Julian Assange

It's expected that the judge will throw out the case against Julian Assange, by the end of tomorrow (Tuesday).

Julian's whole defense has been posted online - I haven't had a chance to look it up yet but assume it will be on the Wikileaks website.

which case Luna?

The UK extradition or the Swedes themselves dropping the case?

Sorry just got back. The UK case to extradite him is probably going to be dropped tomorrow as he hasn't even been charged with anything by the Swedes. Complete lack of evidence and one of the women has made her statement public.

I still haven't managed to look at his defense yet but will get around to it in the next couple of hours. got to go out again and then pick my kids up from school first. It's Monday and that means hectic in my world!

Just to be clear... It sounds as if the Swedes haven't even got a case to drop until they charge him with something so the judge in the UK is likely to throw out the extradition request by the close of tomorrow.

I know hectic too. I am doing this and filing an article at the same time

Thanks so much for the info, keep tracking it please as it is an important story

OK, just before I leave for a couple of hours I had a quick look to see where the defence will be published at it's going on his solicitor's website but not there yet.

Here's the link to the page it will be posted on.

FSI - Assange

At the moment the main question seems to be whether EU law allows him to be extradited simply for questioning.

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, acting for the defence, argued that none of the three sexual assault allegations state there was no consent and that all happened within the context of consensual sex. On the rape allegations, he said what Swedish law called "minor rape" was not regarded as rape in other jurisdictions since it did not involve coercion, force or a lack of consent. He described "minor rape" as "a contradiction in terms".

Minor Rape? What on earth is that? I have read before that rather than rape in the terms we usually understand it, in this case it's because he had unprotected sex with the women. If that is true then don't the women also have some responsibility towards that? If he forced unprotected sex on them then isn't that rape in the terms we all understand it? I don't know anything about Swedish law but maybe someone else here can make it a bit clearer what Minor Rape means.

A little more about what Assange is accused of:-

They both admit that the sex with him was consensual, but one claims that Assange deliberately made the condom break (what man in the world would?) and the other claims that they had sex without a condom against her will (although she didn't in any way oppose it at the time). Obviously, they were just searching desperately for some offense of which to accuse him.

The Swedish prosecutor refuses to say if there will be a trial, or to state the specifics of the alleged crimes.

It seems Sweden is the only EU country that calls unprotected sex, rape, and that is one of the main reasons they expect the British judge to throw out the case.

I'm not privy to the prosecution's case or the defence but it seems really strange to me that a woman would go to the police and accuse a man of purposely breaking a condom! I know that here (Spain) and in the UK the police wouldn't take it seriously if a woman wanted to prosecute a man for purposely breaking a condom. It sounds as though the other woman didn't object to sex but objected that he didn't use a condom - hmmm... why did she go ahead and have sex then?

I'm sorry if I sound biased here but I hate to see rape being bandied about like this when it really doesn't seem as if it's rape as we all know it. That's really not going to help women who are really raped to come forwards.

Now I really must dash as I'm very, very late!

Forgot the linkypoos

so here it is

The court is now resuming.

According to the Press Association report, Sundberg-Weitman (a former Swedish Judge) was critical of the Swedish authorities, saying the case was "extremely peculiar" from the start and accused the chief prosecutor of having a "rather biased view against men". She said:

"I honestly cannot understand her attitude here, it looks malicious. It would have been so simple to have him heard while he was in Sweden. After he left Sweden it would also have been very easy to have him questioned by telephone, video link or at an embassy."

Below is the summary of his defence:

Assange's lawyers dispute that the Swedish prosecutor has the authority to issue a European arrest warrant in the case, citing a previous case that established that the Swedish National Police Board was the country's sole issuing authority.

• Extradition is sought for an improper purpose – for questioning, not for prosecution. The defence furthermore maintain that the Swedish prosecutor is incorrect to claim all normal procedures for getting an interrogation have been "exhausted" since Assange's Swedish lawyer made his client available for questioning.

• The offences are not extradition offences

• Abuses of process by the Swedish prosecutor. The document says that she has sought Assange's extradition when she has not yet decided to prosecute him and is seeking extradition for questioning him in order to further her investigation. It repeats that arrest for the purpose of questioning is unnecessary since Assange has already offered to be questioned. The defence states that the "proper, proportionate and legal means of requesting a person's questioning in the UK in these circumstances is through Mutual Legal Assistance."

