finish, is that all accused rapists should be considered guilty.

            That's all it's ever boiled down to, but now it's become clear to even the densest reader.

            There's a reason no one is supporting you anymore.  

            ‎"I weep for you," the Walrus said: "I deeply sympathize."

            by JesseCW on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:58:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Incorrect (0+ / 0-)
              You claimed that Assanges lawyers hid from witnesses - and the only witnesses are the women alleging they were assaulted - the fact that Assange was wanted for questioning.
              Wrong.  Again, if you'd read the damn court ruling (sorry for the emphasis, but it gets frustrating when in every single post the debunking is right there in the link), you'd realize that Assange's defense team called in four witnesses - that's a legal term - two of whom (Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem) had been materially misled by the attorney in a manner that substantially affected their testimony.
              When confront with the fact that he was freely allowed to leave Sweden without impediment, and the simple forthright fact that no charges were being pursued when he left he case having been dropped by the previous prosecutor and not yet picked up by the political extremist currently pursuing it)
              Again, none of what you wrote is accurate, either "freely being allowed to leave" or "not yet picked up" read the damn ruling:
              In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15thSeptember] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

              Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.

              Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added “I can’t say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden”. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: “Not as far as I am aware”.

              In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

              The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave.

              and...
              Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Nye made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sunderberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem. Had they been given the true facts then they would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
              (even the "political extremist" garbage is well addressed in the ruling)

              Furthermore:

              Your entire argument, from start to finish, is that all accused rapists should be considered guilty.
              My entire argument is, read the damn ruling rather than repeating falsehoods over and over that can be easily remedied by pointing to a single document.

              And honestly, I don't give a rat's arse about your personal insults or how much of an echo chamber Daily Kos has become.

    •  How can one undertake to NOT do something? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei

      Why do I feel we are in it-is-impossible-to-prove-a-negative territory here?

    •  As for the second part... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345
      Where is the undertaking not to extradite him to the US?
      This is the one part that is actually debatable.  All of the rest - that he was wanted when he left, that he is accused of rape, that he must be charged in Sweden, that he is not sought just for information but for charges - is demonstrable fact.  But the reality is, we have no idea what's going on in the negotiations right now.

      What we can say is the law.  If the US tried to extradite Assange from Sweden, it would first fall to the Swedish judicial system to consider the request.  It's illegal in Sweden to extradite in cases where there is considered a realistic possibility of the death penalty or any kind of abuse without specific written safeguards guaranteeing that they do not occur, as well as it being illegal to extradite people for intelligence or military matters.

      If the court ruled that the US had given full assurance to prevent the death penalty and abuse, and that the case was not about military or intelligence matters (aka, Wikileaks), then Sweden would be legally bound to extradite.  Except... that there are other levels of review.  The next is the Swedish government.  This is where getting a written guarantee comes in.  The Swedish government cannot force an extradition against the judiciary, but it can prevent one ordered by the judiciary.  However, it too is subject to the constraints of Swedish law.  It cannot legally issue a blanket ban on extraditions; that would be pledging in writing to break its extradition treaty.  They could, however, declare a wide ranging list of possible charges related to Wikileaks as being "pertaining to intelligence matters" and refuse in advance to extradite on those charges (as well as the general death penalty/abuse assurances guaranteed under European extradition law).  Whether this would be enough for Assange - in fact, whether it's even already been offered - we have no way to know right now.

      If both Sweden's courts and governments approve extradition, it falls back to the UK system (aka, he's actually safer in Sweden, because the UK has to approve it either way, permanent or temporary surrender, due to the EAW treaty).  It goes through full judicial review again, including appeals up to the Supreme Court, and if they rule him extradited (that's line of defense #3, if you're tracking), the UK Home Minister can override it (#4) and ban an extradition.

      Even if all that happens, Assange can then take his case to the European Court of Human Rights - a body designed specifically to protect freedom of speech, prevent torture and abuse, and so forth.  It'd be a case tailor-made for the ECHR, it'd take a miracle for them not to take it.

      This all assumes that the US would even try, rather than being content to see him fade out of the limelight.  The most notable thing about what the US has said in all of this drawn-out legal battle here is... practically nothing.  Which, bare minimum, says that they know that anything that they do would be counterproductive from a PR standpoint.  And the longer things go on, the harder it gets to legally go after him anyway.  Back when he was a free man in Sweden, there were no complexities of things like a EAW warrant.  Heck, during the times when wasn't in the EU, there wouldn't even have been complexities about the death penalty or abuse during extradition requests.  

