Are We Too Sensitive?

The most recent meltdowns have occurred in the far right wing liberals, and manifests itself in SJ Warriors that collapsed in tears believing Armageddon is soon to follow, and all that has been done is a new President elected.

We want to abolish death penalties, food shortages, emphasize civil rights, gay rights, non identifying gender rights, refugee rights, black rights, flag rights, human rights, and the list goes on!

But are we trying to insulate ourselves from pain the wrong way? Is pain actually acceptable at all, a natural occurrence that cannot be escaped?.

I can actually remember as a child watching flames flicker on an open fire. I also remember my mothers stern warning never to remove the guard, I also remember actually burning my fingers, because I disregarded her advice. (Butter and lots of kisses helped).

When I was a carpenters apprentice it took a very short period of time to understand that to miss when hammering a nail………caused a pain second to none.

The abolition of death penalties in most countries have used the pain as part of the argument as to why it should be abolished, as well as the error factor that cannot be reversed. But cruel and painful punishment comes up the most!

Not only do we want pain negated, we also want implied or anticipated pain eradicated. Even assumed pain is a target for those that wish to balance society.

If I think you do not treat me as an equal, observe my rights, allow me freedoms of thought, are not sympathetic with my circumstance,…… are all my perceived thoughts and……….. today’s social warriors want to eradicate that thought too!

Pain is a necessary evil and it could be questioned that we should not suffer it.

The International Association for the Study of Pain‘s widely used definition states: “Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.”

They go further to state:-

Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.

Without the pain…you will not withdraw and no amount of warnings will help. That pain is cold, heartless, and absolute!

You need pain to ensure you survive by trying not to make the same mistake again. It teaches you to avoid the circumstance in future (I wont let THAT happen again!)

In relationships you can correct your choices by another partner . In loyalties you can focus on a better candidate. In your social life you can join a like minded group instead of trying to convince some…. that only cause friction…..and PAIN!

Instead of correcting pain we should look at prevention rather than cure, chose our friends and allegiance with care. Flow with the scheme of things because just as a river…. no matter what we do it wont flow with us.

If we are faced with pain we need to be helped to learn how to deal with the pain, not try to eradicate that pain which, may be done on a smaller artificial scale, but in the world of reality there will always be pain.

From childbirth to the dentist, from the loss of a loved one, to that prized possession that we thought so much of and to that love that we once had….. and lost.

Like all things that effect us we can either see it as a defeat or a learning experience that we can take something useful from it.

Perhaps one of those things may be to make sure it never happens again!

 

Fake News

As Hillary is taken to book by her sponsors who quite rightly ask….”What went wrong” and considering they put in upwards of one BILLION dollars into the farce that occurred around four weeks ago, perhaps they most of all, have THAT right to ask.

It seems all and sundry are getting on the Band Wagon with the latest on the emails that were leaked by John Podesta, (accidentally) on bad advice of his IT guy.

It now is apparent to many Democrats the Russians were the bad guys that (depending on which stories you read) were in cahoots with Julian Assange of Wikileaks, or perhaps the Russians directly hacked because of a you kid in Russia that was testing the system to see how far it would go, and of course there is….. so many options….. and all to cover the tracks of actually giving the truth to the people.

This TRUTH is totally disregarded and like the messenger that brought the news of Lucculus coming for war…… Tigranes had his head cut off, the democrats refuse to believe the information was the cause of the astounding loss of the Democrats, not some obscure leak from the Russians, but their own foolishness.

Now anyone that actually took the time to watch all of the election news could see the chronic bias at every turn. Most people took to calling CNN the Clinton News Network, because they resolutely refused to print anything bad.

The Washington Post to the NY Times…. were all instrumental in this charade.

The President has for the last couple of days given in to the nonsense of hacking and not even HE can provide a tiny bit of evidence to prove that case. In fact he has been challenged by Putin to produce some evidence or shut up about the issue.

Although farcical in its suggestions, many have used this excuse for the huge loss that was visited to the Democrats, and wail about the need to do something about it.

Zuckerberg has been the first to actually say he is making adjustments to Facebook, by adding in fact checkers to monitor these fake news messages that cost Hillary the election. It seems that HIS fact checkers are to be Snopes and ABC and well, well, well, who were both firing off false news and suppressing negative Hillary news throughout the election.

So we have fact checkers from organizations that claim to be non partisan and I guess have changed their spots.

I believe that Zuckeberg (who already had his space reserved in the Democratic party anticipating the win) has aspirations of politics. To put more of the same liberal nonsense that we have been hearing about so much over the last year, to us because the guy actually believes the nonsense that he preachers.

My own view is that Facebook WILL collapse about as fast as it was created. What they intend doing is being the judge and jury for propaganda and effectively will censor what all write.

