Eight BIG PROBLEMS with the "case" against Assange (Must read by Naomi Wolf)

Many of you know that the case against Assange is a joke, but you might not know just how much of a joke it really is. Below is an article that point by point shows the extraordinary effort of the Swedish government to bring a case against Assange.

source

1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.

Ask Sweden to produce ANY other police report in which any action was taken in a situation in which there is no stated lack of consent or threat of force. Police simply won’t act on a complaint if there is no indication of a lack of consent, or of consent in the face of violence. The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report, are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a lack of consent. (There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and subsequent discussion indicates consent.)

The Assange transcript is therefore anomalous, as it does not suggest in any way that either woman was unconsenting, or felt threatened. On this basis alone, therefore, the Assange transcript is completely aberrant.

2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.

The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.

This is completely unheard-of in sex crime procedures; and the burden should be on Clare Mongomery, QC, or Marianne Ny, to produce a single other example of this being permitted.

Never will two victims be allowed by police to come in and tell their stories together–even, or especially, if the stories are about one man.

Indeed, this is a great frustration to those who advocate for rape victims. You can have seven alleged victims all accusing the same guy — and none will be permitted to tell their stories together.

It doesn’t matter if they coordinated in advance as the Assange accusers did, or if they are close friends and came in together: the police simply will not take their complaints together or even in the same room. No matter how much they may wish to file a report together, their wishes won’t matter: the women will be separated, given separate interview times and even locations, and their cases will be processed completely separately.

The prosecutor, rather than being able to draw on both women’s testimony, will actually have to struggle to get the judge to allow a second or additional accusation or evidence from another case.

Usually other such evidence will NOT be allowed. Miss A would have her case processed and then Miss W — with absolutely no ability for the prosecutor to draw form one set of testimony to the next.

The reason for this is sound: it is to keep testimony from contaminating separate trials–a source of great frustration to prosecutors and rape victim advocates.

Thus the dual testimonies taken in this case are utterly atypical and against all Western and especially Swedish rape law practice and policy.

The article also makes clear Karl Rove's involvement with the Swedish government.

Dr. Brian Palmer, a social anthropologist at Uppsala University, explained on Kreig’s radio show last month that Karl Rove has been working directly as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Kreig also reported, in Connecticut Watchdog, that the Assange accusers’ lawyer is a partner in the law firm Borgström and Bodström, whose other name partner, Thomas Bodström, is a former Swedish Minister of Justice. In that office, Bodström helped approve a 2001 CIA rendition request to Sweden, to allow the CIA to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured. This background compels us to review the case against Assange with extreme care.

I have to say that this really opened my eyes to how governments can bend their own rules to get what they want. Assange's case should have been thrown out a long time ago.

Haven't you heard? Assange didn't rubber up prior to engaging in sex. Extraditable offence, that is.

Free J A NOW!!!

Ahh the US government,we will get you,no matter how many lies and countries we go through!!!!

£10.000 a day being spent to 'perimeter' the embassy, including heat seeking equipment...

...for an individual who is wanted for questioning?...on the excuse of an 'obligation' UK has to Sweden?

Anyone smell any fish yet?

A99

But if you want to put the case against him in very simple terms:

In the US judicial system it is a crime to possess stolen property. Many people in small cases are not charged if they really didn't know such was stolen and if the property is returned to the owner. In his case, he knew exactly what he was doing, dealing in stolen property that he, especially not an American citizen had no business having. . Worse, it was using stolen property for his own personal gain.\

Verdict: Guilty

reply to post by Aliensun


Well I guess if we use that logic then they need to go after The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel, because they all possessed said stolen material and distributed it as well.

assflange is an opportunist.

but...

this is bogus. the rule of law no longer exists for any western governments. the coalition of the willing is a subjugation of those prepared to bring about a new system.

one in which the rule of law changes to suit their moods.

Originally posted by akushla99
£10.000 a day being spent to 'perimeter' the embassy, including heat seeking equipment...

...for an individual who is wanted for questioning?...on the excuse of an 'obligation' UK has to Sweden?

Anyone smell any fish yet?

A99

What sort of fish? As in, fish no one is biting?

So let's rub the fish in everyone's face?

A manufactured hero/villain. Yaw-n.

Show me the leaks, JA.