      But anyway, this is straying from the original topic.  Which is, yes, Sweden can give specific guarantees.  It's given them orally and in generalities to the Australian foreign minister.  It could give them in specificities and in writing.  But it cannot give a blanket ban without pledging to break the law.  How that will all play out, what Assange will accept, who knows.

      •  The US always takes the Death Penalty (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rei, JesseCW, crose

        off the table when seeking extradition from Europe.

        They have no choice in the matter.

        Rei I understand, and have always understood your approach to this matter.

        I think that the political influences need clearing from the decks before Assange is in a position to return to Sweden, and you don't.

        I think your approach is simplistic and naive, and that is not meant as an insult because the nature of these charges is an emotive one. That is why I think the charges are being pursued, because I have a suspicious mind.

        I do not trust ANYTHING in any document that the Swedish government has filed in court. None of those filings have been tested for veracity or accuracy.

        The Swedish Government has been asked to do one thing, that is to guarantee Assange safe passage out of Sweden at the end of the criminal proceedings ... even if that involved a short jail term.

        Until they comply, or give credible reasons why they won't, then I will support Assnage's refusal to return to Sweden.

        That sucks for criminal justice, and for any victims such a process might throw up .... but that is the fault of Sweden.

        I am not an apologist for a rapist. I do not support or condone any crimes, but I do want justice for everyone involved ... Including Assange.

        Even if it should turn out that he deserves a criminal conviction .... he STILL does not deserve being handed over to a country that routinely tortures such detainees.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:51:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And I respect your view even though (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, erush1345

          I disagree with various aspects.  My main issue is with two groups of people - 1) those saying their should be no trial at all and who instead publicly smear those who allege rape (to the point that there are basically stalker sites out there against them);  and 2) those trying to claim that the accusations (waiting until someone is asleep to sleep with them in a manner that they wouldn't let you do while awake) aren't "legitimate" rape.

          All I want is a fair and just trial, on the issue of the rape accusations, and nothing else.  And I think that's what you want to see happen too.  And I'll fully respect whatever the outcome, and I think you will too.  And neither of us want to see him sent to the US to be tried for anything related to the leaks.  Really, I think we're 95% on the same page here.  I think it's just that 5% over the details that's the sticking point.

      •  As usual Rei lies about every aspect of the case (0+ / 0-)

        Assange offered repeatedly to be interviewed in Sweden and had these refused or put off until later. That is a fact. He was given permission to leave Sweden when he did. Another fact. He then found himself on Interpol's "Most Wanted List" the next day (entirely unheard of in any case of this sort). Another fact. He is accused of a form of "rape" for which there is no known charge or conviction in the history of the UK (or the US). Another fact.

        Rei will never show such a charge or conviction in the history of either country. Instead Rei will just lie and dissemble about a UK judge dubiously interpreting a lawyer voluntarily saying he didn't get certain text messages as being dishonest and supposedly meaning Assange was evading questiong, and bald assertions from the same UK judge claiming the unpecedented allegations of "rape" made by Swedish prosecutors amount to rape in the UK, despite no existing precedent for that in the entire history of the country. None. Zero. Nada.

        On and on. Rei is - by far - the most dishonest person I have ever seen on DK. Literally. There is simply no contest.

        The only thing that is clear is that Rei wants desperately to convince everyone here to help railroad Assange into prison on the most dubious of pretexts.

        It is the most despicable and grotesque campaign of deceit that I have ever seen on DK.

        Don't believe Rei's endless lies and distortions. Familiarize yourself with the facts:
        http://www.nnn.se/...

        •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)
          Assange offered repeatedly to be interviewed in Sweden and had these refused or put off until later.
          Assange's attorney admitted otherwise in court, and I have the linked court document to approve it.  The concept that you would believe "nnn.se" over a linked court document shows how out of touch with reality you are.
          He is accused of a form of "rape" for which there is no known charge or conviction in the history of the UK (or the US). Another fact.
          Also a flat-out, readily confirmable lie.  Two British courts found that what he is accused of would be rape in the UK.  One of their rulings is linked.  The concept, again, that you take the word of "nnn.se" over what is legal in the UK over that of British courts really unbelievable.

