Sweden not his final stop
If he get extridited to Sweden he'll end up in a US jail.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange™ has been ordered by a High Court judge to return to Sweden to face rape and sexual molestation allegations brought against him by two women. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ouseley handed down the judgment this morning, the AP reports. The court's judgment will appear here shortly. The …
If he gets extradited to Sweden, he'll face a hearing. It is VERY likely the case will then be dismissed because there are very little in the way of physical evidence. At that point he'll be none-too-politely asked to get his silly self out of Sweden.
IF the US asks for extradition there, Sweden will refer the case to the ... UK! They then have to say yes or no. Since the US doesn't have a crime to charge him with - yet - and as he might risk the death penalty IF they use espionage laws, he CAN'T be extradited anyhow.
IF he goes to court, and is - against ALL probability - sentenced, he'll get less than 4 years. During that time he can't be extradited ANYWHERE.
Yes, yes, YES. I HAVE heard it: "they'll just ignore the law!"
They could also kidnap him from where he is right now. It'd be easier, and no less illegal. Try, TRY to read up on the appropriate laws and regulations BEFORE commenting.
Not that I think people will listen any more this time around. "It's not the listening which is the problem, but the hearing" - Vir Cotto.
Oh, and IANAL. But I CAN read.
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13.XII.1957, Article 15 – Re-extradition to a third state: "Except as provided for in Article 14, paragraph 1.b, the requesting Party shall not, without the consent of the requested Party, surrender to another Party or to a third State a person surrendered to the requesting Party and sought by the said other Party or third State in respect of offences committed before his surrender"
AFAIK this still applies for non-EU nationals, and today. So the US would approach Sweden, and Sweden would have to ask the UK.
It'd be a damned sight easier for the US to just go to the UK and use the speedy approach. Again, IANAL.
Umm.. isn't he Australian citizen? Surely the US would need to approach Australia for extradition to US.....
Incorrect, part of the European Arrest Warrant procedure is that permission to extradite to a third country from the country that issued the warrant (Sweden) must be granted by the country that he/she was extradited from (the UK)
He goes to Sweden gets interrogated, then charged. Faces trial.
If convicted... Then sentenced. After serving sentence... He gets the boot to Australia.
If the US DoJ finds enoug evidence... They will extradite from Australia.
BTW what's up with El Reg moderators. Seems one of them has a bleeding heart on for ol Assange....
Assange goes to Sweden.
He faces the charges.
Regardless of any jail time, he ends up getting booted back to Australia.
By then, the US has completed their investigation and will be done w Manning.
Then they charge Assange and Austraila sends him off to face charges.
Exactly. I am relieved that he is going back to the jurisdiction he fled, so conveniently after the Swedish police informed his counsel that he was to be interviewed and arrested. All this BS about the EAW misses the point that on grounds of absconding alone he must go back. So I am going out for a pint tonight. I advise Jules to buy a few bottles of English beer whilst he has the chance. It may be that he only be able to dream of the stuff for a couple for the next couple of years. Unless of course the Swedish CJS gives him a public lathering and expels him, declaring him persona non grata, stripping him of his few remaining assets.
Not sure how they will find impartial jurors. Who doesn't know who Julian Assange™ story and all the accompanying media hysteria that accompanies him?
Also can we have a count of the remaining appeals and appeals against appeals and higher courts left to go before he runs out of legal chances.
It'd be in his interests to face trial in Sweden.
Firstly, looking at what I've read, I think (IMHO) he'd be found innocent.
Secondly, I reckon that would scupper the US prostituted protestations.
But, of course, I am obviously not a lawyer, as I only have €35 in my bank account. (Twenty cans of tramp-juice till dole-day next week)
"Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly requested that Assange make himself available for questioning. They issued a warrant for the WikiLeaker's arrest, but haven't filed charges in the case."
Um, he did so and then asked the prosecutors if he could leave Sweden, which they agreed to. This is a farce, likely orchestrated by the US as Assange is claiming. I guess we will have to see how this will pan out.
He did not ask. He absconded. His lawyer was told that the police wanted to question him and he magically disappeared. Later, at one of his appearances in court, his Swedish advocate claimed he'd not heard anything from the police, only to later confess in court that he had just found a text from them dating back to the crucial period, saying they wanted him to report.
As to the US, the Swedes have made it abundantly clear that the UK would have to agree on any putative extradition to the US from Sweden, and the UK does not allow extradition for capital offences. These data have been mulled over many times, and I am surprised that people are bringing up old, withered and burned chestnuts in the face of public iterations by Swedish and UK officials.
The man must attend court.
And then he will appeal, and then the appeal will be rejected, and then he will be extradited, and then he will be judged... Geez.
