Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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