The really scary thing is slowly and surely your rights….OUR rights are getting eaten away by some that think they know better.

Listen to this nonsensical argument………….

And when these misstatements are not enough to tell you that there is fake news out there Tucker is on the front line pushing back…………..

Here we see the gall to decide who the elector can vote for on the basis they know better than the voter.

But the founding fathers did not make a stipulation of acumen for holding public office…only that they be chosen BY the PEOPLE.

 

 

 

Are Politicians too extreme?

Here is one of so many examples of Pundits getting it so badly wrong.

Donald Trump has confounded so many that supposedly know about politics.

Polls coming out of your ears, and Hollywood liberal leftists having to backtrack on on their promises to emigrate, and even Obama ridiculed Trump as to whether he would even get near to the Presidency.

Whats interesting is that everything they threw at Trump……… he seemed to take advantage of.

I would offer that these are run of the mill political ideals are so far from reality and those that promote those ideas, have no idea what the voter really wants.

Both the UK with Brexit and the USA with Trump have had a drastic and (to them) unpredictable  resounding no from their voters.

But what does the future hold for our new breed of politicians?

Firstly their breed of politics may actually be dead and they simply do not know it yet.

Their supporters are those that have seen so little hardship, have utilized Facebook and Twitter to rally their minority that care so much about social issues and take their unsupported mandate to ever higher levels.

If your not campaigning against something..anything you are not considered to be ‘real’ among your peers. If you cannot be ‘active’ you are not deemed to be ‘inclusive’

Real argument does not matter. If there is no argument they will create one. Take this next little snippet that conveniently makes us all demons…… if you have ONE basic characteristic.

 

You just have to be in the majority ANYTHING and therefore are biased toward the minority…….. Go figure…..

It would seem that millennials without a cause are nothing. if you dont have a cause….. go out and create one…

Secondly and perhaps more importantly is while some are demonstrating, others are working on the problem.

Without even been inaugurated, Trump is getting off his butt and making jobs. Big companies seeing their bottom line, (and in turn their bonuses) are going to dwindle are now coming to his way of thinking and wanting to be part of this new era.

This is what is going to ensure Trumps success his 2nd term in office and his daughter becoming the first female President of the USA.

It seems that the millennials will need another cause to fight for because they will have ever more dwindling support for their case against Trump.

It hard to flunk a success story!

Commander in Chief

With the current Syrian crisis turning on its head at the moment it may be a good idea to turn to the position of the Commander in Chief who is somewhat removed from war,  its implications and certainly its effects of which he is insulated.

There are certain issues that apply to the different classes. Lets for arguments sake say we have class 1, 2, and 3.

For instance if your an officer (1)  the command you have makes the likelihood of you needing to go into battle, that privilege is given to ranks 2 and 3 who being more prevalent and expendable are more suited to the role. Role 2 maybe looked at as say… a Sergeant Major who simply leads the front liners (3) into the actual combat.

When in civilian life, we have a similar structure, the upper class (1), Middle class (2) and the lower class (3) and (1) is far removed from the issues that involve (2) and those far removed from the position of (3).

They know each other are there and respect their position, but there are advantages as you go up the social scale as to what may or may not be achieved.

A few hundred years back it was necessary to do things a slightly different way………

The Charge of the Light Brigade

was a charge of British light cavalry led by Lord Cardigan against Russian forces during the Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854 in the Crimean War.

CW-Picketts

Civil War: Gettysburg and Pickett’s Charge

Despite the deadly fire, one of Pickett’s brigade leaders Gen. Lewis Armistead still managed to cross the field and lead 100 soldiers over a stone wall to create a breach in the Union line, shouting “Come forward, Virginians! Come on, boys, we must give them the cold steel! Who will follow me?”

Boadicea

“She was huge of frame, terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice. A great mass of bright red hair fell to her knees: She wore a great twisted golden necklace, and a tunic of many colors, over which was a thick mantle, fastened by a brooch. Now she grasped a spear, to strike fear into all who watched her……”

-Dio Cassius

Wealthy men in the Roman Empire often led the charges against enemies, they, had the most to gain and the most to lose when faced with adversaries.

In those days it was customary to lead the charge if you were in command. All influential Lords and wealthy commanders led in battle, firstly to protect their interest and secondly to rally the men……..If he was not at the front…. NO man would fight!

I would make the proposition that, we need to take the clock back a little, and get real. We hear so many calling for war and none of them prepared to lead the charge.

Although war is a little more covert with autonomous subs, and drones that can be flown from many miles away, the consequence is no less than it was a thousand years ago for those being attacked.

The trouble with this scenario is that the leader may take men into battle for frivolous reasons.If you have a might second to none its easy to strike and easy to explain with countless reasons as to why you had to use draconian means.

No one argues with history, and history is written by the victor.