What I am most curious about is, what is the maximum sentence he risks in Sweden? Very soon, the whole shebang will have lasted longer than if he had started his sentence right after the crime.
Maybe, but he hasn't been charged.
Personally I don't give a rats tail about him as a person. My concern is the process.
For a moment, forget it's Assange: Think instead of it as being some bloke you've never heard of.
He's been accused. That's all. They question him and decide there is no case so let him go. Now they want him back so they can question him a second time. So they got an arrest warrant issued to question him? Not through the Swedish courts: The prosecutors went to the EU courts for it instead.
As I said in previous posts: They should ask the UK to hold him while they come over to question him. Dragging him back to Sweden is just being lazy on their part. What if he's innocent? What if they drop the case again? What happens to him? Is he left stranded in Sweden? Does he have to pay to leave the country yet again? And what then? What if the prosecutors decide they want to question him a third time? They go to the EU get another warrant and drag him back once more? Where does it end?
If they charge him then fine: Arrest his arse and drag him back to Sweden to face his accusers. Otherwise this is wasting time and money and if Sweden drop the charges again I do hope he sues them into the stone age for harassment.
And I still don't give a rats tail about Assange.
Already pointed out in the first extradition hearing...
Assanage returns for questioning. At which time at the end of the interview, he will be formally charged. Why else do you think he absconded. Surely his lawyer told him the procedure.
You know the lawyer who under oath in the UK admitted to having received texts from the prosecution?
This point had been raised and answered in the past by many of us...
For the nth time, Assange's counsel was advised they wanted him for questioning and to charge him. Assange very soon after disappeared and resurfaced in the UK; that is absconding. The Swedish CJS simply want justice to take its course, as it would have had Assange not fled the jurisdiction. As it is he has made himself the villain of the piece, even though he may claim otherwise. He lacks credibility, as do all absconders. He ought to be fined for evading justice, not suing. Absolutely not.
More room to appeal???? Which will no doubt drag the whole thing out further still!
Just hurry up and get him extradited so the fun can begin. It will be entertaining watching the arrogant and highly deluded buffoon go for a spin around the plug hole before he disappears into it.
Somewhere I hope Bradley Manning is reading about it and feeling just a little bit less hard done by...
WTH? Case law? You certainly are not a lawyer; this has nothing to do with case law. Rather it has to do with the case of a man who fled the jurisdiction shortly after his Swedish counsel was advised that the Swedish police wanted to interview Assange preparatory to charging him. The only question here is not case law, but have they prepared their case properly, and has the man fled jurisdiction. Case law is nothing to do with the matter, and your cynicism would appear to have blinded your intellect to the facts, but that seems to be a common phenomenon where the convict , Assange, is concerned.
 Convicted in or around 1991 for 25 counts, including; 1) stealing passwords from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon; 2) for hacking computers at two universities; 3) hacking computers at two telecommunications companies; 4) hacking computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities.
After sentencing he said to the judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution".
I expect much more to become public property, including the curious case of the 16 year old mother of his son.
Wow, you conspiracy theorists are out in force today.
Which is more likely, the US wanted him extradited from the UK (with it's notoriously lax extradition treaty with the US), or Julian "Media Whore (tm)" Assage got called back by the Swedes about the matter and decided to inflate his ego by getting as much camera time as he could out of it?
Occam's Razor says....
Assange denies the accusations, saying they are an attempt to smear him, and he says it would be unfair to send him to a country where the language and legal system are alien to him. His attorneys have fought his extradition on procedural and human-rights grounds.
Note these quotes are from the article on CNN...
Here's the irony.
Assange claims that it would be unfair to send him to Sweden because the 'language and legal system' are alien to him. Yet this was the same country where he was seeking citizenship.
If he's not done anything wrong then why not head over to face the police and the courts? Stop wasting our courts time and Wikileaks money on ego...
I noticed in another article that the running costs for Wikileaks were huge. Wonder how much of that was taken in any fees/PR/court costs for Assange and not running some anonymous TOR servers somewhere.
To be honest, I'm done with him - and am more concerned about Bradley Manning - as that seems to have gone really quiet. Bradley didn't get bail time in a nice manor house....
These are irrefutable facts.
That he was allowed to depart Sweden and to enter the UK, it is a not unreasonable assumption that the Swedish police were not sufficiently interested to flag him, and similarly, that the UK authorities were equally uninterested in this matter.
This whole case is a crock, as anyone who can be bothered to read would know. Ploughing through this http://rixstep.com/1/20110201,00.shtml will reveal a disinterested 3rd party view from very close range. JA attracts his own brand of "groupie", and like famous people of all types, he takes the opportunity to bonk a few of them. No news there. That these two women have subsequently decided to amend their story after the fact is pretty much irrefutable, and combined with evidence from others that "immediately after" the alleged events, they were not at all enraged (or whatever they have since become), suggests that this case has no legs beyong the fact that some politicians in the US want to "hang him high"
That's funny... Irrefutable facts...
