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

[NanceGreggs]

415. Let's review your "facts", shall we?

Marianne Ny has never stated nor maintained that she "couldn't come to London because it would be illegal to do so."

This nonsense started with an interview of Ny published in Time magazine on December 3, 2010, wherein she said:

"We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticised by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law. The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities."

Ny's remarks, as you an plainly see, speak to the legal impediments that exist to interviewing Assange in the UK, because an arrest - which follows such an interview in Sweden - cannot be effected in a foreign country. BTW, a "legal impediment" is not the same as "illegality". I should think someone such as yourself, who claims to be a legal expert, would have known that right off the top.

Being that Ny never claimed that her "going to London would be illegal", your claims that she told this "lie" and has repeated it for four years falls flatly on its face. "

"The excuse (lie) for nearly five years was 'we cannot interview him in London due to a legal impediment'. There was no such thing."

Again, the legal impediment is that Ny is not able to arrest Assange so long as he resides in the Ecuadorian embassy. THAT WAS, and STILL IS, the legal impediment - which does exist, whether you recognize it or not, to Ny carrying out her duties as she would were Assange on Swedish soil. Again, despite your self-proclaimed legal expertise, you apparently don't understand the nature of "legal impediments", nor the definition thereof.

"She (Ny) had to be 'ordered' to finally stop lying as to why she has failed to file charges."

Do you have a link to an order by a Swedish judge "ordering Ny to stop lying"? Of course you don't, because no such judicial order has been rendered, and no such inference has been made. So much for your "facts", which you fabricate at will.

There are lawyers on DU, and many of them have tried to educate you on this case, and many others. You have often gone off on a tangent about your "knowledge" of US law, and have been corrected time and again by people who actually studied the law, are licensed to practice it, and actually do so for a living. And instead of learning from them, you invariably insist that you know more about the law than they do.

Apparently, holding yourself out as an expert in US law was not enough - you are now an expert in Swedish law, as well as international law. One wonders why people bother graduating law school, when all one really needs to do is to claim they know the law better than those fools who wasted their time getting a legal degree.

You might want to rethink that position, sabrina. You might want to actually READ the links you are invariably offered by REAL lawyers, and learn from them - instead of embarrassing yourself by claiming that you have some kind of expertise in a field you so obviously know very little about.

You are, of course, free to buy into whatever conspiracy theories you want to re Assange - in the same way you are free to buy into any other CT that the internetz offers up on a daily basis.

However, you are not entitled to your own "facts". And the fact IS that Ny NEVER stated that going to London to interview Assange was "illegal", no Swedish judge has ever "ordered Ny to stop lying", and legal impediments DO exist to Ny carrying out her obligation to interview and THEN ARREST Assange in the UK/Ecuadorian Embassy because she cannot complete her obligations under Swedish law, i.e. arresting Assange at the conclusion of said interview. which is not possible under the circumstances.

So as you lecture people about knowing the FACTS, you might want to actually acquaint yourself with what the FACTS are before you hold yourself out as an expert on this, or any other topic.