The answer is clear and the moral is simple. If the war that you propose is sufficient that YOU would lead the charge and be possibly the first to die from the consequence, then it passes the litmus test for your support.

But if your gonna push the next guy to lead that first man over the hill charge, you have neither the right nor the moral compass to be called a leader and declare a war!

Black Privilege

To my knowledge there is no such thing as ‘Black Privilege’ and, as previously,  I put forward on argument on that of White Privilege it seems only reasonable that I should examine the converse side of the coin and for it too…. consider the Litmus Test.

There are few examples that can be fair comparison to examine this aspect of privilege and to whether or not it exists. What we can do is examine “White privilege’ and apply the same rules to decide whether or not there is actually a case for it.

Perhaps we ought look no further than countries that are controlled solely by blacks, or at least have a black head of state.

The first and most obvious must be Barack Obama. To all intended purposes referred to as the first black president of the USA. In 2004 he steam rolled to the White House with his eloquent acumen that has not been so apparent to me since MLK or JFK.

Indeed I saw Obama on his first stage appearance with 13 others where I boldly decided that he WILL be the next US President… why? because when asked “Would you talk with heads of states of the “axis of evil”(Iran, N Korea, Syria) He was the only one of 14 to answer in the affirmative. (I firmly believe you have to talk otherwise wars start).

I, sadly, was very wrong in my estimation. Oh yes, he became President, but did he act out his words?…no he did not.

His track record is nothing short of abysmal, taking the US into such debt that it will take monumental effort to even get back to the debt before his inauguration.

He leaves a huge divide between the poor and the rich, between peoples and races that, he appeared to make no attempt to balance the one sidedness that has been the nucleus of his tenancy of the WH.

Its as if he deliberately in any way he could push a wedge into the American people. With about a GDP of around 1.55% as compared to say, China of around 8%, has something to be desired.

As another example we may consider Zimbabwe. To be correct the Republic of Zimbabwe that used to be Rhodesia which was created by Cecil Rhodes and inherited by Robert Mugabe in 1980 as Prime Minister and President in 1987, and still is.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called him “a cartoon figure of an archetypal African dictator.”

Between 1982 and 1985 at least 20,000 people died in ethnic cleansing and were buried in mass graves. Mugabe consolidated his power in December 1987, when he was declared executive president by parliament, combining the roles of head of state, head of government, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, with powers to dissolve parliament and declare martial law.

During the 1980s Mugabe’s policies were largely socialist in orientation. In 1980 and 1981 the Zimbabwean economy showed strong growth of the GDP with 10.6% and 12.5%. From 1982–89 economic growth averaged just 2.7% (1980–89 average 4.47%). The white minority government maintained (with economic sanctions) from 1966–72 a 6.7% average growth rate and overall from 1966 till 1979 a 3.8% average growth rate.

Unsuccessful market reform attempts were started in the 1990s and the economy stagnated in this time. Since 2000, GDP has declined by roughly 40% in part due to land reform and hyperinflation.

These to examples are perhaps in the extreme but they do reflect the typical Black leaders of which there are many examples.

The Five Worst Leaders In Africa.

Here

To name but a few in the history of Africa, where once elected, the leaders consolidate their base and eliminate any rival. The enrich themselves beyond any natural expectation, and have zero tolerance to logic or empathy for any that get in their way.

The transition to their power has been fairly straight forward, with a relatively small amount of bloodshed in the transition of white to black, but subsequent deaths come in their hundreds of thousands while they consolidate their power.

The aim here is not to make a comparison with how an incoming black leader compares to the resident white leader. The intent is to see how the black leaders enriches themselves, eliminates thousands and rule with a dictatorship second to none.

In addition blacks that faced transportation to the new world actually met a future better than blacks of today can expect in their ancestral homeland. Poverty is rampant, living conditions abysmal and as a whole Africa has little future to be looking forward to. No vote no rights, and no future.

The point of bringing this to the readers attention is that you would expect it to be different. Perhaps a much higher standard of living nationwide with black leaders. Perhaps you would expect more liberal stances and freedom of expression, income, education and civil rights.

But under black leaders you have very little of any of these basic human rights, and the same civil rights all blacks enjoy all over the world except in their country of origin.

So if this is correct, the privilege that blacks want to enjoy on the backs of whites I would say is unearned acumen…. because you dont have to undure what other black endure in your great, great grandfathers homeland.

It Passes the litmus test!

 

Our Governments are so Benevolent

In Europe we see so many in government that are ready to accept refugees on our part. From Angela Merkel to the left wing socialist Groups in the UK, all believing that refugees need help and that we should provide it.

