Yes, Assange, we'll still nick you for skipping bail, rules court Infamous cupboard-dwelling WikiLeaker Julian Assange has failed yet again to get his arrest warrant for jumping bail quashed by an English judge. Only last week Assange was told by District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, that the warrant was very much still valid. Naturally, Assange did not …
Some days it must really suck to be a QC.
You still get paid, though. A barrister's duty is to present the arguments in favour of their client in the best light that can be achieved. Even when those arguments are pathetically weak (as with Assange), they must still be presented. I expect both legal teams were well aware of the true position.
This actually wasn't a waste of money.
Its really more of a sign that Assange is getting tossed of the couch in the embassy.
It was a long shot and worth the gamble. If he won... he walks out, boards a flight to Ecuador.
If he loses... he has to figure out his next move.
He had to know it was a long shot.
I think it was a waste of money. But hey - it's only donations to wikileaks being diverted for his personal gratification.
As for it being his last chance, I don't think so. Ecuador probably won't kick him out now. They've invested too much political capital in playing the hero / victims of the evil imperialist running-dogs. Kicking him out makes them look ridiculous / cowardly / dishonest - take your pick. Or possibly all three. Either he's still a hero, in which case they're cowards for abandoning him - or they're admitting the whole thing was a childish stunt all along. In which case they've wasted everybody's time and money protecting a possible sex-criminal and have pissed all over another country's justice system.
It should not have been a long shot! The court should have both taken judicial notice of the EU's resolution demanding his release without prejudice and the fact that the original Swedish warrant that commenced the whole problem was withdrawn. In other words, the whole judicial mess was a conspiracy to begin with. If the court is too stupid to understand what is right in its face than the judge should resign forthwith! What a terrible condemnation of the compromised British judicial system.
People should not be so quick to trash the British judicial system while spewing half truths and partially understood judicial theory. The British system of justice is far from perfect, but it has a good reputation around the world for being fair and independent. EU resolution, what nonsense! What aspect of EU law comes into play here with the extradition of a non-EU citizen from one EU country to another? You heard about some international body (a UN working group) who published an opinion, and it went into your mind as having been some binding EU resolution. Arm yourself with facts and you might not be so upset.
"The court should have both taken judicial notice of the EU's resolution demanding his release without prejudice and the fact that the original Swedish warrant that commenced the whole problem was withdrawn."
If you receive a speeding ticket, then kick the officer's posterior in frustration and later have the ticket thrown out. You're still on the hook for the butt kicking. Failure to appear is a UK crime, not Swedish.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488503/Arrest_warrants_version_2.0__EXT__clean.pdf
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/02/assange-judges-husband-runs-security-firm-ex-head-mi6
I think Assange is an idiot
some others are less forgiving, some more-so
more research is needed, over to tha interwebs
craig murray org uk ASSANGE-JUDGES-HUSBAND-RUNS-SECURITY-FIRM-EX-HEAD-MI6
It really is Schrödinger situation - until he walks out the door of the Ecuador Embassy nobody knows if he really will end up in the USA.
If he walks out, is arrested and jailed for jumping bail, and a subsequent extradition request is submitted, he's totally vindicated, and it's grounds to reject the request.
If he walks out, is arrested and jailed for jumping bail, then walks free after serving his time, it proves what an asshole he has been and how insignificant he is considered by the world.
If he stays in the Embassy, we'll never know what the outcome would have been. Until he opens the box, we'll never know...
I think we already know he's a total arsehole. Whatever you may think of his politics - or the rights and wrongs of his worries about the US nabbing him.
I guess we'll learn something very interesting if he waits until the 10 year statute of limitations runs out on the Swedish rape case, and he only then comes out.
Other than that though, I get the impressions he's a bit random, and though genuinely paranoid is also either very lazy, or only paranoid when it suits him. That guy that he brought in to ghost-write an authorised biography, then reneged on the deal once he'd spent the advance, wrote something like that about him. Said that he was paranoid sometimes, but then other times totally lax. As if he wasn't sure if the paranoia was just Walther Mitty enjoying playing at spy games, or genuine. Or maybe a bit of both.
He's only safe while he's physically in the embassy, right? Why don't we suggest that the Ecuadorians move their embassy? A suitable property just became available on Grosvenor Square, I believe.
They move, he doesn't. He's no longer in an embassy; he gets arrested. They move, he attempts to move. He's on the street; he gets arrested.
