Slashdot Mirror

because EU.

No, not "because EU". Only one of the claimants' several arguments concerned EU law. What the judge called "Issue VI" -- which was "Does the introduction of Section 28B constitute unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU which was not notified to the Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU and so is unlawful?".

And that argument failed. Paragraph 302, onwards: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/w...

Which is frankly completely fucked up. Mean while here in the United Kingdom I can just head on down to

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/j...

And see all judgements in England and Wales. The Scottish courts however seem to be hiding behind the times.

Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.

To respond to your specific comments:

The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.

I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.

There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.

My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.

Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).

I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.

If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.

The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.

BTW, how did they know it was GCHQ docs? Did he confess? or Were they unencrypted and GCHQ attested?

That is one of many oddities in the report.

Numbers 11 and 12 of the judgement(pdf) are the most telling. In the days before he was detained, the Security Service wrote, among other things "there is a substantial risk that David MIRANDA holds material which would be severely damaging to UK national security interests." Less than 24 hours before the airport incident they wrote this: "We assess that MIRANDA is knowingly carrying material, the release of which would endanger people’s lives. Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism and as such we request that the subject is examined under Schedule 7."

So what, exactly, does that bolded bit mean? The security services HAS ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE (not suspicion) that Mr Miranda was knowingly carrying the material. Think hard about that. They told the court that they knew the actual content of the conversation he had inside Mr Greenwald's home hours before he left. So yeah, that is a thing to think about. The bugs in that home are awful.

Now, as this is slashdot we can pontificate about how something being "made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause" equates to terrorism, but that is current UK law that they need to deal with.

There is also this one in 72, that shows the justices are really out of touch: "I accept that the Schedule 7 stop constituted an indirect interference with press freedom, though no such interference was asserted by the claimant at the time." So basically the justices expected a foreign citizen (Brazilian) to properly cite the UK legal code while being locked in a room by thugs. Seriously guys?!

Overall their reasoning is frustrating but correct. If Schedule 7 applies (which it seems to) then EVERYTHING under the law applies. Even though they could have done the job in 10 minutes, the law doesn't require any kind of speed. It says the stop can last for 9 hours "for the purpose of satisfying himself ... an examining officer may [list of actions]". As long as the examining officer was "satisfying himself" (13-year-old-giggle) during that time the entire 9 hours can legally be used. It was obviously intentional that he used the full time. There is no doubt that he was trying to send a message by using the maximum time allowed, but short of declaring perjury against the investigators the court is going to accept each investigator was busy "satisfying himself" rather than punishing the guy. Unless they have some hard proof of their mental state at the time, it would be exceedingly hard to discredit their sworn statement.

Are they lying in their sworn statement about "satisfying himself"? Very likely, as it was atypical, most workers have a vague idea of the law and just follow broad training. A junior official is unlikely to ever follow along the strict edge of law, with timings down to the minute, following bullet-point by bullet-point down the law, and so it appears to be a calculated attack by legal experts. Can you PROVE it was an attack and not "satisfying himself"? Probably not without a smoking-gun document being leaked by the government.

The site you linked is merely the CPS' information on the issue, that's the Crown Prosecution Service - i.e. the people who advocate primarily for the police, so they're going to overhype the seriousness of laws because they want to deter people from breaking them as it makes their job easier.

But regardless, even the link you posted alone says the maximum penalty for skipping bail is 6 months in jail. That'd likely be applied as a suspended sentence (i.e. no actual jail time) or even just written off altogether as it would be covered under the time he spent under house arrest if Sweden dropped it's extradition request. The advice the judiciary uses is different though, and having just Googled the Bail Act (1976) legislation itself the maximum penalty is apparently actually 12 months. The judiciary's guidelines can be found here:

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_Fail_to_Surrender_to_Bail.pdf

Note that the case that would apply to Assange, has a starting point of 14 days in custody if you plead not guilty, Assange wouldn't do that as there's no question he's guilty so that would reduce it further, if the extradition request was dropped then that would've meant there was no case he was skipping bail over, which would further reduce the penalty. Realistically it looks like he'd probably only get a community order, if given the exceptional circumstances the judge didn't just let him off outright completely.