Portugal has offered to host 10,000 of the refugees who’ve landed on Europe’s shores from the globe’s war-torn zones. So far, it has taken in 234. (Here)

A newly-registered German NGO wants to transport refugees from North Africa and the Middle East into Europe via planes instead of highly dangerous sea routes. Organizers plan to raise money for plane tickets and amend an EU directive that fines airlines for ferrying migrants.(Here)

Some countries in the EU are readying to bully other European nations that refuse to accept refugees from the Middle East and North Africa

If two-thirds of the EU members agree, a proposal from the European Commission would institute a 250,000 euro fine  ($285,000 USD) on countries who refuse asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa who are coming from one European country to another.(here)

BRUSSELS—Europe expects more help from the U.S. and Canada on refugees as it struggles with a rise in populism and xenophobia, a senior European Union official said, as the world’s leaders gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. (Here)

Personally I would question the legality of politicians inviting refugees into the country under laws which they themselves made, but were not elected on those terms.

A Government is there to run the country, and not to hand out favors to whom they chose, which, is described so much better than I could by Davy Crocket  (Here)

I believe too that Governments overreach themselves when you stop to consider welfare of any sort. They hold the purse-strings on behalf of the people, not their own slush funds.

Lawyer do’and dont’s

Nothing can be more profound and exhausting as going to court, whether you are defendant, or plaintiff…………. Its hell…… But having had a recent court case and along the way learned a couple of things that I didn’t know when we started, I feel a bit more educated about it now.

So here a couple of Do’s and Don’ts that if I were starting again, I would change…….

PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT?

If your the plaintiff, the onus is on you to prove your case. In a civil case in most parts of the world you are required to prove past the threshold of 51%. This figure is a really nonsensical assessment because there are degrees (after 51%) that the judge will take into consideration.

#1: Don’t go to see a lawyer with a view to going to court unless you really mean to do it.

A bit of self help at the start is a really good thing after you have cooled down and can be a good starting point as to an outcome long before you step through that leaches door!

Firstly you have been wronged…. or have you? Be critical of yourself. Write down and number all the points for bringing a case (all the facts) and then write down all the points against, no matter how remote. If your for list does not exceed your against list significantly……… do not go to court.

The premise of this is that your opposing counsel will drag every single point that you ever made, and turn you into a money grabbing demon that would probably rape Mother Theresa if he takes his eyes off you!

#2: Don’t bring a frivolous case to a court.

The judge gets upset with you, and, seeing she has direct access to your wallet and can rape it if you look the wrong way at her….. make sure you have not only a good legal case, but a good moral one too.

Because you hate the other guy with a passion is no reason to bring a case, unless you have a very big fat check book. Make the case easy for the judge, and you will have rewards.

#3: Don’t tell your lawyer everything!

I had very honest lawyer, a good family man, does not beat the wife, goes to church, and does everything by the book!….and consequently will act on every single thing you tell him adhering strictly to the law. The problem here being… he is an exception rather than the rule…… the others do not play fair. Tell him what is relevant.

#4 Do you have a case?

Can you actually prove what you say. As a plaintiff, its up to you. If you have ‘He said, I said’ you will most likely lose. True you may be able to come up with 51% but that will only give you your costs  back (possibly) What do you have written down? do you have a contract? Do you have a witness to the contract? In short Now Prove It.

#5 What is a contract?

If you Google this you will find that a contract is simply a promise to do something get something or give something for another something. The promise can be in many forms, it does not have to be written.

See:

The elements of a contract are “offer” and “acceptance” by “competent persons” having legal capacity who exchange “consideration” to create “mutuality of obligation.”

Once you really get into this there are lots of conditions to what may or what may not be a contract, but we are not gonna get into absolutes of each case, the fundamentals are Offer and Acceptance, but when standing alone cannot form a contract. Remember a judge has to decide on what you can prove, and he has no way of making a decision on what you or the defendant thought you meant (in which case you lose)

So I have bought a car, I offered $1000 and the defendant accepted $1000 dollars. Is this a contract? no way! not to a judge anyway! For instance if you give him the keys, because he says he will bring the cash around, you are totally screwed, and he has your car, because you did not define when!

So now he pays up you have not had your money for 6 months, and lost all interest so you take him to court ….. and you will get NADA! Why ? because you did not say there is a penalty at the start!

#6 Do I need a lawyer to write the contract?

No you dont, unless its a complicated case, particularly involving several parties to both sides, in which case you need to be absolute about who is doing what! Just make sure you have. (But because you are thinking litigation, I guess you have already passed that point!)

Offer I have a thousand tons of sand…….. I will sell for X per ton
Acceptance: I will buy a thousand tons of sand…… at X per ton
Offer/Payment: You will pay today/ next week/ next year/ never.
Acceptance/Payment: I will pay today/ next week/ next year/ never.
Offer/When: I will deliver on this date.
Acceptance/when: I will receive on this date.

