Assange to sue Prime Minister Gillard for defamation

I think Mr. Assange is making a mistake if he goes through with this. Not only is taking on the most politically powerful woman in Australia a monumental task in itself, the evidence for genuine defamation seems lacking in my opinion. I don't see how making an enemy with the Prime Minister of a country where he intends on returning to will help his cause.

Did Julian break any Australian laws?

Also in the movie did that bombing of the protected shelter by the American forces actually happen?
If so he is a global hero for bringing it to the light of day regardless of laws broken.

Edit: Was this the shelter? en.wikipedia.org...

The Amiriyah shelter bombing[2] was an aerial attack that killed more than 408 civilians[3] on 13 February 1991 during the Gulf War, when an air-raid shelter ("Public Shelter No. 25"), also referred to as the Al Firdos C3 bunker by the U.S. military, in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq was destroyed by the USAF with two laser-guided "smart bombs".[4] It is considered the single largest civilian massacre in modern air warfare.[5] The Pentagon claimed that it targeted Amiriyah because it fit the profile of a military command center; it picked up electronic signals coming from the site, and spy satellites could see a lot of people and vehicles moving in and out of the bunker.[6] The shelter was used in the Iran–Iraq War and the Persian Gulf War by hundreds of civilians.

At 4:30 am in the morning of 13 February, two F-117 stealth fighter/bombers each dropped a 2,000 pound GBU-27 laser-guided bomb on the shelter. The first cut through ten feet of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuse exploded. Minutes later the second bomb followed the path cut by the first bomb.[8] People staying in the upper level were incinerated by heat, while boiling water from the shelter's water tank killed those below.[9] At the time of the bombing there were hundreds of Iraqi civilians in the shelter. More than 400 people were killed; reports vary and the registration book was incinerated in the blast.[9] The dead were overwhelmingly women and children because men and boys over the age of 15 had left the shelter to give the women and children some privacy. The blast sent shrapnel into surrounding buildings, shattering glass windows and splintering their foundations.[6] The shelter is maintained as a memorial to those who died within it, featuring photos of those killed. According to visitors' reports, Umm Greyda, a woman who lost eight children in the bombing, moved into the shelter to help create the memorial, and serves as its primary guide.[1

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I think Mr. Assange is making a mistake if he goes through with this. Not only is taking on the most politically powerful woman in Australia a monumental task in itself, the evidence for genuine defamation seems lacking in my opinion. I don't see how making an enemy with the Prime Minister of a country where he intends on returning to will help his cause.

edit on 7/10/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

The evidence is in public record, its only the question of it being untrue is what the law rules on. As for making an enemy of the PM, I didnt think the two were on good terms to start with, defamation wont really damage the PM--If I remember its capped at $350,000.

EDIT: no. wrong about that amount...

reply to post by cartenz


My bad man...

I apologize.

reply to post by cartenz


Do you have a direct quote from Gillard? Because so far all it seems she said is that "he broke the law" which is very general. If that is all they have in the public record then she could just say she was referring to US law when she said it. And technically speaking Assange did break the law in his past with hacking offenses so she could claim she was referring to his past behaviour.

The two of them might not be on good terms anyway but it will hardly help his desire to return to Australia if he goes to war with the Australian Government.

I don't think the financial implications would be concerning. But a successful defamation case against her would be damaging to the PM's character and public persona.

Originally posted by paraphi
Well, it is Assange's game plan to keep the "victim status" alive and divert attention from the fact he's wanted to answer questions for alleged sex crimes. It's laughable that he can continue to hide behind lawyers when there are some serious allegations he should answer to.

Classic diversion tactics.

As to defamation. Um, more opinion that defamation and I bet nothing comes of it.

Regards

Sex crimes? Mate, the scrawny little geek couldn't rape a wet paper bag if he tried

(no offense to julian - I really like and respect the guy and think he's a genius and a brave information warrior who's doing the right thing in a time when no one else is. But rape? conveniently after releasing sensitive incriminating U.S. documents that were covered up? yeah, right. that adds up.)

if you mean raping america's military integrity. then yeah, he's probably a little guilty there

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by cartenz

 

Do you have a direct quote from Gillard? Because so far all it seems she said is that "he broke the law" which is very general.