As an aside, reading the bail act was interesting though. I can only guess an extradition request places a criminal charge on you in itself because Assange hasn't been charged by Sweden, only wanted for questioning and the bail act explicitly states it applies to criminal charges. If extradition in itself (as opposed to the reason for extradition) doesn't apply a criminal charge against you then this implies he should never have been placed under bail in the first place, but the law is a funny thing and I'm not a lawyer, so despite the fact I can interpret laws as they are written, perhaps laws as their written aren't how lawyers and judges interpret them so who knows. Maybe a lawyer here can explain how extradition for questioning but without charge results in you being placed into the criminal category that is necessary according to the bail act.

But I digress - manslaughter by dangerous driving is serious also, but you don't necessarily end up actually in jail. The judiciary's sentencing guidelines along show that skipping bail is really not taken as seriously as you suggest, and they're the folks who determine the sentences in practice after all.

swedish prosecutors have been given access to assange in jail, in the embassy, and during his house arrest on bail to which they declined

Oh look, another Assange supporter who hasn't bothered to read the Court rulings...

The Court covers such offers of questioning-while-remaining-outside-judicial-authority, and gives good reasons as to why it was declined.

From the 2nd November 2011 British Court ruling against Assange:

Mr Assange submitted that even if under the EAW he was technically a person accused of offences, it
was disproportionate to seek his surrender under the EAW. That was because, as he had to be
questioned before a decision was made on prosecution, he had offered to be questioned over a video
link. It would therefore have been proportionate to question him in that way and to have reached a
decision on whether to charge him before issuing the EAW. (para 155)

The Court dismissed this argument on the facts. The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"First, in this case, the challenge to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange failed before
the Court of Appeal of Svea. In those circumstances, taking into account the respect this court should
accord the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea in relation to proceedings governed by Swedish
procedural law, we do not consider the decision to issue the EAW could be said to be
disproportionate.

"Second and in any event, this is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious
sexual offences. Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there
is for the argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of
Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." (paras 158 - 159)

He added:

"... The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure
once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of
prosecution. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition
and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the
effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far
from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved
practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute." (para 160)

Once again the *court* shoots down a common argument made about Assanges situation in these threads...

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Further to my previous comment, see the following British Court ruling, dated 2nd November 2011:

The EAW sets out four offences:

  “1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that
date, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
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.” (para 3)

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Yes, it is rape. Under Swedish law and UK law.

From the ruling on the 2nd November 2011:

The EAW sets out four offences:
  “1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that
date, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
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.”

Note the fourth offence Assange is sought for under the EAW.

Now, how does the court handle that?

Again, in the 2nd November 2011 court ruling:

The Court rejected Mr Assange’s contention that under the law of England and Wales consent to
sexual intercourse on condition a condom was used was remained consent to sexual intercourse even
if a condom was not used or removed. (paras 86-91)

The Court considered the issue of Offence 4 and ruled that the conduct described in the EAW was
fairly and accurately reported. The President of the Queen's Bench Division concluded:

"It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse
with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with
a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when
she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. ...... it is difficult to see how a
person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half
sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is
nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would
have consented to sex without a condom." (para 124)

The court went on to say:

"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position
to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did." (para 126)

The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail.

The British Court agreed that it was indeed a valid offence of rape under the definitions given.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

My mistake. However, in these respects the rules are basically the same for all judges. Here are the rules for High Court Judges.

This former judge appears to be breaking the rules. The terms and conditions of service have an absolute prohibition on returning to practice:

Prohibition on Practice: A Salaried Employment Judge shall not practise as a barrister or solicitor or be indirectly concerned in any such practice (s.75 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990). The Lord Chancellor also regards a judicial office as a lifetime appointment. Any offer of appointment is therefore made on the understanding that appointees will not return to practice.

plus a prohibition on any activity that might appear to raise a conflict of interest.

Outside activities and interests: An Employment Judge should not in any capacity engage in any activity which might undermine, or be reasonably thought to undermine, his or her judicial independence or impartiality.

Note that the appointment is for life, so he is still covered by the second rule.

There's so much misinformation going around about the case from Assange fans. Here's the four actual charges from the European Arrest Warrant, as reported in the lower court ruling:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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 [name given] 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 [name given] 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 [name given] 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.

