I was visiting a friend for lunch, and after, saw the preperations for a parade in the town square. The county high school has their basketball team in the state championships tonight at Georgia Tech. So we sat and watched.
Imagine my surprise when, along with 9 cop cars escorting the team bus, the ONLY decal on the bus itself was a big "back the blue" window sticker. Not even something for the team, but 'support police officers without criticism'.
You think I'm kidding... I'm not
I get carded all the time (even for lottery tickets), which is annoying, because I'm 37.
What annoys my eldest most of all though is I get carded, she does not (she's 20)
In fact, went to chat with CoryD on his homeland book tour 4 years ago, he thought she was my OLDER sister, and my friend (who I run an annual lecture series with) was my father...
He has not been 'charged' because the day before he would have, he left the country suddenly.
In the Anglo system most of us here are more familiar with, yes, he would have been charged already at this point. At least, that's the view of the UK judges when they considered that very question of 'charging', as I will now quote.
"Although we have approached the matter by asking the broad question posed by Lord Steyn as to whether Mr Assange was accused, it was the submission of Mr Assange that the court should ask the question asked by the Divisional Court in Ismail, namely whether a step had been taken which could fairly be described as the commencement of the prosecution. It is, in our view, clear that whilst Lord Steyn approved that approach, it was not the only approach to the question of whether he was an accused. The issue was to be addressed broadly on the facts. But, even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.
Ok, just some problems with your claims (although I will admit they're very common claims, so it's understandable you've seen them).
"The women in question have dropped any / all charges." No they haven't. In fact when the charges were dropped, they hired a lawyer and appealed to reinstate the charges.
There's also the problem that without a complaint, there is no case. In which acse it would be easy for Assange to have his lawyer bring this up in court. And if you think he's not has a chance at court to make this argument, you're very much mistaken. In fact I've a little list of times when Assange has had the chance to officially put his claims to the courts to counter the charges. Wanna guess how many there have been?
Interview with prosecutor 30 August 2010 Interview with prosecutor 28 September 2010 (missed because he'd gone to the UK the evening before) Interview with prosecutor week of October 11 2010 (arranged and then ignored by Assange Appeal to Svea Court of Appeal 20 November 2010 Appeal to Swedish Supreme Court 30 November 2010 Extradition hearing 7-11 February 2011 City of Westminster Magistrates Court in the Belmarsh courthouse London. High Court Appeal 12&13 July 2011 UK Supreme Court appeal 1&2 Feb 2012 Appeal to UK Supreme Court to re-open appeal 14 June 2012 (that's 9 instances in the first two years, before he entered the Embassy, of which he took 7) 24 June 2014 - Stockholm district court 12 September 2014 - Svea court of appeal 10 November 2014 - Svea court of appeal (response) 8 December 2014 - Swedish Supreme Court 22 Feb 2016 - At this point, Assange makes another presentation to Swedish courts, He appeals this in August 2016 to the Svea appeals court then, November 14 2016 is the interview with prosecutors (or rather Ecuadorian officials asking questions from Sweden)
So that's 16 straight instances where he could officially say 'the women dropped the charges'. Well, let's exclude the last because the Swedish government only got the transcript 2 weeks ago and is still translating it from Spanish (thats right, the interview was conducted in English, but Ecuador then translated it into Spanish and took 2 months to do so before handing it to Sweden, who then has to translate it to Swedish), so 15 instances to have raised that argument, and either it never occured to them, or it's just not true.
"This is 100% the US putting pressure to have Assange arrested for anything that might stick for the 60 seconds it would take them to start the extradition process."
As I explained on a detailed breakdown of his original offer I wrote Monday (and the above timeline comes from a response I made to a comment on that), there is no US Extradition request and never has been.
If there was, it would have been served BEFORE the extradition order from Sweden was completed (4 days before he escaped custody and absconded into the embassy) because Swedish law does not permit extradition for political offenses. He knows that, because that's exactly why he applied for Swedish residency (and said he was going to make Sweden his new base) just 2 days before the allegations were made.
Also, just as a side note, if you're afraid of being extradited tot he US, the one country you avoid is the UK, where the US only has to show 'probable cause', not evidence to get extradition. It's the perfect country if you're an Australian (or other commonwealth country) looking to escape a nordic country though. The law type is different which makes extradition harder, plus staying in the Schengen zone has a limit of 90 days in a 6 month period, of which he was already 60 days in. The UK would allow him in for 6 months without needing a visa as a commonwealth citizen. And when you're looking for a country to go to when you find you're going to be arrested the following day, you don't have time to apply for visas.