Conditions: if you do or if I don’t

Lawyers are instinctively leaches, its born and bred into them, (in fact we should really have a legal cull of lawyers twice every year). They write laws for which they are paid a great deal of money, and then even more money to decipher those same laws….. you need to employ them them to clarify what they meant, or do you?

#7 Now consult a lawyer.

You need do nothing more than send a demand for payment, and, give a time you will take action if you do not get satisfaction. All the other stuff a lawyer wants to discuss do not even bother!

Handling Clients

Just make sure your demand is for the exact sum you can prove, and are claiming……EXACTLY! Your in and out in about 15 mins…….. You can actually do this bit yourself, but some people take this as being more serious when it comes from a leach!

#8 Start proceedings:

OK you have done your list…. keep it and update as you get evidence together. Every single email, every scrap of paper, every diary, every phone log, every conversation you can remember with dates, times, and places. Then copy the lot and file. Originals 1, and two copies of copies. One for him, and one for you. Do not miss out anything! It is really hard to add in later because you forgot!

Do your calculations and make sure they add up, then do them again, then give to someone to calculate. Itemize every calculation, dates times and places. Then give it to someone who you trust and would give you an honest feedback. NOT YOUR LAWYER…. I said honest feedback.

Do your list again. If you have a case, chances are it has grown to more positives. if it has grown to more negatives…… re-examine your position.

Filing your claim:

Write down all the facts, everything thats relevant, in particular, the absolutes, log them and give to lawyer for putting into gobbledygook nonsense language for other lawyers who speak gobbledygook nonsense language. Put all your evidence (copies) with this summary and get your lawyer to file…… you are still not interested in talking about the case……… why? because it does not really matter…. yet!

The issue has not come to the trial yet, and as long as you have included the important details of the transaction , and what you are claiming, there is little need to put any more down…. wait for them to respond!

Proving the facts dont really matter yet as you and the other guy know what you meant, so its negotiation stage to lawyers, (they dont expect it to go to court) only…. try to resolve it, with a different aspect by looking through your lawyers eyes.

Look at courts as a examination, and one you want to pass, which you can only do if your honest to yourself in your claim, and can actually prove that claim.

Assange? judge for yourself!

14/15 NOVEMBER 2016 QUESTIONING AT THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY

LEGALLY PRIVILEGED

You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights.

I. THE SWEDISH PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

I, Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, have had my passport taken by British authorities and so cannot provide formal identification, am in a situation of arbitrary detention according to the decision of the United Nations Working Group of Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) of 4 December 2015; a political refugee since 19 June 2012 at the Embassy of Ecuador with asylum which was granted by Ecuador on 16 August 2012, and hereby appear before the authorities of Sweden and Ecuador in the framework of a rogatory commission that has been entered between these two states, requested by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, and declare that:

  1. 1.I ratify what has been expressed by my Ecuadorian lawyer, both in relation to this procedure today and the concerns about the procedure pursued against me in Sweden, including the failure to allow my Swedish lawyer to be present and the failure to provide me with exculpatory and other discovery material, which I have, to date, not been given proper access to, including in the preparation for this statement today. 

     

  2. 2.Today, 14 November 2016, after having made myself available to the Swedish authorities since the start of this outrageous process six years ago, I am finally given the opportunity to give my statement to the Swedish preliminary investigation. I am grateful to Ecuador for attempting to facilitate this process in the circumstances where the Swedish prosecutor has declined, since 2010, to accept this, my first statement on the allegation against me. 

     

  3. 3.I went to Sweden on 11 August 2010. During my stay, I met a woman (hereinafter called ”SW”). On the evening of 16 August, 2010 she invited me to her home. During the night and in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions. 

     

  4. 4.I therefore could not believe my eyes when five days later I saw a headline in a Swedish tabloid that I was suspected of a crime and arrested in my absence. I immediately made myself available to the Swedish authorities to clarify any questions that might exist, although I had no obligation to do so. 

     

  5. 5.That same day (21 August 2010), the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné, dropped the arrest warrant against me and within days would close the preliminary investigation with the finding that no crime whatsoever had been committed against the woman “SW” (who is the subject of this procedure). I drew the conclusion that, other than the worldwide damage to my reputation caused by millions of web pages saying that I was “wanted for rape”, my life, in this respect, would return to normal. 

     

  6. 6.On 23 August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Finné stated she “made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape“.  

     

  7. 7.On 25 August, the Chief Prosecutor found that “The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed“. 

     

  8. 8.A week later, I learned to my surprise that a different prosecutor by the name of “Marianne Ny” had reopened the preliminary investigation without any consultation or opportunity for me to be heard – after I had already been cleared and the case had been closed. 