Charges 1-3 are concerning one woman, and charge 4 is concerning a different woman. Charge 1 is unlawful sexual coersion, 2 and 3 are molestation, and 4 is rape. Charge 4 is also the most clear-cut and has the most absurd defense by Assange's legal team. SW (the second woman) had already been freaking out in conversations with friends (who also testified under oath, and there's also texting records) over what Assange had done to her when she talked with AA (the first woman). This didn't come out of that conversation; all that came out of that conversation was the realization that what happened wasn't an isolated incident.

All four charges were judged by the three British courts hearing the case to all be crimes in Britain as well. F'ing a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex is not "being a dick". It's 100% unambiguously rape.

Riiiiight. Because Abu Hamza has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK. He was arrested in 2004, and he's *still* not extradited. And the US has already not only promised no death penalty, no abuse, no guantanamo, they even had to promise not to send him to a Supermax prison. And he's still not sent. And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this?

Anyway, hey, remember way back when Ghandi was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. Well, remember when Mandela was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. But no, Assange walks around like he's a hero, bragging about how much of a hero he is, when the actual felony he's facing is that he waited until a girl (SW) was asleep in order to F' her unprotected because she wouldn't let him do it while awake. And the crazy thing is he hardly even denies the charges. His legal team admits that she had been refusing unprotected sex the night before (it'd be hard not to, they have a condom with DNA matching the DNA sample from inside her, and she talked with friends that night talking about how he kept trying to F' her without protection and how she was getting really frustrated with it). Even the guy's own legal team was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" His team claims only that she woke up, was fully conscious, and then consented to sex. Which is just patently absurd, given that she had been just telling people about how upset she was about him trying to have unprotected sex with her, and she has a "paper trail" a mile long of being afraid of pregnancy and STDs, to the point where her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that not only did she not once allow unprotected sex (it was "unthinkable" to her), but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex. So she woke up in the middle of the night, after complaining repeatedly about him trying to violate a lifelong principle, was fully conscious, and decided to change her views on unprotected sex? *Really*?

Assange has appealed the case in five separate courts and lost all of them: three in the UK, including the UK supreme court, and two in Sweden (the Svea court hearings), the latter two specifically focusing on the forensic evidence and interviews. But no, a random assange-fan echo chamber sourcing most of its info from Assange's admitted liar lawyer is justice, while five separate actual courts in first-world nations are railroading, right?

Just pathetic. Assange is dodging some serious F'ing charges here, and it's horrible to see so many people cheering on the majorly

Messed up the link: here. Lower UK court link is here, I don't have time to dig up the rest for you.

Take the time to read the actual details of the case from the lower court and you won't sound so ignorant when talking about the subject. As the judge notes, whether in the UK or Sweden, having sex with a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex with you is rape, plain and simple.

And oh god, don't even get me started on "how a rape victim is supposed to react". I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist, to try to make what happened feel less like rape. Took me about 3 months before I was comfortable even using the word "rape" for what happened to me without couching it in weasel words like "unwanted sexual experience".

First question: I don't know. And really, I don't care. If the warrant was issued for an improper purpose, one assumes that Assange could have challenged it on that ground (either in the Swedish courts when challenging the original arrest warrant, or in the English courts). Actually, he did. And the arguments were dismissed (see the bits in bold and page 24ish of the initial ruling). However, even if the EAW was issued for an improper purpose (and maybe this is my inner lawyer speaking), that doesn't mitigate the fact that he is accused of some pretty serious offences. I don't think that "just because other accused rapists aren't pursued with the same vigour we should let this one off without a trial" is valid reasoning.

Second question: My understanding is that a US government official (countries tend not to speak) said that when asked directly by a journalist, rather than offering the information itself, however... how many alleged rapists have sought (and obtained) diplomatic asylum in a high-profile situation involving the US?

It may be a little last for this now, but today some more details have come out:

Firstly, the judge's sentencing remarks have been published here, in which he gives his reasons for imposing a four-year prison sentence.

Secondly, Anton Vickerman has (apparently against the advice of his lawyers) posted his account of what happened here. He makes some pretty serious accusations against pretty much all the parties involved.

It also confirms that the case is being appealed on twenty-four separate grounds.

Have *you* read the charges? As outlined in the extradition ruling, it's rape anywhere in the world.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf

Read the charges, if you can read, there is no mention of sexual assault as it is understood in the rest of the world.