Originally posted by Aliensun
But if you want to put the case against him in very simple terms:

In the US judicial system it is a crime to possess stolen property. Many people in small cases are not charged if they really didn't know such was stolen and if the property is returned to the owner. In his case, he knew exactly what he was doing, dealing in stolen property that he, especially not an American citizen had no business having. . Worse, it was using stolen property for his own personal gain.\

Verdict: Guilty

I thought the Americans had no interest in him & this was all about Sweden & the UK?

Does the US not have whistle blower laws? or are your PTB just allowed to murder anyone they want even little kids?

Instead of locking up our citizens in torture camps how about you drag Bush & Obama out to face war crime charges at the Hague, ohh that's right another treaty the high & mighty refuse to sign.

Said stolen property was the business of the free world & only impacted on liars & murderers but we wouldn't want to impact on their prissy lives now would we.


How the mighty have fallen & will continue to fall.

Too bad you didn't get more stars and flags. Too bad people don't realize the truth. It's bull craP. Unbelievable that this can happen. What people don't realize....they're next! SUCCCKKERS. (And they thought they were so smart )

Originally posted by davidmann

Originally posted by akushla99
£10.000 a day being spent to 'perimeter' the embassy, including heat seeking equipment...

...for an individual who is wanted for questioning?...on the excuse of an 'obligation' UK has to Sweden?

Anyone smell any fish yet?

A99

What sort of fish? As in, fish no one is biting?

So let's rub the fish in everyone's face?

A manufactured hero/villain. Yaw-n.

Show me the leaks, JA.

...err...something stinks!
...in the inimitable words of PWEI...

CAN YOU DIG IT?

...I repeat...
£10.000 a day being spent to surround the perimeter of the embassy, including heat seeking equipment, for an individual who is wanted for questioning, on the excuse of an obligation UK has with Sweden...

If You smell a manufactured hero/villain, you are smelling fish of some kind...

A99

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by davidmann

Originally posted by akushla99
£10.000 a day being spent to 'perimeter' the embassy, including heat seeking equipment...

...for an individual who is wanted for questioning?...on the excuse of an 'obligation' UK has to Sweden?

Anyone smell any fish yet?

A99

What sort of fish? As in, fish no one is biting?

So let's rub the fish in everyone's face?

A manufactured hero/villain. Yaw-n.

Show me the leaks, JA.

...err...something stinks!
...in the inimitable words of PWEI...

CAN YOU DIG IT?

...I repeat...
£10.000 a day being spent to surround the perimeter of the embassy, including heat seeking equipment, for an individual who is wanted for questioning, on the excuse of an obligation UK has with Sweden...

If You smell a manufactured hero/villain, you are smelling fish of some kind...

A99

Oh, I see. You bought it.

I mistrusted wikileaks fairly early on. It's not so much JA, but rather an indictment on the name. It's too cute, like, the 'History Channel'. The 'Weather Channel'. Too easy to infiltrate. IMO assange hasn't given us boo, much as all the inventors of super secret devices with unheard of outputs. They all disappear before giving the world the beneficial technology. Tesla turned down (ripped up) a billion dollar contract, which would have made him the world's first billionaire, so he is a saint, and that's why his developments went straight to MIC arsenals. He snubbed them and they made sure he died in obscurity, and he sure has his fair share of detractors to this day.

Assange, on the other hand, is playing their game. If he had snubbed them, then where are the incriminating secrets? He set up a world wide funnel for himself, by which to attract whistleblowers far and wide, and gives us no secret material. Why? How has he hurt them? How has he helped us?

All this pomp (10,000 pounds daily is a pittance to the tax collectors) does is convince the gullible, the least path, the common denominator.

The fish stinks, and so do the nets in the hands of the fishermen. He exposed nothing, and let down every whistleblower with anything of substance. All he did was fashion a fancy name, monopolize it. Face book (facial recog software + nwo trends). The History Channel. The Weather Channel.

Opportunist. Pimp. Not worth going after. Hence, the charade. It's starting...ooohhh.

Originally posted by davidmann

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by davidmann

Originally posted by akushla99
£10.000 a day being spent to 'perimeter' the embassy, including heat seeking equipment...

...for an individual who is wanted for questioning?...on the excuse of an 'obligation' UK has to Sweden?

Anyone smell any fish yet?

A99

What sort of fish? As in, fish no one is biting?