     

  9. 9.That prosecutor eventually issued an extradition warrant against me, supposedly to take my statement, even though I left Sweden with her permission and in good faith, and had repeatedly tried to see if the prosecutor was ready to accept my statement. I had not and have still not been charged with a crime. 

     

  10. 10.It has taken more than six years for the prosecutor to now obtain my statement. The delay is entirely caused by the prosecutor who re-opened the closed preliminary investigation. A prosecutor is, according to Swedish law (Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Procedural Code), obligated to conduct the preliminary investigation as expeditiously as possible and when there is no longer reason for pursuing the investigation, it shall be discontinued. At the preliminary investigation phase, the prosecutor is obligated to take into account all the circumstances: those against the suspect as well as those circumstances in favour of the suspect, and any evidence favourable to the suspect shall be preserved. The investigation shall be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience. 

     

  11. 11.Instead of following the law, prosecutor Marianne Ny has kept the preliminary investigation open without justification for over six years. She deliberately suspended her work to progress and bring to a conclusion the preliminary investigation. She has for more than six years refused to take my statement during which time she has done nothing to pursue the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation entered into a stasis more than six years ago. I have always demonstrated my willingness to cooperate in order to speed up the process although there is no obligation whatsoever for me to do so. All the obligation is on the prosecutor to progress the preliminary investigation. This attitude of the prosecutor has clearly breached mandatory rules in Swedish law. 

     

  12. 12.I reiterate that over the past six years, I have continued to call for this prosecutor to accept my statement, including by: 

     

      • Willingly attending a questioning on 30 August 2010 in Stockholm, where no questions were asked about the allegation, as I had already been cleared. 

      • Staying in Sweden for more than five weeks longer than planned, repeatedly asking if or when I could give a statement, despite pressing commitments elsewhere. 

      • Gaining the prosecutor’s consent to leave Sweden before doing so on 27 September 2010 in good faith, understanding that I was not required to provide a further statement for the time being. On the day I left the country three of my encrypted laptops were seized from me at Stockholm’s Arlanda airport. The laptops contained evidence of war crimes pending publication and protected legal correspondence. 

      • Offering to return to Sweden to give a statement in October 2010. 

      • Offering to give my statement from London via numerous methods including telephone or videolink or in writing from London between October 2010 and up to and through the prosecutor unnecessarily issuing a European Arrest Warrant. The European Arrest Warrant attempted to extradite me, without charge, from the UK to Sweden, to take my statement. I was actively offering the testimony she claimed she wanted when she sought my arrest. 

      • Providing a DNA sample six years ago in December 2010 when I was first arrested at Sweden’s request and which has been available to the prosecutor for the last six years. She has never bothered to even attempt to use it. 

      • Offering to give a statement in London via Mutual Legal Assistance, among other suggestions, during my time of house arrest (7 December 2010 – 19 June 2012). 

      • Offering to give a statement in the Ecuadorian embassy in London as from 19 June 2012, for instance via email from my Swedish lawyers on 24 July 2012 and during a meeting between my lawyers and the prosecutors in Stockholm 7 May 2013 over four years ago and over three years ago respectively. 

      • Offering to come to Sweden provided Sweden would give a guarantee that I am not extradited to another state over my publishing work. This offer was also requested by Ecuador through diplomatic channels and publicly in 2012, as I am a refugee in its jurisdiction. 

         

  13. 13.As this demonstrates, although I have no obligation to do so, I have done everything within my power to offer my testimony to the prosecutor  while protecting my right to asylum and protecting myself against the risk of extradition to the United States, where there is an open national security case against me. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, WikiLeaks’ alleged source in that matter, Chelsea Manning, has been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in US detention, and has since been convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. 

     

  14. 14.The state of Sweden has refused to provide me the necessary assurances against extradition or other transport to the United States since 2010 when such was asked by my lawyers and since 2012 when requested to do so by the state of Ecuador. Sweden has also refused to accept that the asylum Ecuador has granted me requires it to protect me from onwards extradition to the United States, despite this being the recognized norm in asylum cases, thus making it impossible for me to go to Sweden without giving up my fundamental right as a political refugee. This refusal to recognize my rights as a political refugee has been the sole impediment to my presence in Sweden. I explicitly offered to accept extradition to Sweden provided it simply guarantee that it will not transfer me to another state. This was declined. 

     

  15. 15.Nevertheless, I have continued to offer the prosecutor my statement through mechanisms which can be employed to achieve her stated purpose without putting at risk my fundamental rights, which she has, until recently, rejected. 

     

  16. 16.Two years ago the Svea Court of Appeal on 20 November 2014 severely criticized the prosecutor for her negligence: 

     

“The Court of Appeal notes, however, that the investigation into the suspected crimes has come to a halt and considers that the failure of the prosecutors to examine alternative avenues is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward.”