Page 23:

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

Sure. I'm sure, you being such a well-informed dude, you're already aware that there are FOUR allegations he's wanted for questioning about, but I'll reprint them here from this judgement, in case you've forgotten the details in your rush to exonerate Mr. Assange.

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.

Now, this is - at a minimum - assault, if she didn't wish to be restrained the way he did. If he was penetrating her while restraining her against her wishes, this would be rape.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.

He violated the condition of her consent - that a condom be used. Therefore, he did not have her consent. Having sex with someone, when you knowingly violate the conditions that they place on their consent, is rape. In any civilized country in the world, it's rape.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.

Again, if she was unwilling to be touched this way... and she expressed that wish to him... this is, at a minimum, assault.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] 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.

Having unprotected sex with an unconscious woman who has specifically expressed a wish that a condom be used in any sexual act most definitely qualifies as rape in pretty much any civilized society, as well.

So now why don't you tell us how and why these allegations, if true, would not constitute rape and/or sexual assault. Also, bear in mind that consent for sex in one circumstance does not give you unlimited license to do anything you want, at any time you want, as many times as you want, with the other person's body. If she withdraws her consent, or has stated clear conditions for her consent, and you willingly and knowingly disregard them and force her to continue, you have, at a minimum, assaulted her; if you actually succeed in achieving intercourse, then you are raping her.

You know, you could read the actual ruling on the facts of the case, but you know, what fun would that be? Conspiracy theories are so much more fun!

As for what you wrote: The Swedish judicial system has a series of stages which things must go through, and being formally charged is one of the later stages. He can't be formally charged until he's back in Swedish custody. He left when there was a warrant being readied for his arrest during those "five weeks", and he knew about this from his lawyer, as emerged during the trial (with the lawyer being lucky he didn't get hit with a perjury charge over that). He most definitely knew he was running from the law.

How about you read the actual charges and the lower court ruling, which was upheld by the UK high court, mmmkay?

Or are conspiracies just too much fun?

The "covert CIA operative" line is the most "jumped the shark" accusation in this whole fiasco. Do you actually know where that comes from? It's because Ardin once wrote two anti-Castro articles for a magazine Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas, which is put out by a group, Misceláneas de Cuba, which according to some professor, is itself funded by a Swedish organization (unnamed), which is connected with Union Liberal Cubana, which is led by led by Carlos Alberto Montaner, which a Wordpress article says is connected with the CIA. Oh, and she met with a women's right group in Cuba who once had a parade in Florida wherein an accused plane bomber marched next to Maria Carey. Therefore, she's a CIA operative! I kid you not.

Can you Assange fans please get back in touch with reality here and step out of the echo chamber for once? Start with the judgement.

Yes, that's the yarn which has circled in the fanboy echo chamber. Which has essentially no correlation with reality. Do you really think that two separate British courts, including the high court, reviewed the charges against him and confirmed that they met the definition of rape even in the UK, if that was the case?

Here's a brief summary of what was actually alleged. And here's the court's more detailed fact-finding (you should definitely read the latter). There's nothing "suspicious" about how the case was handled unless you don't actually know how the case was handled (which, of course, has been the main goal of Assange's backers).

To briefly summarize the *actual* accusations, they're that Assange quickly began trying to make out with the first woman, which she initially went along with, only to have him try to force her legs apart and pin her down trying to force sex without a condom, to wherein she consented to sex with a condom to prevent it from happening to her without a condom, only to find out later that the condom was "broken". That night she told a friend about the "violent" (her words) sex with assange, and then moved out of her *own apartment* to get away from him. Concerning the other girl, he had tried to sleep with her without a condom over and over, something which she had never done in her life, even with her previous long-term boyfriend. She kept refusing. He stayed up while she fell asleep, and she woke up to him having sex with her without a condom (if you don't think that having sex with a sleeping person is rape, imho, you're a sick bastard). And yes, she understandably freaked out after it and tried to force him to get an STD test, which he refused.