How about the fact that his lawyer, under oath, admitted to lying about the fact that the prosecution was not in communication with him? ( the lawyer ).
The fact was that the lawyer had been receiving phone texts asking for Assange to appear.
The fact is that Assange skipped the country before he could be brought in for questioning and subsequently charged. Also detailed in court documents during the first extradition hearing.
This facts are actually in the court's record as well as in the press reports.
Reality sucks, don't it?
Had the Swedish police wanted to detain him, they could have done so at the border. There is passport control leaving Schengen. Similarly the UK could have detained him on entry had they been so requested to by the Swedes.
Since he was detained at neither point (the irrefutable fact), I therefore conclude that the Swedish authorities were uninterested AT THAT TIME (or not sufficiently competent) which amounts to the same thing.
Who wrote anything about his lawyer, and what has that got to do with my post?
Information and actions post Assange's departure from SE, are not at all relevant to the fact that no authority could be bothered to intercept him upon departure.
"These are irrefutable facts.
That he was allowed to depart Sweden and to enter the UK, it is a not unreasonable assumption that the Swedish police were not sufficiently interested to flag him, and similarly, that the UK authorities were equally uninterested in this matter."
How many times does the following chain have to be cited to stop people like you misrepresenting the facts: 1) The Swedish police tell Assange's legal counsel that they want to interview him preparatory to charging him, 2) soon after Assange mysteriously disappears and resurfaces in the UK, 3) Assange's legal counsel denies in a UK court that he'd heard from the police but, in court, on reviewing the contents of his mobile phone decides to play safe and confesses that he DID in fact hear from the Swedish plod.
This is on the record, especially the last bit. How come you missed it?
There is passport control out of Sweden (all of Schengen actually) - I go through it regularly. Australian passports get scanned. I know this because I have one. The police could have simply flagged his passport and detained him - they didn't.
That is a fact. Like it or lump it. This is proof by existence - unless you claim that he was "smuggled" out of sweden and can demonstrate that a border flag did in fact exist (which I doubt).
The chain of events that you cite is irrelevant (and I didn't miss it). Nor do those events alter the fact that JA left Sweden and was not detained. Had the "charges" the swedish police had in mind "had legs", they would undoubtedly have flagged him to stop his departure. I conclude either they did not care, they are incompetent or perhaps they recognise that it is a storm in a teacup and were glad to be shot of him (that's my best guess actually).
Personally I couldn't care less about JA, but I live here in Scandinavia, and unless you know the local languages and the local law (as I do), then you don't really understand what JA is up against. Forget about the Black Helicopter stuff and the USA - he is up against something far more nefarious.
My only doubt is, of the two personas, scorchio and gumby, which works for the CIA and which for the FBI? Obviously not the NSA, those post as AC...
Come on, S/G, you can repeat your distorted version of the facts that it doesn't change that:
1 - the two women changed version way after the facts, and clearly are only upset that he never intended to marry either of them;
2 - Assange was told by the Swedish police and courts that he was free to leave; only after he was leaving was his lawyer contacted because the prosecutor had been strangely changed, and the new one wanted to question Assange again. By that time, the lawyer was unable to reach him;
3 - Assange hasn't been charged with anything, so the EAW has been greatly abused;
4 - Sweden has a blanket agreement with the USA regarding extraditions, and Swedish courts have revealed themselves very obedient to USA orders (see the Pirate Bay circus), so it is clear what Assange's final destination is;
5 - the whole process in the UK has been also a circus, without any respect for due process or the law;
6 - you two repeat the same fallacies so often that nobody does even go to the trouble of reading them any more.
So please, go back to your tea party rallies, you've played your role to exhaustion.
I guess you really don't want the facts get in the way of your rant. I really hate to disappoint you and your fanboi attitude but lets look at what's happening.
You raise a couple of points. Lets go through them 1 by 1...
1) At this point in time, the testimony of the women are irrelevant. Had you been paying attention to the actual LAW of SWEDEN, UK and the EU treaty, The extradition is so that Assange can be charged and face trial in SWEDEN. Not in the UK. When Assange faces trial in SWEDEN, then you can raise this point...
2) No. Actually both Scorchio and I had brought up. Under OATH, Assange's lawyer in SWEDEN admitted that he lied when he said he wasn't in communication with the prosecution. The truth was that the prosecution had wanted Assange to come in for the interview where he would subsequently be charged. (Under SWEDISH LAW). His lawyer stonewalled as Scorochi put it Assange 'absconded'.