  1. 17.It was not until March 2015 that Marianne Ny finally – after she had been found in breach of her duties by Sweden’s Court of Appeal and my case was before the Supreme Court and it became apparent that she might lose – claimed that she would, under certain restrictive conditions, accept my statement after all. 

     

  2. 18.Since that time, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) released its ruling on 5 February 2016 that my situation in the embassy amounts to an unlawful and arbitrary detention, in breach of Sweden’s binding legal obligations under international law. UNWGAD found that Sweden and the UK have disregarded the asylum that I have been granted by Ecuador, forcing me to choose between deprivation of liberty and the risk of losing Ecuador’s protection and being extradited to the United States. 

     

  3. 19.It then took Marianne Ny more than 18 months after her claimed change of position at the Supreme Court to arrange this meeting. I have not been responsible for a single day of delay in this process. All the delay has been caused by prosecutor Marianne Ny and the state authorities. Again note that all the obligation is on the prosecutor. 

     

  4. 20.Furthermore, the UNWGAD concluded that the Swedish prosecutor has breached my due process rights in the conduct of this preliminary investigation and that seeking my extradition to Sweden as the only option in these circumstances was ”excessive and unnecessary” [para 97]. In particular, it found: 

     

“…after more than five years’ time lapse, he is still left at the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence…” [para. 97] “…Mr Assange has been denied the opportunity to provide a statement, which is a fundamental aspect of the audi alteram partem principle, the access to exculpatory evidence, and thus the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations…” [para. 98] “…the duration of such detention is ipso facto incompatible with the presumption of innocence.” [para. 98]

  1. 21.As a result of the Swedish prosecutor’s actions, UNWGAD found my circumstances to be of an increasingly serious deprivation of liberty which is of an indefinite nature and is already far longer than the maximum penalty I could ever theoretically face in Sweden. For these reasons UNWGAD found that the severe and indefinite nature of these deprivations amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Sweden’s obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7. The severity of this treatment is further confirmed by the expert opinion of Fernando Mariño, the former President of the UN Committee Against Torture, which is entered into the official record of this proceeding. 

     

  2. 22.Ten months after the UNWGAD determination the harshness of the situation continues to affect my physical and psychological health. My lawyers have informed the Swedish authorities of the ongoing deterioration of my health through the medical certificates and expert opinions of Dr.  Michael Korzinski and Dr. Fluxman, from 11 November 2015; of Dr. Ladbrooke from 8 December 2015; of Dr. Michael Korzinski from 15 June 2016; and of Dr. Ladbrooke from 9 November 2016. 

     

  3. 23.And so, finally, here we are today, under the jurisdiction of Ecuador, with my rights ever increasingly limited, as my Ecuadorian defence counsel has expressed. After more than six years, I am finally being given the “opportunity” to give my statement but with my Swedish counsel having been excluded and under a clear situation of legal defencelessness, resulting from years of negligence and intentional and unlawful delays by the Swedish authorities. 

     

  4. 24.All the irregularities that have occurred through the acts or omissions of the prosecution authority and the six-year delay to date of this disproportionate, inhumane and unlawful preliminary investigation have permanently destroyed all possibilities for me to properly defend myself – which is no doubt their intention. 

     

  5. 25.Following the above, I wish to express in the strongest terms, that, in addition to the breaches of my due process rights in the investigation to date, the procedure to be adopted today in taking my statement further breaches those rights: 

     

      • My Swedish defence lawyer was not permitted to be present today, despite the fact that these proceedings concern a Swedish criminal preliminary investigation. 

      • In the opinion of my general practitioner, I am unfit to prepare and participate in these proceedings (after having been denied hospital treatment and sunlight for 4.5 years). 

      • My Ecuadorian defence counsel has had no access to the case file, let alone in Spanish, the language he understands, nor has he had adequate time to prepare my defence. 

      • My lawyers and I have not been permitted access to the case file. 

      • I have been denied my request to read the text messages that my Swedish defence lawyers have read, which are a key element to my defence because they clearly show that I am innocent. 

         

  1. 26.Due to all the shortcomings stated above, prosecutor Marianne Ny should have drawn the obvious conclusion that she discontinue the preliminary investigation. 

     

  2. 27.In this context I once again remind you that I have already been cleared and that the preliminary investigation was closed by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné in August 2010. 

     

  3. 28.Given this history I have good reason to have concern about whether this “preliminary investigation” is being conducted in good faith and whether honest and impartial consideration will be given to my statement. I suspect that the real purpose of the Swedish prosecutor coming here today is not to obtain my statement but is simply a ruse to tick a box to ensure the technical possibility to indict me, irrespective of how I answer any questions. 

