It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Twitter, Wikileaks alert.

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

I don't think even Wiki Leaks would be daft enough to release the whole story. Not if the Queen is involved.




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ken10

What exactly does that mean? what is a gag order?


JAK

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

WikiLeaks reveals Australian gagging order over political bribery allegations


A sweeping gagging order issued in Australia to block reporting of any bribery allegations involving several international political leaders in the region has been exposed by WikiLeaks.

The prohibition emerged from a criminal case in the Australian courts and applies throughout the country. It was issued by the criminal division of the supreme court of Victoria in Melbourne "to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings".

The Australia-wide gagging order is a superinjunction, which means it also contains a clause insisting that the terms of the order itself should remain secret. It was issued on 19 June and states: "Subject to further order, there be no disclosure, by publication or otherwise, of any information (whether in electronic or paper form) derived from or prepared for the purposes of these proceedings including the terms of these orders."



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Have they released two pieces of the information so far?
Are we still waiting on the big story to break?

If so, then I will stay here and wait with everyone else.


edit on 29-7-2014 by RunForTheHills because: no reason



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ken10

The 4 countries are -

#1 -Federated States of Micronesia
#2 - Andorra
#3 - Tuvalu
#4 - Narau



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I could be reading some of the posts wrong. I could be wrong with my train of thought. But, when it says "Queen" as in Queen vs, its not the Queen as a person, but the Queen as the government/state. In this case, Queen would be used instead of Australia



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Gag orders issued by courts are nothing new. They are generally done involving cases where the investigation is still underway and discussing whats going on can adversely affect people who are either being accused of a crime or people unknowingly involved in a crime.

It sounds like Assange is leaping to conclusion while arguing that since he is the all important Julian Assange, people must tell him everything going on and that all info is a matter for the public..

Execpt who finances wikileaks...
Except for how much money Assange is making off wikileak leaks for his personal use.
Except for when it comes to answering charges in a court of law.

Assange needs to go away.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Except for when it comes to answering charges in a court of law.

Assange needs to go away.


So this isn't him answering charges?




Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan Police the next morning and was remanded to London's Wandsworth Prison.[38]

On 16 December, he was granted bail with bail conditions of residence at Ellingham Hall, Norfolk, and wearing of an electronic tag. Bail was set at £240,000 surety with a deposit of £200,000 ($312,700).[39]

On release on bail, Assange said "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter,"[40] and told the BBC, "This has been a very successful smear campaign and a very wrong one."[41] He claimed that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US." Swedish prosecutors have denied the case has anything to do with WikiLeaks.[39]

Extradition hearing

The extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London.[42][43] Assange's lawyers at the extradition hearing were Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens, human rights specialists, and the prosecution was represented by a team led by Clare Montgomery QC.[44] Arguments were presented as to whether the Swedish prosecutor had the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant, the extradition was requested for prosecution or interrogation, the alleged crimes qualified as extradition crimes, there was an abuse of process, his human rights would be respected, and he would receive a fair trial if extradited to Sweden.
Extradition decision

The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld.[45][46][47] Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against Assange on each of the main arguments against his extradition.[48] The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."[48] Judge Riddle concluded: "I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences."[48]

Assange commented after the decision to extradite him, saying "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system run amok."[49]

Appeal to the High Court

On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal with the High Court challenging the decision to extradite him to Sweden.[50] Assange remained on conditional bail.[50][51] The appeal hearing took place on 12 and 13 July 2011 at the High Court in London. The judges' decision was reserved, and a written judgment was delivered on 2 November 2011, dismissing the appeal.[52][53][54][55][56]

Appeal to the Supreme Court

The High Court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but this was granted by the Supreme Court itself, after the High Court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision.
The point of law certified was whether the wording Judicial Authority in the 2003 Extradition Act was to be interpreted as a “person who is competent to exercise judicial authority and that such competence requires impartiality and independence of both the executive and the parties” or if it “embraces a variety of bodies, some of which have the qualities of impartiality and independence …and some of which do not.”[57]
The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 1 and 2 February 2012.[8] The court reserved its judgment,[58] and dismissed the appeal by a 5–2 majority on 30 May 2012.[9][59] The court granted Assange two weeks to make an application to reopen the appeal after his counsel argued the judgments of the majority relied on an interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that was not argued during the hearing.[60] The application was rejected on 14 June, thereby exhausting Assange's legal options in the United Kingdom.[61]