No need.
He's slowly killing himself by staying in the embassy. Its a self imposed prison.
The embassy can at any time tell him to leave.
So he goes to jail in the UK. He gets set out of the country. I don't see the UK letting him go to Ecuador. He's been a total prat and has given the UK a black eye. Note: Its possible a liberal judge who doesn't like Trump will let him go to Ecuador.
And of course... unless they are transporting him like a prisoner... (most likely not) Unless there's a direct flight from the UK to Australia, he'll most likely have to get off the plane. There, he can get off and switch to a different plane on a flight to Ecuador. Even here, he may face some challenges, but still its possible to do it.
Actually, we do already know. they don't want him.
not only have they stated that themselves at numerous points, Everyone else in the grand jury investigation (those that did the work and not just write the press releases) have not been snatched, or extradited. They've not even had problems when they've visited the US.
Additionally, for someone who feared the US, funny how he went from a country that doesn't extradite to the US for political crimes (Sweden) straight to the country with the lowest bar for US extradition (UK). The only reason he'd have gone to the UK is if he needed to leave Sweden quick (that evening) and wanted to stay more than 30 days, as he only had 21 days left on a schengen visa at the time. As a commonwealth citizen, he had no visa requirements and leave to stay for 180 days - ideal if your lawyer has just told you that you'll be arrested at the interview scheduled for the morning.
He then spent 600 days in the UK, in a known address, walking the same route at the same time, to a rural police station. If he was afraid of extralegal incarceration (extraordinary rendition) why wasn't it a problem then? Why was it only suddenly a problem 2 days after a final order to send him on to Sweden had been sent down.
Next, to this day, no indictment. I believe the grand jury has even been disbanded, so no new one can come down. Under the speedy trial act, they've got 180 days to act on the indictment or its dead, so any that had been handed down would be dead unless sealed, and it wouldn't be sealed, because there's no point - they get sealed just to prevent the knowledge of them, but since he believes theres one, there's no justification possible for sealing it. So no indictment, means no extradition.
Legally, factually, there's absolutely no basis to believe that there was ever a threat of involuntary US holidays for Assange ,but it's a useful bogieman for him to trot out and feed his paranoia.and it has essentially become the cornerstone of the Assange branding.
> United States attorney-general Jeff Sessions says the Trump administration will make it “a priority” to arrest leakers, including Julian Assange.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/21/arresting_leakers_like_assange_now_a_priority_for_trump_administration/
> US authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, US officials familiar with the matter tell CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-us-charges/index.html
One's a press release, has no evidential basis. And Trump's always been big on 'loyalty' and he'll try and push for leakers of his administration.
As for the second, where's the indictment then? no indictment, no charges, no extradition order. Oh it's sealed? Sealed so that he'll be unaware of its existance and thus won't attempt to destroy or conceal evidence that may be gathered against him (the reason for sealing)
The problem with this is that Assange has actually done everything possible to make a sealed indictment a legal no-go. As he thinks there's one, he'll act as if there is one, and thus it's not possible to justify sealing it. And if they had got an indictment that wasn't sealed, we'd already know about it. In addition, since it hadn't been presented for the basis of an extradition warrant, it's now invalid as it was not acted on in a timely manner.
It's these little things that torpedo his claims.
As for the second, where's the indictment then? no indictment, no charges, no extradition order. Oh it's sealed? Sealed so that he'll be unaware of its existance and thus won't attempt to destroy or conceal evidence that may be gathered against him (the reason for sealing)
Wrong a sealed indictment means a only the parties to it can see it. Julian would still get a .copy.
Trump is only "big on loyalty" one way. He cares passionately that people are loyal to him, but he shows no sign of recognising any obligation to return or reward that loyalty. See: all the people he's dismissed (or have quit) from his campaign and/or administration and then disowned, with varying degrees of disparagement and vehemence.
I'm pretty sure Trump would claim him if he thought it would give him a diplomatic triumph he could tweet about. "Winning" is all he cares about. I also wouldn't put it past him to make the attempt even if he knew it only had a small chance of working, because "losing" doesn't cost him anything either - he just blames it on his innumerable enemies (who are, of course, no fault of his, they're completely evil and irrational).
I wasn't suggesting Trump would be hands off due to loyalty, but due to fear that Wikileaks may have been leaked some info that could be very damaging to Trump they are "saving for a rainy day".