• Evidence from "distinguished Swedish legal authorities" that will show Assange is a "victim of a pattern of illegal or corrupt behaviour" by the Swedish prosecuting authorities. In summary, releasing Assange's name to the press as the suspect in a rape inquiry, the refusal of the prosecutor to interview him on the dates offered and a refusal of all requests to make the evidence against him available in English (a right under the European convention on human rights).

• Human rights - this is the part where the defence claims a risk that Assange will be extradited from Sweden to the US, which it says would be in violation of article three of the European convention on human rights.

Thank you Luna for doing all that summarizing! I have been wondering what is going on with this case, too, as it seemed to drop out of the headlines. Maybe he can sue for defamation or whatever it is when you are falsely accused, because I don't see how that constitutes rape myself. Either sex was against the womens' will or not. But Sweden apparently has some unusual laws. . ."Minor rape", that's a good one.

Court has finished for the day now so we'll have to see how it all goes tomorrow and whether the judge does throw out the case for extradition. The general opinion seems to be it will be thrown out under British law but you never know!

I'll report back here tomorrow with any 'news' on the case.

From the start, I have always believed that one arm of the Swedish government is hot for this guy to appease the US for some reason, while the Judiciary wants no part of it. There may be an internal tug of war here, and perhaps, the Swedish Police/Judiciary set up a scenario that was assured to fail in order to free themselves from the mess.

To bring a complex extradition hearing in the EU for a case where charges have never been laid in a case so incredibly irrelevant just seems petty and doomed to fail.

Aetius Romulous wrote:From the start, I have always believed that one arm of the Swedish government is hot for this guy to appease the US for some reason, while the Judiciary wants no part of it. There may be an internal tug of war here, and perhaps, the Swedish Police/Judiciary set up a scenario that was assured to fail in order to free themselves from the mess.

To bring a complex extradition hearing in the EU for a case where charges have never been laid in a case so incredibly irrelevant just seems petty and doomed to fail.

I totally agree and think that Julian Assange's lawyers are thinking along the same lines.

thank you so much for the incredible coverage on this Luna. It is fascinating to read.

Was there not something about the credibility of the woman claiming she was raped and links to the CIA also?

From my understanding, the whole affair is a set up to get Assange into US friendly hands (Sweden) so an easy extradition to the US is made possible. As a fellow Australian I support him and Wikileaks in their quest to expose the lies and corruption told by many governments around the world.

Sorry no updates today but I've been out at meetings most of the day and this was my first chance to get here.

Case is now adjourned until Friday.

I see that Julian's lawyer is claiming to have seen text messages about "seeking revenge",. Supposedly, they were text messages between the 2 women.

In reply to your question Janey I know there has certainly been mention in various online forums that the 2 women were something to do with the CIA. I have no idea how true it is but I do agree with Rickster58 that this does seem like a setup. It's all so convenient and I don't believe in coincidences... everything has a reason and purpose.

Back in court now and Julian Assange's team have asked for it to be adjourned until March.

They want another day to show that he won't get a fair trial in Sweden after the Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, made critical comments about him in parliament. As expected, the prosecutor is saying another day is unnecessary.

In a reference to Julian holding down one of the women with his body weight, Julian's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson said

'It is quite clear that [miss a's account] described what is usually termed the missionary position'

That'll teach me Luna for not looking properly in the Breaking News section to see what current topics are running.

I'm getting live updates if anyone is interested in the ins and outs of this case as it is happening

https://littlesocknews.forumotion.com/t334-julian-assange-extradition-hearing-final-day-updates#7037

Well it looks like we have to wait until the 24th for the ruling to be given.

I was shocked to hear that he could do a stint at Guetamalo Bay

Strawberry wrote:I was shocked to hear that he could do a stint at Guetamalo Bay

I think that is a lot of the reason for his claiming he shouldn't be extradited. The reason being that he could in theory be sent to the US, where he might be seen as a terrorist (that's not likely, but it's possible certainly)