3) Under SWEDISH LAW, Assange was to come in for an interview where he would have subsequently been charged. He bailed and ditched the country while his lawyer stonewalled. This too was also pointed out in the first extradition hearing. He was to be called in for an interview and then charged. Thus under the EAW, the extradition request is valid since its purpose is for the Prosecution to officially charge him. Sorry but neither set of UK judges bought that excuse.
4) First, at this time, there is no action on the books for the US to raise the issue of extradition. This is an argument raised as a last ditch effort of Assange's defense team. Unfortunately for Assange, the rule of law makes it more difficult for the US to extradite Assange from SWEDEN since it would mean that the US would also have to talk to the UK. As pointed out... it would be easier for the US to wait until Assange is back in Australia when they extradite him. Then no issue w Sweden or the UK.
5) The whole thing in the UK has been a circus. But who created this whole circus? Lets be honest here. Assange is the ringmaster on this one. As it has also been pointed out that had he gone back to Sweden, or had never left, he would have faced his accusers, gone to trial and in the worst case, he would be out and back home in his native Australia. No. Instead Assange has flaunted the laws of SWEDEN. And yes, Assange has in fact flaunted his disregard for SWEDISH LAW and due process. His lawyers in their best efforts to defend their client also has flaunted the law and tried to try the case in the media and the UK courts, not in SWEDEN.
6) So sorry but the facts play out differently here in reality and not Ass-n-age fairytale land. If we were spouting fallacies why then is it that the UK courts seems to have the same opinion?
Oh and I wasn't aware that the Brits had a Tea Party, not just tea parties?
... and completely irrelevant.
If the police wanted him they could have picked him up in Sweden or upon exit.
They didn't. End of story.
There was no reason for the police to communicate via JA's counsel - the police could have just picked him up, and had the case had legs they undoubtedly would have.
The rest of the rant deals with matters subsequent to that point.
Except for the testimony, issue which I raised, and did so only to point out that the case probably has no legs. It is relevant because it is one of many depositions which form the basis for the evaluation of whether the police decide to even interview the suspect.
Get a soapbox and whizz off down to Hype Park where you will be enthusiastically rceeived.
has ever passed through customs leaving Sweden before the paperwork was processed to keep him there? Particularly as the authorities weren't expecting to have to process such paperwork since he was due for an interview the day he left the country?
Sorry, they have a saying down South about that: That dog don't hunt..
I wasn't ranting or raving like a loon. (Unlike your post)
I was responding to yet another (maybe you?) AC who doesn't quite understand the timeline.
Lets try this one more time.
The Swedish prosecutor wants to bring Assange in so that they can question him and then charge him. (This was explained in court documents as the legal procedure in Sweden. Interrogation/Interview prior to arrest/formal charges.)
The Swedish prosecutor contacted Assange's attorney to present Assange. Lawyer stalls, and stalls again. By the time the Swedish prosecution suspects that Assange is about to take off, its already too late. Assange left the country.
Clearly the rest of your post deals in a fairy tale and not in due process. Once Assange retains counsel, all communication goes through counsel. Its that simple. Assange counsel admitted to misleading and allowing Assange to abscond from Sweden to the UK. Again this fact is already documented in the first extradition hearing's court documents.
Again, your point... 'questionable testimony'. LOL... you do know the place where said testimony is heard, right? IN SWEDEN, where the alleged crime took place. Of course had JA (As you call him) stayed in Sweden, he could have confronted his accusers. Instead he's hired a PR firm, a bunch of lawyers all trying to keep his arse out of SWEDEN and jail.
Clearly you have no respect for due process or the law. You accuse myself and Scorchoi of being agents and having agendas to smear the good name of your best pal Ass-n-age. The truth is that you probably are a paid shill who could care less that justice is done.
Me? I'm just an American watching this all unfold. My bet is that the stupid git, goes back to Sweden and his subsequent actions and those of his lawyer will play out and affect the court's decision as to his sentence. He clearly has not shown any remorse, only disdain for the Swedish people and their laws. Do I think he did it? Yup. Had he done it in the UK, US, Australia... he probably wouldn't get charged. But no. The stupid git did this in SWEDEN and under their laws, he is alleged to have committed a crime. So be it.
With respect to the good ol' US of A and their DoJ... they are patient. They may not always be able to prevent a crime from occurring, they are very good at pulling together information after the fact. When they are done, if there is enough information against Assange, they will charge him. And then they will extradite him. Not from Sweden or the UK, but from Australia. Like I said, he'll get booted from Sweden back to Australia. Heck he even already pleaded to be allowed to go there. (Of course he can't due to the EAW that is in effect.)
Already Assange hasn't made any friends in the Australian government. His dumping of docs may also have placed some of their soldiers in jeopardy... So lets see how this plays out. I've already bought more option on the pop corn futures today...