struggle4progress
struggle4progress's Journal... Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm
for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents .. record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October ...
10 Days in Sweden
http://www.alternet.org/story/149254/10_days_in_sweden%3A_the_full_allegations_against_julian_assange?page=entire%2C2
Police officer slams TV portrayal of Assange
October 9, 2012 - 10:23PM
Karl Quinn
... Mr Day claimed the attack on the US military database Milnet — a major plot point in the critically acclaimed telemovie that screened on Ten on Sunday night — never happened, and added that had Julian Assange really been on the trail of evidence that the US had deliberately targeted civilians in Operation Desert Storm his team would have known about it.
"The facts are that the AFP found no evidence of any such event," Mr Day, who left the force 12 years ago, told The Age. "We had intercepts on his telephone lines so we captured everything he did on his computer. We also captured all his verbal communications on the telephone. On top of this we gathered all of the evidence from his house" ...
"Assange was not prosecuted for breaking into any Milnet system that contained information on military targets as there was no evidence that it occurred — and we had a lot of evidence," Mr Day said ...
Another title card at the end notes that in 2010 Wikileaks "released the Afghan and Iraq War Logs, over half a million field reports and communications by the US Military. It was uncannily similar to the material <Assange had> first seen as a teenager 20 years before" ...
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/police-officer-slams-tv-portrayal-of-assange-20121009-27bho.html
Assange's lawsuit threats show him to be an habitual bullshitter:
He can't sue Julia Gillard now, for comments she made two years ago, when the statute imposes a one year limit. And the threat shows clearly that he's not the great advocate of free speech he claims to be
Less than a month ago, we learned Assange -- the supposedly great friend of free information -- had threatened to sue SXSW, because he didn't like their production WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, which (among other things) included a short clip of him dancing in a nightclub. Ofcom, responding to his complaint about the program, found many of his claims false.
One of the most hilarious of Assange's repeated lawsuit threats was his threat to sue a news outlet (for publishing some of the Cablegate material!) on the theory that he Assange owned the stolen cables 
... Assange claimed the program was libelous, unfair, and violated his privacy, at least in part because it showed footage of him dancing in a nightclub in Iceland, notes the Guardian. The documentary first aired on November 29, 2011, and he later tried to prevent it from being shown in the United States, sending threatening letters to both SXSW and CNBC. SXSW aired the program as planned on March 9, while CNBC showed a shortened version of the documentary. On Monday, Ofcom had ruled that the documentary was fair and gave Assange plenty of opportunity to respond before it was aired. Although Assange insisted producers had not obtained his consent to appear on the film and had misrepresented what it would be about, Ofcom pointed out that his assistant had exchanged e-mails over several weeks with the filmmakers ...
Assange Threatened To Sue SXSW
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, at 12:54 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/11/assange_threatens_lawsuit_against_sxsw_over_documentary_wikileaks_secrets_and_lies.html
... Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange — that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released ...
WikiLeaks’ Assange Threatened Lawsuit Over Leaked Diplomatic Cables
By Kim ZetterEmail Author
01.06.11
12:01 AM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/vf-wikieaks/
Canongate: 'frustrating' 2011 blamed on Assange
05.10.12 | Joshua Farrington
Canongate has described 2011 as a "mixed and ultimately frustrating year", with the company posting an operating loss that it blamed on Julian Assange. Nevertheless, thanks to the sale of Text Publishing in Australia, Canongate ended the year in the black, and with an improved cash pile. The company also noted that its e-book sales grew 200%.
Canongate's turnover in 2011 was £10.8m, a decline of around 19% on 2010's turnover of £13.4m. It reported an operating loss of £406,633, though including the profit returned by trading at Text, this reduced to £368,467. Last year the company reported an operating profit of £1.1m. Pretax profits were boosted by the sale of Text, leading to a profit of £319,348. This was down 70% from £1.06m in 2010.
The failure of the Wikileaks founder to deliver a book as promised was credited for the poor performance in the bottom line. Chairman Sir Christopher Bland said the loss "was largely attributable to Julian Assange's failure to deliver the book he had contracted to produce, and we were unable to obtain repayment from him of Canongate's substantial advance, which had to be written off".
Canongate published Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography in September 2011, after Assange backed out of publication of an authorised work, declaring "All memoir is prostitution". The publisher said on release: "It fulfils the promise of the original proposal and we are proud to publish it" ...
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/canongate-frustrating-2011-blamed-assange.html
Assange has very close ties to Pirate Bay, so it's likely the Pirate Bay gang shares his libertarian
ideology. And since many Republicans similarly hold hardline libertarian views, it's really not surprising to see Republican ads appearing on the Pirate Bay website
Pirate Bay lawyer to take over Assange defence
Published: 18 Nov 11 10:12 CET
Julian Assange has dumped his Swedish lawyer in favour of a new defence team which includes an attorney involved in the Pirate Bay trial ...
http://www.thelocal.se/37426/20111118/
Wikileaks tweet calls Gottfrid Svartholm Warg "Assange friend":
How Sweden & Cambodia conspired to extradite without process Assange friend Gottfrid Svartholm Warg | Asia Timeshttps://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/246396869054455809
The link http://t.co/zKjZQbuA in the tweet redirects to an Asia Times article:
Cambodia helps squeeze WikiLeaks
By Justine Drennan
Sep 14, 2012
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NI14Ae01.html
So the phrase "Assange friend" comes from Wikileaks, not from Asia Times
WikiLeaks’ web host raided by Swedish police
Published: 02 October, 2012, 18:58
The Stockholm-based web host for WikiLeaks and The Pirate Bay has been raided by Swedish police. Four of the firm’s servers were seized, though it remains unclear exactly who was being targeted.