          The rest of your post is just personal attacks.  I shall not respond in kind.  Enjoy your day.

          •  You lie again and again. (0+ / 0-)

            The attorney's "admitted" no such thing. You lie endlessly as you always do. If not, provide the quote where Assange's lawyers "admit" this.

            You are a bald-faced, shameless liar, the most despicable liar and fraud i've ever encountered on DK.

            As to supposedly "Two British courts" claiming the claims of Swedish prosecutors "would" amount to rape, I again ask, show any charge or conviction for "rape" corresponding to those of the Swedish prosecutors about Assange in UK history (or US history even).

            You can't. And you won't. You can't show any and you will never show any, because there is NO such charge or conviction anywhere in UK history (or even US history).

            You are a liar and a fraud. The most disgusting I've ever encountered on DK.

            •  Right here. (0+ / 0-)
              In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15thSeptember] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

              Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.

              Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added “I can’t say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden”. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: “Not as far as I am aware”.

              In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

              The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave.

              Pretty freaking unambigous.  And if that was all a lie from some judge involved in a giant conspiracy, all completely made up, all Assange's defense team would have had to do was to hand in the court recordings to the high court, say "look, the lower court lied in the ruling", and the ruling would have been overturned right then and there.

              To argue that the attorney did not admit that the claim was false is to argue from delusion, plain and simple.  I hate to be so blunt about it, but it is what it is.

              As for rape, here's the lower court ruling, which the high court upheld:

              ...

              4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

              The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.

              ...

              Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the complainant consented. Also the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. Where a section 75 evidential presumption arises there is no question of the issue being removed from the jury. The circumstances in which evidential presumptions about concerned apply include: 2(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him; (d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act. (There are other circumstances that are not relevant in this case.)

              ...

              The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

              The high court upheld this (which again, any clear misstatements of fact, such as what the EAW say, or lying about what people say in contradiction to the court recording, would be an open-and-shut overturning).

              Maybe what you think is a lie is about what the law says?  Okay, let's dig up section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  It reads, in full:

              75 Evidential presumptions about consent

              This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

              (1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—

              (a)that the defendant did the relevant act,

              (b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and

              (c)that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,

              the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.

              (2)The circumstances are that—

              (a)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;

              (b)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;

              (c)the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;

              (d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;

              (e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;

              (f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.

              (3)In subsection (2)(a) and (b), the reference to the time immediately before the relevant act began is, in the case of an act which is one of a continuous series of sexual activities, a reference to the time immediately before the first sexual activity began.

              Huh, whaddayaknow, exactly what the judge said it says: being asleep is one of the six cases where there can be no consent, in no unambiguous terms.

              I don't have access to a case law library and neither do you, so you ask me to do something I have no capability to do.  However, it is utterly unnecessary to point to existing cases for something to be illegal, which it clearly is straight in the text of the law and was agreed to by multiple British courts.  Just remembering recent news articles, here's one where the fact that the victim was merely drunk (let alone outright asleep) led to a high-profile conviction.  And really, that's nothing.  In Canada, there was a famous case where a person consented to BDSM sex and to be strangled during sex, passed out during it due to lack of oxygen, the sex continued, the person came back to consciousness, and the person then consented to finishing the sex... but it was ruled that it was rape during the minutes where the person was unconscious.  Now, that's a really extreme example, but still, by comparison, the Assange case is nothing.  Modern rape law in most parts of the world is very clear: there is no such thing as "advance" consent to sex.  Sex while sleeping is rape.  The fact that it was unprotected when she had explicitly refused unprotected sex multiple times the night before (something the defense does not contest) is merely listed as an aggravating factor; it's not even necessary.

              •  Thanks for confirming that you are a liar (0+ / 0-)

                and a fraud.

                The attorneys never "admitted" anything contrary to what I said. An attorney "admitted" that he accidentally did not notice some text messages.

                What I said is exactly accurate, and remains accurate.

                But hey, there's probably not a big enough AUDIENCE  reading this thread anymore for you to continue painting elaborate, malicious and deliberate lies for.

                I guess I'll have to wait to see you lying more next time you have a bigger crowd to misinform.

                Not enough victims left here for you to bother with.

                •  This thread now stands for itself. (0+ / 0-)

                  People can see quite clearly what was said.  And given that all you have left is insults, good day.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site