Oh, and let's not forget that the DOJ has publically said (for years) there is no indictment for Assange and they've no intention of indicting him, because they can't. And even if they did, they'd have had to present it (and get an extradition order) under the Speedy Trial act before the indictment expired (which is just over 2 months).
If you know the facts and laws concerned, you understand that every single claim of Assange's is a lie. And he tells those lies because he knows he is desperately trying to avoid accountability for his actions. He literally beleives he's above the law, because he seeks to enforce the law.
I love the inclusion of Assange, even though he's not a whistleblower. He's just a middleman, a publisher.
Nor is he being prosecuted for his actions there. he's being prosecuted for his actions against two women, which can not (and should not) be handwaved aside because he's decided to act as a middleman for some types of whistleblowing. Hell, I was pulled over last night for a simple (and safe) misunderstanding with a traffic light; I didn't get a ticket (the state trooper saw it was a simple mistake, saw I didn't hurt anyone, told me to be careful - the advice I give out in my '10 rules for dealing with the police' talks REALLY works), but if I did should I have claimed 'whistleblowing supporter' and pointed to de Zayas' statement to get the ticket dismissed?
Mostly because there is no US Extradition. In fact, it's a funny thing, but 4 days prior to his entry into the Ecuadorian embassy, he had all but been assured that he could not, in any circumstances, be extradited to the US.
The only reason to have gone into that embassy at that time, would have been to avoid extradition to Sweden. Sweden has a prohibition on extradition for political reasons (they'd previously refused to extradite Edward howard who was being charged with Espionage after having defected to the Soviet Union). This is why on August 18 2010 (two days before the allegations were made) he had applied for residency there. Second, under the Doctrine of Speciality the only way to have extradited him to the US, would be for Sweden to agree (which as I've just noted, they wouldn't) and then for the UK to also agree in accordance with the far stricter UK-Sweden treaty than the US-UK treaty. Third, the UK was a strange place for someone to go to (especially for 20 months) if they're seeking to avoid US extradition because it has one of the easiest extradition treaties (probably cause is all that's needed).
The only way any of his actions through the 3 year period from September 1 2010 to September 1 2012 makes sense is if he knew full well that there is not, and never was going to be a US extradition. Of course, it kinda helps that the US DOJ has said as much a number of times. However, it's a great claim to play to the fans, and stoke the conspiracy theorists, and hide the fact that, yes, he is just trying to avoid going to trial on the sexual assault allegations, and nothing more.
"This democracy (although actually a Constitutional republic)"
Constitutional Republic is the structure, democracy is how the structure is populated.
Just like the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, but it's also a democracy, because the legislative aspect of the government (house of commons) is democratically elected.
TEd didn't so much 'drop into obscurity' as 'drop into a hole in the ground' (that sounded funnier until I remembered the details - he died in a plane crash in august 2010, and is now in Arlington national cemetery)
Remember, copyright collection societies have a very long and very detailed history of abuse and corruption.
Not only do they have this history, when it's pointed out to the relevant government agencies that they have this history, those agencies do all they can to hide that history from public knowledge.
On the post: 'Blue Lives Matter' Laws Continue To Be Introduced Around The Nation
It is something endemic.
I was visiting a friend for lunch, and after, saw the preperations for a parade in the town square. The county high school has their basketball team in the state championships tonight at Georgia Tech. So we sat and watched.
Imagine my surprise when, along with 9 cop cars escorting the team bus, the ONLY decal on the bus itself was a big "back the blue" window sticker. Not even something for the team, but 'support police officers without criticism'. You think I'm kidding... I'm not
On the post: Jury Acquits Restaurant Owner Of Obstruction Charges For Tweeting Out Photo Of Teens Involved In Police Alcohol Sting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confidential Informants
What annoys my eldest most of all though is I get carded, she does not (she's 20)
In fact, went to chat with CoryD on his homeland book tour 4 years ago, he thought she was my OLDER sister, and my friend (who I run an annual lecture series with) was my father...
On the post: Canada-EU Trade Deal Ratified By European Union; Now Needs Approval By All Member States' National Parliaments
Re: Re: Re:
I say that while I look at the photos a friend took at the TPP signing in Atlanta.
On the post: Canada-EU Trade Deal Ratified By European Union; Now Needs Approval By All Member States' National Parliaments
On the post: UK Police Spy On Journalists At Small Town Paper, Gather One Million Minutes Worth Of Call Data
Re: Lager issues
Big problem with this.