The Stockholm-based web host PeRiQuito AB, or PRQ, was targeted by police on Monday, the company’s owner Mikael Viborg told local media.
"PRQ.se, one of a number of ISPs used by WikiLeaks has been raided by Swedish police; 4 servers seized. Police still in office," WikiLeaks tweeted on Monday ...
http://rt.com/news/webhost-raid-wikileaks-sweden-504/
Are Troops Talking to Assange ‘Communicating With the Enemy’?
Sep 28, 2012 3:43pm
By Jake Tapper
... Air Force counter-intelligence documents obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald suggest that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks could be charged with “communicating with the enemy.”
But George Little, a spokesman for the Pentagon, tells ABC News that the “Department of Defense does not regard Mr. Assange as a member of the ‘enemy,’ a military objective, or someone who should be dealt with by the US military.”
Little says the Pentagon “has warned Mr. Assange and Wikileaks against soliciting service members to break the law by providing classified information to them, and that it is our view that continued possession by Wikileaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law. We regard this as a law enforcement matter.”
The documents were part of a probe of whether an analyst violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 904, article 104 ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/are-troops-talking-to-assange-communicating-with-the-enemy/
Agreed statements of facts and issues
... 11 ... on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010 , that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that: i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10<SW> would be resumed, under the offence of ‘rape’ ...
14 ... On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’scounsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed ...
15. On 27th September 2010 , the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.
17. On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of theexistence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.
18. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.
19. Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellant’s counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview. The Appellant’s counsel offered to speak to the Appellant about whether he would be able to attend on 14th October 2010 ...
21. On 12th October 2010, the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview ...
25. On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia ...
26. On the same date, the Stockholm District Court granted the prosecutor’s application for a domestic detention order in absentia.
27. On 19th November 2010, the Appellant appealed that order to the Svea Court of Appeal.
28. On 24th November 2010, following written argument on behalf of the parties, in which it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the domestic arrest was not proportionate and not based on sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause, but without an oral hearing, the order was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal ...
29. The prosecutor’s written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was “…requesting the arrest of Assange is in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation…”.
30. On 26th November 2010, an EAW was issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the Council of the European Union Framework Decision ...
33. On 28th November 2010, the Appellant applied to the Supreme Courtfor permission to appeal the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal. On 2nd December 2010, that application was refused ...
37. On 6th December 2010, the EAW was certified by SOCA ...
40. The ‘extradition hearing’ took place before the Senior District Judge(Judge Riddle) at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (sitting atBelmarsh Magistrates’ Court) on 7th, 8th & 11th February 2011 ... On 24th February 2011, the Appellant’s extradition was ordered by the Senior District Judge ...
43. On 12th & 13th July 2011, the Appeal was heard before the High Court ...
44. The High Court considered four appeal grounds:
a. The EAW had not been issued by a "judicial authority".
b. The EAW did not meet the dual criminality test.
c. The Applicant was not an “accused” within the meaning of s.2(3) of the 2003 Act.
d. The issue of the EAW and subsequent proceedings were not proportionate ...
46. On 2nd November 2011, the High Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 2003 Act. The Court held that:
a. The Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority, because the term “judicial” was not limited to a judge who adjudicates and could also include a prosecutorial body, as envisaged by Article 6 of the Framework Decision (judgment §§20-54);
b. The offences in the EAW did meet the dual criminality requirement, having regard to ss.74, 75 and 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (§§55-127);
c. The Applicant was an “accused” person, applying the House of Lords’ decision in Re Ismail <1999> 1 AC 320 (§§128-154);
d. The decision to issue the warrant and the failure to take up the offer of video link questioning were not disproportionate (§§155-160) ...
47. On 5th December 2011, the High Court certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision, pursuant to section 32(4)(a) of the 2003 Act: “…Whether a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a “judicial authority” within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? ...” ...
51. No grounds of appeal were left undetermined by the High Court.
The issues
52. Whether a public prosecutor is a judicial authority ...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
Assange had his year and a half in the UK courts, to argue against his extradition as he saw fit, and the foregoing provides a summary of the case as it left the High Court and headed into the UK Supreme Court. Note that any hint of the bizarre fantasia about forward extradition had already been dropped at Belmarsh. Assange's lawyers chose to quibble in the High Court about minor technical points -- such as whether the Swedish prosecutor could issue an EAW, or whether Assange could properly be described as "an accused person" for the purposes of extradition proceedings. He had his days in court, and he lost his case there
Profile Information
Gender: MaleCurrent location: undisclosed
Member since: Fri Feb 27, 2004, 09:28 PM
Number of posts: 118,273