She called wikileaks a criminal organisation

If that is all they have in the public record then she could just say she was referring to US law when she said it.

So you would want her to lie to avoid a defamation suit?

And technically speaking Assange did break the law in his past with hacking offenses so she could claim she was referring to his past behaviour.

If he has served whatever sentence prior, it would still be defamation. And the mention was not about his past behavior as mentioned above.

The two of them might not be on good terms anyway but it will hardly help his desire to return to Australia if he goes to war with the Australian Government.

He cant leave the Equator embassy, how can he get back to Australia?

I don't think the financial implications would be concerning. But a successful defamation case against her would be damaging to the PM's character and public persona.

More that the uber-right constantly bashing the PM in the media? This will not damage the PM in the slightest

Well, apparently her comments lead to Mastercard banning its card holders from donating to Wikileaks, so he claims that his organisation potentially lost hundred of thousands or millions of dollars (I have no idea how much Wikileaks gets in donations a year). I think that’s fair enough to sue. Just because she is the PM shouldn’t mean that she is immune from litigation for ill considered comments. Any other business in such a situation would sue without thinking twice. If someone in an influential position in society makes a false comment about a business that then directly causes that business to lose money then they should be held responsible in a civil proceeding. I think it’s a pretty simple situation really. Her being PM will muddy the waters and make it more difficult for him to get anywhere. Chances are, rightly or wrongly, nothing will come of it except maybe she may need to offer an apology or something.

reply to post by daaskapital


politicians can only talk with a teleprompter otherwise they show how stupid they are
Gillard only knows what the banks tell her to know

he can sue for millions

you know how lawyers are they will q up to get on the tv

Originally posted by BlindBastards
Well, apparently her comments lead to Mastercard banning its card holders from donating to Wikileaks, so he claims that his organisation potentially lost hundred of thousands or millions of dollars (I have no idea how much Wikileaks gets in donations a year). I think that’s fair enough to sue. Just because she is the PM shouldn’t mean that she is immune from litigation for ill considered comments. Any other business in such a situation would sue without thinking twice. If someone in an influential position in society makes a false comment about a business that then directly causes that business to lose money then they should be held responsible in a civil proceeding. I think it’s a pretty simple situation really. Her being PM will muddy the waters and make it more difficult for him to get anywhere. Chances are, rightly or wrongly, nothing will come of it except maybe she may need to offer an apology or something.

GEESUS He can sue for total loss plus the other things the lawyers like to haggle over

Originally posted by laserjeff
reply to post by daaskapital

 

politicians can only talk with a teleprompter otherwise they show how stupid they are
Gillard only knows what the banks tell her to know

he can sue for millions

you know how lawyers are they will q up to get on the tv

I corrected myself earlier but failed to mention why and by how much(not much)--why, because its a complicated mess for most to read thru. It still stands defamation cases are capped:

For orders under this subsection, see Gazettes No 84 of 30.6.2006, p 5043 (amount declared: $259,500); No 80 of 15.6.2007, p 3793 (amount declared: $267,500); No 72 of 20.6.2008, p 5482 (amount declared $280,500); No 90 of 19.6.2009, p 3137 (amount declared: $294,500); No 79 of 18.6.2010, p 2452 (amount declared: $311,000); No 62 of 24.6.2011, p 4588 (amount declared: $324,000) and No 60 of 8.6.2012, p 2369 (amount declared: $339,000).

www.austlii.edu.au...

I am quoting figures from the NSW Act because 1. the news article mentions Sydney lawyers. 2. NSW pays a higher amount for defamation.

Payout not millions. Gillard not stupid.

Good.

Gillard, as with Clinton and the rest, lied outright about Assange. As, indeed, they are still lying in professing not to know anything about Assange's planned extradition from the US lapdog, Sweden.

Please Julian sue! And hopefully lose but only after a long drawn out expensive time in court so that you are not awarded a payout but are ordered to pay all costs for both sides. Then just maybe you will crawl under some rock and not be heard from again. just my opinion so all of you julian lovers can have somebody to flame.