UK prison outfits are grey sweatshirts and jogging bottoms.
Makes them look like a slightly overweight middleaged woman trying to jog around her area of ticky-tacky little boxes.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 107: Changing Government Starts With You
On the post: UN Independent Expert On Promotion Of Democracy Calls On Governments To Stop Persecuting Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the Anglo system most of us here are more familiar with, yes, he would have been charged already at this point. At least, that's the view of the UK judges when they considered that very question of 'charging', as I will now quote.
"Although we have approached the matter by asking the broad question posed by Lord Steyn as to whether Mr Assange was accused, it was the submission of Mr Assange that the court should ask the question asked by the Divisional Court in Ismail, namely whether a step had been taken which could fairly be described as the commencement of the prosecution. It is, in our view, clear that whilst Lord Steyn approved that approach, it was not the only approach to the question of whether he was an accused. The issue was to be addressed broadly on the facts. But, even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.
In our view therefore, Mr Assange fails on the facts on this issue."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Basically you can't use the Anglo/common law definition of 'charging', and point to the Swedish circumstances of not charging him yet.
On the post: UN Independent Expert On Promotion Of Democracy Calls On Governments To Stop Persecuting Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Re:
http://ktetch.co.uk/2017/01/assange-painted-into-corner-with-manning-boasting/
On the post: UN Independent Expert On Promotion Of Democracy Calls On Governments To Stop Persecuting Whistleblowers
Re: Re:
"The women in question have dropped any / all charges."
No they haven't. In fact when the charges were dropped, they hired a lawyer and appealed to reinstate the charges.
There's also the problem that without a complaint, there is no case. In which acse it would be easy for Assange to have his lawyer bring this up in court. And if you think he's not has a chance at court to make this argument, you're very much mistaken. In fact I've a little list of times when Assange has had the chance to officially put his claims to the courts to counter the charges. Wanna guess how many there have been?
Interview with prosecutor 30 August 2010
Interview with prosecutor 28 September 2010 (missed because he'd gone to the UK the evening before)
Interview with prosecutor week of October 11 2010 (arranged and then ignored by Assange
Appeal to Svea Court of Appeal 20 November 2010
Appeal to Swedish Supreme Court 30 November 2010
Extradition hearing 7-11 February 2011 City of Westminster Magistrates Court in the Belmarsh courthouse London.
High Court Appeal 12&13 July 2011
UK Supreme Court appeal 1&2 Feb 2012
Appeal to UK Supreme Court to re-open appeal 14 June 2012
(that's 9 instances in the first two years, before he entered the Embassy, of which he took 7)
24 June 2014 - Stockholm district court
12 September 2014 - Svea court of appeal
10 November 2014 - Svea court of appeal (response)
8 December 2014 - Swedish Supreme Court
22 Feb 2016 - At this point, Assange makes another presentation to Swedish courts,
He appeals this in August 2016 to the Svea appeals court
then, November 14 2016 is the interview with prosecutors (or rather Ecuadorian officials asking questions from Sweden)
So that's 16 straight instances where he could officially say 'the women dropped the charges'. Well, let's exclude the last because the Swedish government only got the transcript 2 weeks ago and is still translating it from Spanish (thats right, the interview was conducted in English, but Ecuador then translated it into Spanish and took 2 months to do so before handing it to Sweden, who then has to translate it to Swedish), so 15 instances to have raised that argument, and either it never occured to them, or it's just not true.
"This is 100% the US putting pressure to have Assange arrested for anything that might stick for the 60 seconds it would take them to start the extradition process."
As I explained on a detailed breakdown of his original offer I wrote Monday (and the above timeline comes from a response I made to a comment on that), there is no US Extradition request and never has been.
If there was, it would have been served BEFORE the extradition order from Sweden was completed (4 days before he escaped custody and absconded into the embassy) because Swedish law does not permit extradition for political offenses. He knows that, because that's exactly why he applied for Swedish residency (and said he was going to make Sweden his new base) just 2 days before the allegations were made.
Also, just as a side note, if you're afraid of being extradited tot he US, the one country you avoid is the UK, where the US only has to show 'probable cause', not evidence to get extradition.
It's the perfect country if you're an Australian (or other commonwealth country) looking to escape a nordic country though. The law type is different which makes extradition harder, plus staying in the Schengen zone has a limit of 90 days in a 6 month period, of which he was already 60 days in. The UK would allow him in for 6 months without needing a visa as a commonwealth citizen. And when you're looking for a country to go to when you find you're going to be arrested the following day, you don't have time to apply for visas.
