Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks'

[sabrina 1]

80. My arguments have never been presented in court. Motions were presented, no case

has ever been tested in court with witnesses and evidence and it never will be imho.

Courts generally grant motions such as the ones filed in this case. But they mean NOTHING in terms of the case itself. All they are are a means of facilitating the presentation of a case being claimed by a Prosecutor and have no other meaning in terms of whether there actually is a case. It happens every day in courtrooms, and it also often results in complete dismissals of cases.

Sweden has failed to indict him. Even after arresting him. So your arguments are just failures at this point but I am happy to keep on pointing out how far the anti-Wikileaks contingency will go to try to ignore the facts because they have an agenda.

Again, you are only helping my case. You point out that the Prosecution got everything they wanted from the courts. And even with that, they have still failed to present their case in court.

The facts of this 'case' are simple. This prosecutor had many opportunities, especially when he was IN Sweden, to speak to him, to arrest him, and to file charges. She failed again when he offered to return to Sweden in Oct and she refused again to speak to him. And she has failed now for going on three years, to speak to him in London where it is perfectly legal to do and has been done many times before.

The fact is they did NOT file charges, and now we know why. The first prosecutor was correct, and even the nutty attorney now representing the women, admitted early on that 'we have a very weak case'. So why did he push to reopen a 'very weak case' and then refuse to present it in court?

The more you try to explain all of this, the more you are, inadvertently I know, proving what a majority of people, including legal experts, now believe. There never was a case.