As for the whole "they didn't decide it was rape until talking together" thing, that's the most offfensive part to me. Do you know how hard it is to admit to even yourself, let alone others, that you were raped? I called mine "an unwanted sexual experience" and whatever other weasel words I could get out of to avoid using that term for myself. It took three months of denial and trying just to move on with my life before I could accept what happened to me. There's a reason most rapes are never reported. You just want to put it in the past and forget about it; the last thing you want to do is have to relive it, to face the person again, to have all sorts of vile allegations leveled against *you*, etc. But if I had found out shortly afterwards that the next day that the guy who attacked me had done the same sort of thing to another girl? I don't know how I would have reacted, but it certainly would have changed the picture.

As for the CPT, they criticize everyone. That's their job. The report on Sweden is no worse than on any other state, and a lot better than a number. And as for giving suspects to the US, Assange felt so comfortable with Sweden that he was *applying for residency* when he was charged with rape. And then fled to the UK from there, which is ten times the US lackey Sweden ever was.

That is not in the slightest bit accurate. Or, for a more concise but less referenced version, here.

Second, the only dumb enough people to use the term "rape" for what he did, are the Swedish.

Go and read the various UK court rulings on the matter - in one of them the Judge actually affirmed that the things Assange was being extradited for would also be classed as rape in the UK.

The problem is that no one on Slashdot gives a fuck about the truth in the Assange case, they just like to spout bullshit catch phrases such as yours, rubbish about "swedish rape"...

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

Points 70 onwards, discussing the "dual criminality" (that Assanges solicitor argued that extradition should only take place if the offences were offences in both the requesting jurisdiction and the extraditing jurisdiction (Sweden and UK respectively)). The judge in the extradition case finds dual criminality in all four allegations against Assange.

So shut the fuck up about "swedish rape".

Could lead Apple to do the first-ever use of a negative ruling in a legal battle in an ad promoting a product ;)

I'm assuming they already did start their PR machine. Why else would a pretty smashing legal victory for Samsung be spun into "Galaxy Tab not as cool as iPad", based on a minor sound byte from the ruling?

The full ruling basically rejects the "rectangle with round corners" argument: (line breaks inserted by me)

This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user's knowledge and experience of the design corpus.

When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent.

The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides. The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type.

From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably.

British Judges have already said in their ruling that all four complaints would be unlawful under English law.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/

The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:

Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/

Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

According to the very well written judgement he can only be extradited if there is a proportional offence in the UK.

107(2A)
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
“A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work in public
(a) in the course of business, or
(b) otherwise than in the course of business but to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so he is infringing copyright in that work.

I think this stinks, but it seems perfectly legal.

FTA: However, he (Lord Neuberger) warned that modern technology was "totally out of control" and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.

Firstly, he didn't say that. So, it's already pretty clear that you haven't looked at the context. Lord Judge (the Lord Chief Justice) did say those words, but in the following context:

...everybody knows about defamation; some people even know about the Press Complaints Commission; and some people even know that most newspaper editors do not like to go foul of the Press Complaints Commission, notwithstanding some of the articles to the contrary. But they know about defamation; everybody knows that if you get it wrong, the damages will be very substantial. They also know that modern technology is totally out of control. Anybody can put anything on it. I suspect that they
would pay much more attention to an article in a newspaper or on the media than they would to anything that anybody can put out on modern technology. I think there is a significant difference.

Basically, what he's saying is that modern technology is out of the control of the law (which, if anything, this mess over injunctions - they're not super-injunctions - has demonstrated). But he's saying that it doesn't really matter! This was at the end of a speech where he was talking about how it was necessary to start using technology "to prevent the misuse of modern technology". It is currently beyond the law, and he - as the head of the English judiciary - wants to bring it into the scope of the law, strangely enough. This may not be desirable from our points of view, but I don't think we can criticise him for wanting this.

Of course, it isn't really your fault for taking the line out of context - the UK tabloids have been doing everything they can to discredit our judges for some time (especially when it comes to privacy). They mostly focussed on that one line, ignoring the 100+ page report (which is an interesting read) that basically said all this fuss over "super-" and "hyper-injunctions" was stopped over a year ago and the press are just making stuff up. [They managed to find 3 privacy super-injunctions granted since January 2010; two lasted for a few days, the third was removed on appeal - hyper-injunctions never really existed in the first place.] For some reason, the press don't want to report this, maybe because they keep losing privacy cases due to hacking into people's telephones, using spy-cameras, and publishing any dirty celebrity story they can get their hands on. No, of course they're being impartial in their reporting.

