The Swedish Prosecutor Lied As Charged. Admits No Legal Impediment to London Interview w/Assange.

[BainsBane]

165. Change the law?

Me, from the US? Assange shouldn't have to obey the law as it is. It is everyone else's responsibility to cater to him.
The charges are in Sweden. Most mortals obey orders of extradition and don't expect prosecutors offices to travel to them. You are advocating separate justice for some, the great and powerful men. Not only should the prosecutors expend resources from Swedish tax payers to cater to a megalomaniac and his sycophants, but now you insist I, an American woman, should change Swedish law in order for an accused rapist to obey it. Do you have no conception that you are arguing for fundamental inequality before the law? He is responsible for obeying the law as it existed at the time the incident occurred. People here think he is too important to be held to the laws of mere mortals. They will dissemble and distort to ensure an accused rapist doesn't face justice. He is a great man. His accusers are lowly women. Who could possibly think their lives matter?

There is a lot of information on this case that you are unfamiliar with. The accused's defenders willfully ignore evidence that has has been posted repeatedly and falsely insist there is no legal charge against Assange. I am posting the warrant for his arrest and the UK court decision that made clear what his standing is under Swedish law.

The link below goes to a PDF of the international arrest warrant.

here are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. 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, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party 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.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

UK appellate court ruling on extradition of Assange to Sweden and his standing under Swedish law.


http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html