Pretty sure this would qualify.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Australia bans reporting of multi-nation corruption case involving Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam

Today, 29th July 2014 WikiLeaks releases an unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria, made on June 19th 2014, with regards to a multi-country, multi-million dollar corruption case. The supression order forbids any discloures, by publication or otherwise, of any information relating to the court case by anyone, including the Australian media, ensuring complete secrecy around the largest corruption case in Australia. The order also forbids any disclosures about the order itself

www....__._/aus-suppression-order/



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Now are we talking like a ball gag or a standard duct tape gag?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
So, what is the 'unprecedented' news...maybe I'm not understanding correctly, but it sounds like...nothing...except that there is...something...that was ordered not to be talked about...

It basically revealed nothing, no?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I only have one questions. Does this make all of us posting in this thread guilty of breaking a multi-government gag order.

If so...does anybody really care.


Des



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
So, what is the 'unprecedented' news...maybe I'm not understanding correctly, but it sounds like...nothing...except that there is...something...that was ordered not to be talked about...

It basically revealed nothing, no?

I guess its where you live and what source you trust. There is something but, when is something ever really anything nowadays? Not in terms of hope or optimism but when has anyone really changed the course of history lately?


edit on 29-7-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
What does anyone make of this tweet. www.abc.net.au... Well it is a tweet off the feed of wleaks. They are mentioning dead dictators...

mobile.twitter.com...

The link did not work for me so here is the tweet
edit on 29-7-2014 by Sillyosaurus because: Link

edit on 29-7-2014 by Sillyosaurus because:



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone
I only have one questions. Does this make all of us posting in this thread guilty of breaking a multi-government gag order.

If so...does anybody really care.


Des


I only have one response:




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyosaurus


page not found



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
So it is about polymere bank note contracts?
Seriously?
This is a strange case of bribery, why would you bribe somebody just to get a contract over polymere bank notes?

Maybe my English is just to bad and I am not getting it right, but this seems just strange.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Booo.

This is about as exciting as one of NASA's groundbreaking press conferences.

Maybe there is smoke in mirrors at play, but this one looks like a dud to me.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I get that this is about gagging info on a corruption case, but . . . can anyone actually explain why this is so extraordinary compared to others, gag order aside? What about the case itself is so absolutely Earth-shattering that it warranted being so tight-lipped over?

I'm having a really hard time understanding why this was remotely damaging enough to slap a gag order on.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: aLLeKs



So it is about polymere bank note contracts?
Seriously?
This is a strange case of bribery, why would you bribe somebody just to get a contract over polymere bank notes?


The short answer is that banknote contracts are BIG bucks for the mint involved.

The longer answer involves:

1) The requirement for high security is obvious.
2) Anti-counterfeit technology is extremely valuable intellectual property.
3) Australian mint thinks it has the best anti-counterfeit tech on the planet (and they are likely correct).
4) Other mints want to sell their services too.
5) Australian mint is run like a private company, even though it is actually Government owned.
6) Australian government owned psuedo-companies have a long history of bribery and ignoring international law (see the Australian Wheat Board's dealings with Saddam Hussein)

This Australian Mint bribery scandal has been stewing for years. Sounds like the current testimony is involving foreign nationals, and probably highly placed government officials both foreign and Australian. Foreign nationals may well be able to identify and intimidate people who are testifying if they can get details of the court proceedings, and are much more likely to do so if allegations against them are made public. Some officials of foreign countries in Australia's region(that will remain nameless and that may or may not be involved in the list of countries mentioned in the Wikileak) have known to blow a gasket if you look at them cross-eyed or describe them with an adjective that they don't know the meaning of.

This 'gag' order is much more likely to be an attempt to protect the feelings of overly sensitive non-Australian governments rathet than the Australian government. The Australian Government, especially the current one, is perfectly comfortable to extend the middle finger to criticism against it for violating international norms (just ask the 150+ Sri Lankans floating around the Indian Ocean in an Australian Naval vessel for the last 2 weeks).



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join