Originally posted by paraphi
Well, it is Assange's game plan to keep the "victim status" alive and divert attention from the fact he's wanted to answer questions for alleged sex crimes. It's laughable that he can continue to hide behind lawyers when there are some serious allegations he should answer to.

Classic diversion tactics.

As to defamation. Um, more opinion that defamation and I bet nothing comes of it.

Regards

Have you actually read the details of these 'sex crimes'? He's not a rapist, he just doesn't like condoms...

ETA: Whether he deserves time for that is debatable but he didn't rape anybody and he has already been interrogated, thoroughly by Swedish officials and they released him without charge. The only reason he is wanted for further questioning is because the US want to lock him up and throw away the key.

There are numerous threads about this here, maybe you should read a couple of them...

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I think Mr. Assange is making a mistake if he goes through with this. Not only is taking on the most politically powerful woman in Australia a monumental task in itself, the evidence for genuine defamation seems lacking in my opinion. I don't see how making an enemy with the Prime Minister of a country where he intends on returning to will help his cause.

edit on 7/10/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

Election not far away, thats why he waited

Originally posted by mattdel
I'm not so sure he's going into it expecting a win.

Most frivolous lawsuits are started to garner attention. I suspect no different here. I support it, though. Assange needs to make a public spectacle of the evils in the world before he's sniped out of existence.

It doesn't sound frivolous - whether he can prove "loss" from the alleged defamation will be the crux of the claim.

If he can prove loss, whether material, or through public opinion, he may be in a position to have damages awarded.

The cost for proceeding will be extraordinary, but if he finds a sympathetic firm which has support from elements of the opposition, then he is in with a shot.

You would be surprised how relatively easy it is to proceed with an allegation through the courts, and in some instances to win, simply because one has the balls and the money to proceed with litigation.

reply to post by ExCommando


My question is of Jurisdiction--which state? or even other common law country would he try this in?

If he continues the action in AU, I would guess NSW because of the higher cap on payout, but I have a susspicion he will forum shop this case to Canada where, as far as I can tell, the laws are more in favor of the plaintiff.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: I also dont think litigation would be cost prohibitive, many firms offer pro-bono for "human rights" work, tho this case isnt directly a human rights issue, his pending extradition would be.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Incorrect.. Please read the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling and please pay specific attention to the part where the 2 journalists were charged for printing classified information. Freedom of Press does NOT confer blanket immunity, contrary to populatr belif.

You are quoting American law.

He hasn't broken any Australian laws and he is an Australian suing an Australian in an Australian court. You seem to ignore this fact, and while I see your point it isn't relevant.

We live in a world where people who tell the truth about what is going on - get treated with disdain. The liars, the psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, (who are all pathological liars as per the psychiatric medical diagnostic manual) all get supported.

Julian Assange is a modern day hero. If he was guilty of the sex allegations - he could be charged in absentia - that hasn't happened because the evidence has not been strong enough to prefer a charge.

Julian Assange has revealed what is actually happening - with regard to war actions - and the cabal/illuminati/whatever are not happy. Liars never come clean unless they are in a corner. People who watch too much television and think that crooks just come clean and 'fess up - are sadly deluded.

Julian Assange is standing up for the truth - to live in a world where the government does not control the flow of information. Information and education is for everyone. When liars hide what they are doing it is because they do not want the community to know. Why keep secrets - government level or otherwise? When any government is afraid of citizens who speak up - that is a warning to everyone else.

As for suing the Australian Prime Minister - why not? The law is for everyone not just the regular wage earning people - laws are to be respected by all people of that country, from the Prime Minister all the way down and all the way up - everyone!!! Should the Prime Minister of Australia have transgressed legal, lawful behaviour then she is to be charged and tried like every other citizen.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Incorrect.. Please read the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling and please pay specific attention to the part where the 2 journalists were charged for printing classified information. Freedom of Press does NOT confer blanket immunity, contrary to populatr belif.

You are quoting American law.

He hasn't broken any Australian laws and he is an Australian suing an Australian in an Australian court. You seem to ignore this fact, and while I see your point it isn't relevant.

Again incorrect.. Assange did break Amaerican law (no charges have been filed) by being in possession of US Government property. Wikileaks conspired with Manning to gain more than just the helicopter incident.

His nationality is irrelevent.