Maybe it's silly and naive of me to think this possible, but it would be nice if people would actually look at the facts on this issue.

[And yes, I've spent most of the last week split between researching this stuff and trying to knock some sense and facts into people discussing this.]

Here's the judge's findings for his extradition case. Interestingly, he addresses the whole "they told me I could leave" thing, in his summary of findings of fact, specifically items 5 through 15 on pages 9 & 10 of the PDF linked. It appears as if the prosecution made repeated attempts to contact him to arrange a time for an interview/interrogation, but that his lawyer was "unable to contact Mr. Assange" - but, cannot recall exactly what steps he took to contact Mr. Assange with any clarity. The judge concludes that a reasonable conclusion may be drawn that Mr. Assange was deliberately avoiding contact - specifically, in item 15 of his findings of fact, he states:

Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts
then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.

"The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court," well... that's just a nice way of calling someone a liar. And let's be honest - if you know you have legal allegations being leveled at you, do you seriously go off the grid for a week and ignore all attempts to contact you by your legal representation? It's a very reasonable conclusion to assume that Mr. Assange deliberately avoided contact, and left the country without any particular say-so from the Swedish authorities.

Apparently they are extraditing him with the purpose of prosecuting him, not just to question him.

Read page 14 onwards in the verdict. This is far from straightforward.

She was then taken to the main passage of which complaint was made, where it says: âoeMarianne Ny is of the opinion that such proceedings (criminal prosecutions) have a beneficial effect in protecting women, even in cases where perpetrators are prosecuted but not convictedâ. She appeared to understand this passage as saying that everyone who is prosecuted is guilty and had difficulty in accepting that another interpretation is simply that there are occasions when a man is prosecuted and, for whatever reason, acquitted even though he may have been guilty. She did not appear to accept that there is a public interest in prosecuting, where the evidence justifies prosecution, even if the case results in an acquittal. It appears that the witnessâ(TM)s main objection to the paragraph quoted was a reference to âoeperpetratorsâ on the basis that the word is objectionable and biased.

I'd disagree with the "there are occasions when"-interpretation here exactly because Ny only talks about "perpetrators". The main argument against her policy of having the accused in jail to provide comfort for the victim is that some people really are innocent, people are to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and she avoids that thought completely. Swedish original, pages 8-9 for the interested.

The Judgement

Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge: ... "I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden." Assange has seven days to appeal the decision.

He also said that Hurtig (Assange's Swedish Lawyer) is an "unreliable witness".

Ms Ny (Swedish Prosecutor) notified Mr Hurtiq at 0911 on September 27th that she had decided to arrest Assange, he left Sweden the afternoon of the same day ahead of schedule. Hurtiq claimed he was not told until 30th September."

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. Judge states "In fact this is untrue", "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake." and "The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."

Mr Robertson, (Assenge's British Lawyer) accepted that onward extradition to Gitmo was without merit excluding it from final argument.

Judge final statement "In fact as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden."

the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG.

There's a shocker. These people are just as bad as the *AA here in the U.S. Their about us page just screams "we make money of every dirty copyright trick we can think of and pretend to do it for you, the artist, the photographer, the little guy". It's all such a sham.

Check out their site, I was going to quote some of it but you can't even right click the page without their stupid JavaScript alerting you that their site is their content, blah, blah. Hello, 1996 called they want their cheap tricks back. Obviously this stuff is easy to defeat but it's still ridiculous that they even do it at all.

I hope this suit goes all the way to the new Supreme Court England is setting up and that these idiots get a total smackdown. Hey, a guy can dream a little right?

http://pastebin.com/f51666d45

the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG.

There's a shocker. These people are just as bad as the *AA here in the U.S. Their about us page just screams "we make money of every dirty copyright trick we can think of and pretend to do it for you, the artist, the photographer, the little guy". It's all such a sham.

Check out their site, I was going to quote some of it but you can't even right click the page without their stupid JavaScript alerting you that their site is their content, blah, blah. Hello, 1996 called they want their cheap tricks back. Obviously this stuff is easy to defeat but it's still ridiculous that they even do it at all.

I hope this suit goes all the way to the new Supreme Court England is setting up and that these idiots get a total smackdown. Hey, a guy can dream a little right?