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

[BainsBane]

224. The documents categorically refute your claims

Here again are the charges you insist don't exist. I and others have provided you with these documents in the past, and you have ignored them. I have already posted them in response to you today, and you continue to deny they exist.

From the International Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish court:

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


The legal documents provide the evidence in the case. Truth is not what you want to believe. It is what the evidence establishes and the UK appellate court clearly ruled that Assange is not merely a suspect but an accused rapist with a valid arrest warrant. Respect for the truth requires examining that evidence, something you have repeatedly refused to do. It requires forming views based on evidence rather than deciding someone you admire cannot possibly be guilty and therefore ignoring anything that doesn't promote that view. That is precisely what you have done in regard to Assange. You assume the truth is what you want it to be and ignore all the legal evidence in the case.

Claiming the documents aren't worth the paper they are written on is a transparent attempt to avoid evidence. We are talking about a legal case, Assange's standing before the law. We are not even talking about guilt or innocence. That is determined through a trial, something Assange has hidden out for four years to avoid. The courts are THE source for legal standing in a case. Ignoring them doesn't change the facts in evidence.

Your claim that there is "no evidence" requires a complete dismissal of the victims' testimony. Those women are not nothing. Their testimony matters, and victim testimony is the crucial evidence in any sexual assault case. That you insist there is no evidence shows that you see their word as meaningless, equivalent to nothing. Meanwhile, you demand concierge justice for Assange.

The prosecutor did not lie. Near the end of last year, the Swedish appellate court directed her to interrogate Assange by whatever means necessary. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-sweden-assange-idUSKCN0J41EU20141120. As the very article you link to above shows, the prosecutor still says that interrogating Assange in his hide out in London is not the best situation, but she considers it better than allowing the statute of limitations to expire so that the victims are denied justice for the violent crimes committed against them. Your claim that she lied is a complete distortion. Not only that, you think it an outrage that Assange might have to be treated like a mere mortal and appear in the court of the jurisdiction where he is charged. He is too important for that. The Swedish taxpayers must pay for prosecutors to be sent to the UK to accommodate the great and powerful man you insist is too good to be held to the laws of justice.


The problem with deciding that people one admires cannot possibly be guilty is it makes a farce of justice. You are not being honest with yourself that you aren't concerned with individuals. This is all about your desire to protect an individual from facing justice, and you have repeated false claims and ignored evidence to do so. All kinds of men commit rape, and if there is a legal accusation, the victims deserve to see that accused assailant brought to justice. In arguing that some men are above that, that you know they must be innocent simply because you admire them, it means that no rapist can ever be held to account because they always have supporters. That is why we have a situation where rapists operate with virtual impunity.

How far "they will go? How far the Swedish courts will go to bring rapists to justice? Sweden takes rape very seriously, which is among the reasons it has one of the lowest gender gaps in the world. The question is how far will you and the rest of Assange's apologists go to continue to go to protect this accused rapist from prosecution? How long will you continue to ignore the evidence and make claims that are shown to be false by the legal findings in the case?

I haven't smeared you Sabrina. I challenged your false claims. I have provided primary legal documents with evidence, and you provide no evidence. You have smeared yourself by repeating making false claims and turning to character assassination of a prosecutor in order to protect an accused rapist. I have every right to challenge false statements, and I will continue to do so.

Additionally, Assange is not a whistle blower. Manning was the whistle blower. Assange published the documents on a website. There is a difference. For me, however, this is not about Wikileaks. It is about rape, and it galls me how many are willing to do everything to shelter an accused rapist from justice. I do not care if the accused is Assange, the Dalai Lama or my own brother. Everyone who is facing legal allegations of rape must face the justice system. Assange is not better than the rest of humanity, no more than the Steubenville football players were. The size of their fan base doesn't matter. What matters is the victims have a right to justice. Assange has had every opportunity to clear his name and instead chosen to evade justice. That reveals consciousness of guilt, a legally admissible argument in court.