Oh, and let's not forget that the DOJ has publically said (for years) there is no indictment for Assange and they've no intention of indicting him, because they can't. And even if they did, they'd have had to present it (and get an extradition order) under the Speedy Trial act before the indictment expired (which is just over 2 months).
If you know the facts and laws concerned, you understand that every single claim of Assange's is a lie. And he tells those lies because he knows he is desperately trying to avoid accountability for his actions. He literally beleives he's above the law, because he seeks to enforce the law.
On the post: UN Independent Expert On Promotion Of Democracy Calls On Governments To Stop Persecuting Whistleblowers
Nor is he being prosecuted for his actions there. he's being prosecuted for his actions against two women, which can not (and should not) be handwaved aside because he's decided to act as a middleman for some types of whistleblowing. Hell, I was pulled over last night for a simple (and safe) misunderstanding with a traffic light; I didn't get a ticket (the state trooper saw it was a simple mistake, saw I didn't hurt anyone, told me to be careful - the advice I give out in my '10 rules for dealing with the police' talks REALLY works), but if I did should I have claimed 'whistleblowing supporter' and pointed to de Zayas' statement to get the ticket dismissed?
On the post: Surprise: President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence
Re:
Mostly because there is no US Extradition. In fact, it's a funny thing, but 4 days prior to his entry into the Ecuadorian embassy, he had all but been assured that he could not, in any circumstances, be extradited to the US.
The only reason to have gone into that embassy at that time, would have been to avoid extradition to Sweden. Sweden has a prohibition on extradition for political reasons (they'd previously refused to extradite Edward howard who was being charged with Espionage after having defected to the Soviet Union). This is why on August 18 2010 (two days before the allegations were made) he had applied for residency there.
Second, under the Doctrine of Speciality the only way to have extradited him to the US, would be for Sweden to agree (which as I've just noted, they wouldn't) and then for the UK to also agree in accordance with the far stricter UK-Sweden treaty than the US-UK treaty.
Third, the UK was a strange place for someone to go to (especially for 20 months) if they're seeking to avoid US extradition because it has one of the easiest extradition treaties (probably cause is all that's needed).
The only way any of his actions through the 3 year period from September 1 2010 to September 1 2012 makes sense is if he knew full well that there is not, and never was going to be a US extradition. Of course, it kinda helps that the US DOJ has said as much a number of times. However, it's a great claim to play to the fans, and stoke the conspiracy theorists, and hide the fact that, yes, he is just trying to avoid going to trial on the sexual assault allegations, and nothing more.
On the post: Another Convicted Felon Tries To Use The DMCA Process To Erase DOJ Press Releases About His Criminal Acts
Wrong lawyer
On the post: Iceland Forms A New Government... Without The Pirate Party
Re:
http://grapevine.is/news/2017/01/09/icelands-new-right-wing-government-to-be-announced-tomorrow/ - its in there
On the post: Iceland Forms A New Government... Without The Pirate Party
So, lots of fun times ahead.
Do wish we could VoNC the US Govt. - I think that would bring a lot more accountability to the process.
On the post: Colorado Voters Continue To Shoot Down Awful Comcast-Written Protectionist State Law
Re: *remains* ?
On the post: Washington Post Columnist: If This Democracy Is Going To Stay Healthy, We Need To Start Trusting The FBI More
"but pedantry"
"This democracy (although actually a Constitutional republic)"
Constitutional Republic is the structure, democracy is how the structure is populated.
Just like the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, but it's also a democracy, because the legislative aspect of the government (house of commons) is democratically elected.
On the post: Ridiculous: Nick Denton Settles Remaining Charles Harder Lawsuits, Agrees To Delete Perfectly True Stories
Re:
On the post: How One Young Black Man Supporting Trump Massively Skews The LA Times Presidential Poll
Just an amusing thought...
On the post: France Passes Copyright Law Demanding Royalties For Every Image Search Engines Index Online
Re: Re: This is going to get VERY convoluted...
Besides, work by a computer like this might as well be made by a monkey for all the protection you'll get.
On the post: France Passes Copyright Law Demanding Royalties For Every Image Search Engines Index Online
Not only do they have this history, when it's pointed out to the relevant government agencies that they have this history, those agencies do all they can to hide that history from public knowledge.
Next >>