So let's rub the fish in everyone's face?

A manufactured hero/villain. Yaw-n.

Show me the leaks, JA.

...err...something stinks!
...in the inimitable words of PWEI...

CAN YOU DIG IT?

...I repeat...
£10.000 a day being spent to surround the perimeter of the embassy, including heat seeking equipment, for an individual who is wanted for questioning, on the excuse of an obligation UK has with Sweden...

If You smell a manufactured hero/villain, you are smelling fish of some kind...

A99

Oh, I see. You bought it.

I mistrusted wikileaks fairly early on. It's not so much JA, but rather an indictment on the name. It's too cute, like, the 'History Channel'. The 'Weather Channel'. Too easy to infiltrate. IMO assange hasn't given us boo, much as all the inventors of super secret devices with unheard of outputs. They all disappear before giving the world the beneficial technology. Tesla turned down (ripped up) a billion dollar contract, which would have made him the world's first billionaire, so he is a saint, and that's why his developments went straight to MIC arsenals. He snubbed them and they made sure he died in obscurity, and he sure has his fair share of detractors to this day.

Assange, on the other hand, is playing their game. If he had snubbed them, then where are the incriminating secrets? He set up a world wide funnel for himself, by which to attract whistleblowers far and wide, and gives us no secret material. Why? How has he hurt them? How has he helped us?

All this pomp (10,000 pounds daily is a pittance to the tax collectors) does is convince the gullible, the least path, the common denominator.

The fish stinks, and so do the nets in the hands of the fishermen. He exposed nothing, and let down every whistleblower with anything of substance. All he did was fashion a fancy name, monopolize it. Face book (facial recog software + nwo trends). The History Channel. The Weather Channel.

Opportunist. Pimp. Not worth going after. Hence, the charade. It's starting...ooohhh.

So in reality we are on the same page...

I'm responding directly to the subject of the OP...

You'd do well to not make grandiose assumptions upon what I have 'bought' and what I haven't, based on my replies to a random online question...

You reveal quite a complicated series of conspiratorial scenarios...some, or all of these may be correct (according to your reading of them)...I merely said there was a fishy smell...you, all but agreed, and then went on to determine that your version of this smell was more complete (for reasons I have no interest in)...than mine...

I dont really give a 'rats' what you think about my comments...

A99

reply to post by akushla99


It's so that Assange can have an 'accident' during extradition.

But there is still that insurance file out there (I have a copy and probably 70% of ATS).
So he can't disappear, he can't be killed...

Is this there only 'legitimate' excuse for putting Assange behind bars?
It is clear to every smart person out there that he has actually not committed this 'alleged' crime.

But what else can the U.S bring against him to try and shut him up?

Originally posted by XeroOne
Haven't you heard? Assange didn't rubber up prior to engaging in sex. Extraditable offence, that is.

Really ... I seriously think, you need some help with your thought process.

And saying that, I'm being polite. And the reason I say that, is that it's an open and shut case in your eyes. It isn't ... but your brain is incapable of viewing any opposites on this case. Which means, your brain is predisposed on the issue. The question is, why ... and since I don't think you know yourself, I suggest you seek some help there.

It wouldn't help in pointing out, that the two points pointed out by the OP, are perfectly legitimite, though not completely flawless. And the sentiment that he didn't use condom, he's a criminal ... just wow, really. That just demands millions of questions on the issue ... did she see all that through her sleep? or was it just a dream? Maybe she saw all the gue in the morning, are you sure that was the gue from that night, when she was a sleep ... or was it a residue gue, from before when she was in consent.

If you cannot possibly understand the opposites in this scenario ... then your brain has a problem with the situation. You are predisposed ... in a case, where either partner is performing casual sex, then a condom should be used. A condom is used, to protect either party from sexual deseases. If either party fails to do this, and a sexual desease is transferred ... yes, then its a crime. But if the party not using a condom, actually does not transfer any desease ... then there is no crime committed. To have sperm, is not a crime ... to be a man, is not an automatic guilt sentiment ... to have sex, is not a crime. Unless your brain has problems, with either sex or men.

So the arguement falls in on itself, there is no "crime" involved. There isn't even a case of "humiliation", except the humiliation Sweden will have to suffer for this stupidity. And they should take that up, with their government ... seriously.