Remember what Trump REALLY fears isn't proof of collusion or obstruction of justice, but proof his businesses have been knowingly laundering dirty Russian money for years and years.
Why would Trump want to see Assange arrested? Wikileaks only leaked stuff about Hillary, there haven't been any leaks from the Trump administration on their site. Which is quite amazing, considering how leaky the Trump administration has been to everyone else...
The interesting question in my mind is whether Wikileaks was a (mostly?) unwitting pawn in the Trump/Russia discussions (won't call it collusion yet as that remains to be proven) over releasing emails that make Hillary look bad, or they took an active part. Clinton has had it in for him ever since the state department cable leak when she was SoS, and so he had reason not to want to see her become president. You could understand his fear of extradition if she was president, but why with Trump when hardly any US citizens give a damn what happens to Assange?
After all, Trump "loves Wikileaks", arresting its founder would seem to be counterproductive - he has no way of knowing if they have received something incriminating on him that they've been sitting on. Why take the risk of poking the bear?
@PNGuinn
Does the embassy have a cat,
At one point he did have one - a gift from his children...
No recent updates on the twitter feed
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmbassyCat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2wYuXMLsOw
http://fortune.com/2016/05/10/julian-assange-embassy-cat-wikileaks/
They actually went and bought a cat for Assange, to keep him company.
And where were PETA when this hideous animal abuse was happening? Oh yes, trying to drum up donations by spending lots of cash trying to prove that a monkey owns the rights to a selfie..
Does the embassy have a cat, even a white cat?
Does Mr A spend his life stroking it?
If so, I sincerely hope that the cat sues him for emotional damage and unsolicited fondling..
(Either that or, like my left arm[1], demostrate why cats have claws and teeth..)
[1] 7Kg of formerly-feral ginger cat doesn't want to do to the vet for his booster injection. I pick him up by the scruff of his neck without taking the basic precaution of donning armour. Much leakage of red stuff ensues (all mine).
It isn't clear that Assange has broken any US law and the US authorities have not levelled any charges or submitted any request for his extradition, here or in Sweden. The previous US government showed absolutely no interest in Assange and the case in Sweden seemed fairly weak. The current US government has shown some interest in Assange but haven't actually done anything yet. He has definitely jumped bail in the UK and courts typically take a dim view of people ignoring them. He might be better off facng the music in the UK - then getting free treatment for his tooth and his shoulder whilst serving time. As he is only likely to get a couple of weeks for jumping bail, his time might be up before he has finished his treatment.
At this time, the US has made no indication that they want Assange.
If he walks out... he will be taken in to custody by the UK and will have to deal with jumping bail.
That's it.
When he does his time, pays his fine... its up to the UK to determine what to do with him.
They will most likely toss him from the UK and put him on a plane to Australia.
If they are nice... they may let him get on a plane to Ecuador. (Most likely not)
So he goes to Australia.
Here... the Australians can take his passport away. Now that he has an Ecuadorian passport, he might be able to leave before the US decides that they want him. The Australian Government is more than likely willing to send him to the US considering his conviction while a teen for hacking US government systems.
That's most likely where he'll get nabbed.
The bottom line... he's not going to be staying there much longer.
"If he walks out, is arrested and jailed for jumping bail, and a subsequent extradition request is submitted, he's totally vindicated, and it's grounds to reject the request."
Sorry, but I completely disagree. The United States are free to request his extradition if they feel there is a case to answer. They have not requested his extradition. That fact remains. Before Sweden dropped its request, any other request would need to wait in the queue. If Assange were handed over to Sweden, they would not be permitted to turn him over to anyone else without permission from the UK because we would still be responsible for him. Assange says he really fears some sort of extra-judicial rendering to America. No way. That would never happen with such a huge spotlight. It would be roundly condemned in the strongest possible terms and would seriously chill diplomatic relations. Julian Assange is a paranoid delusional narcissist. He is also a coward. He's happy to let others take the risks publishing sensitive information. People like Brad/Chelsea. He is himself unprepared to take the martyr's path for his own cause.
Julian never forced Chelsea, Brad, Edward Into doing what they did.
It was their own choice.
So it’s hard to see why you believe he allows others to take the all the risk for posting sensitive material- especially given the fact that he, himself, has been locked up for 6+ year now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