Britain is a EU country, so is Sweden. Because of EU, Britain cannot DENY extradiction ... that is what this is about. Extradiction is compulsory .. the only thing Sweden has to produce, are legal documents stating why. They don't have to have any charges, request for question is enough ... it is not up to Britain, with the EU, to decide anything on the legitimacy of the document, or claim ... only to ensure that it is legal entities in Sweden that request him. Britain view, wether they think he's inocent or guilty has no weight, they must extradict him ... it is compulsory.

So, the not using condom has absolutely zero value on the case ...

And finally, and seriously, you should try and help yourself here ... this is a conspiracy site. I would say your required to understand opposite sides of a case. And I'd say argueing your point, is also a requirement ... saying "He had sex with a woman = he's guilty", doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. Anywhere. While an arguement "He's Mr. Assange = he's guilty", is a political statement, not a statement of actual guilt.

Originally posted by okamitengu
assflange is an opportunist.

I couldn't agree more ...

This guy comes out and claims to be fighting for justice, but when the heat goes on ... he starts getting out of the Kitchen ...

I look back, at men like Mandela ... a man who fought for his beliefs, landed in jail and suffered 20 years of indignity. Came out a man, the whole world reverred for his steadfastness.

This particular sex case, is an Embarrassement to Sweden, and Julian Assange should actually have the guts of fighting face to face, and let the Swedish government embarrass itself. Instead, he's seekin an assylum in Equador ... where he's likely to "vanish" more than anywhere else. This guy doesn't make a hell of a lot sense these days ...

And concerning the US. The guy isn't an american, whatever law the US has about people not being able to possess stolen property doesn't apply. I'm a Europan, and to be perfectly honest ... the US can take it's laws and stick them, where the Sun don't shine. And if they need help with it, I'll be more than happy to comply, by advocating in Europe, to eventually "force" the US to stick it up there ... where it belongs. Followed with a nuclear tampong, to make it stick.

Julian Assange, put himself there in the middle of harms way. He may not wear a Uniform, but he's a self-proclaimed officer of world justice.

This, is the day he's supposed to fight ... with his life on the line ... and all I see, is a scared little rabbit, looking for a hole to hide in.

or ...

alternatively ... and this is an afterthought ...

Mr. Assange is an intelligent CIA guy, whose actually using the situation to create opportunities. The guy, being wanted in the West, especially by the US, comes down as complete resume of him being anti-west. Puts him in a great position, to get contacts with the other side of the fense ...

anyone?

reply to post by akushla99


I apologize. I misinterpreted your take. I thought you implied I was sniffing something as in entheogens. I done jumped ahead of myself. Nothing is to be trusted anymore, esp. if pushed by msm.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by XeroOne
Haven't you heard? Assange didn't rubber up prior to engaging in sex. Extraditable offence, that is.

Really ... I seriously think, you need some help with your thought process.

And saying that, I'm being polite. And the reason I say that, is that it's an open and shut case in your eyes. It isn't ... but your brain is incapable of viewing any opposites on this case. Which means, your brain is predisposed on the issue. The question is, why ... and since I don't think you know yourself, I suggest you seek some help there.

It wouldn't help in pointing out, that the two points pointed out by the OP, are perfectly legitimite, though not completely flawless. And the sentiment that he didn't use condom, he's a criminal ... just wow, really. That just demands millions of questions on the issue ... did she see all that through her sleep? or was it just a dream? Maybe she saw all the gue in the morning, are you sure that was the gue from that night, when she was a sleep ... or was it a residue gue, from before when she was in consent.

edit on 24/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

You seem to have a VERY poor grasp of sarcasm.

reply to post by Aliensun


I agree with you 110% what he did is in fact a crime in the us, but it is currently not the us going after him. (at least that we know of through the media, and we know just how much truth they tell.) The op was pointing out what the swedish goverment is doing. And that in and of itself leads to many questions that are going to be unanswered. But back to the us crimes, we can say that he did it for his own gain, but just putting that aside, not forgetting it mind you. what he did was also show us the things we are not being told and exposing things that we have been tolld for what they really are. Robin hood in a sense, but i use that term loosely. To sum it up, he broke us laws, that we know for a fact. Why is swedin trumping up charges to get him back there, shouldnt it be easier for the us to file suit and get him, over here seeing as how he has posted the edvience aginst him for all to see? just my thoughts