     

  4. 29.I do not believe that prosecutor Marianne Ny is acting in good faith or with the objectivity and impartiality required of her office. For example, after circumventing the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm’s decision to close this case, prosecutor Ny has made at least 40 press releases and press conferences about me where my name has been published, even though there is no charge against me and I have been previously cleared, subjecting me to endless needless suspicion, in clear violation of her duty to not do so under Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish Procedural Code. 

     

  5. 30.My overall conclusion is that the prosecutor’s conduct of the preliminary investigation, for all the reasons above has continued to deprive me of the right to defend myself. 

     

  6. 31.I have no obligation to cooperate with this abuse, but I find myself in a coercive situation. I am meant to be protected by the decision of the UNWGAD which makes it clear that this “preliminary investigation” has violated my human rights and that its attempts to arrest me should be discontinued immediately. That decision was issued almost a year ago, but my situation remains unchanged. Despite the many violations already described I feel compelled to give my statement today so that there can be no more excuses for the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny to continue my indefinite unlawful detention, which is a threat to my health and even to my life. I have been pushing and indeed litigating for this prosecutor to take my statement for more than six years. The prosecutor has made excuse after excuse to not take my statement. I will not grant this prosecutor any excuse to continue to avoid taking my statement as I fear she would use it as a means to indefinitely prolong my cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 

  1. II. REASONS WHY I TRAVELLED TO STOCKHOLM IN AUGUST 2010

  2. 32.I am the editor-in-chief and publisher of WikiLeaks, a publishing organisation specializing in the analysis of records under risk of censorship that are of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance. Among other countries, WikiLeaks publishes and analyses documents that concern the United States, Sweden and the United Kingdom, including millions of documents relating to actions of military, intelligence and foreign services. I have received numerous awards in relation to my publishing work, including the 2008 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award, The Economist New Media Award (USA) 2008, the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media), the 2010 Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (USA) award, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal (Australia), the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (UK), the 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (Australia), the 2011 Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator (Spain), the 2011 International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, the 2011 Jose Couso Press Freedom Award (Spain), the 2012 Privacy International Award, the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award, and the 2013 Global Exchange Human Rights Awards, as well as formal nominations for the United Nations Mandela Prize (2014) and for the past six consecutive years for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

     

  3. 33.The US launched an investigation against me in early 2010 under the Obama administration, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. This administration has expended very substantial resources on attempting to prosecute me and attempting to spy on my publishing work despite its constitutionally protected status. The US government’s WikiLeaks investigation is described in official diplomatic correspondence as being unprecedented in scale and nature. 

     

  4. 34.All the citations I mention are in my affidavit from 2 September 2013, which I am entering into the official record of this proceeding. 

     

  5. 35.The US government has periodically confirmed in public that the national security case against WikiLeaks remains open and ongoing, including in proceedings from this year. Numerous human rights and freedom of speech organizations such as Human Rights Watch have criticized the Obama administration for pursuing a criminal case against WikiLeaks and me.  

  1. 36.The investigation against Wikileaks is led by the FBI and has involved a dozen other agencies, including the CIA, the NSA, and the Defence Intelligence Agency. The US government has described the investigation as awhole of government” investigation. In Alexandria, Virginia, a Grand Jury has been meeting behind closed doors for the past six years under case number 10GJ3793 to explore ways to imprison me and seven others who they have identified as “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks”. The prosecution in the Chelsea Manning case attempted to establish that Private Manning acted as an agent under my control rather than as a journalistic source of mine, even though in Private Manning’s own statement to the court, she said this was not the case. The US military charged Private Manning with twenty-two counts in connection with the release of more than 700,000 classified or confidential documents to WikiLeaks. On 30 July 2013 private Manning was convicted of twenty of these counts and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison on 20 August 2013. 

     

  2. 37.Private Manning was detained for more than 1,000 days before the trial commenced. During this time she remained for 258 days in solitary confinement. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture found that the conditions and length of private Private Manning’s confinement at Quantico, Virginia, amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment. Private Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, said that the treatment of Private Manning was an attempt at breaking her so that Manning would implicate me. The US military court system eventually found that Private Manning was unlawfully punished as a result of this treatment while in US custody. Private Manning was convicted of espionage; the first whistleblower ever so convicted. Private Manning was acquitted of the “aiding the enemy” charge, but the US government could still seek to employ this charge against me. Private Manning is serving a 35 year prison sentence.  

     

  3. 38.According to the respected UK newspaper The Independent, the US and Sweden entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in early December 2010. These talks of my extradition concerned the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks, which is also the reason that Ecuador granted me asylum. 

     

  4. 39.The aggressive calls to stop WikiLeaks from publishing were the reason for my travel to Stockholm. US officials‘ rhetoric grew increasingly aggressive in the period immediately prior to my visit to Sweden on 11 August 2010. In June, a Daily Beast news report entitled The State Department’s Worst Nightmare’ revealed that the Pentagon was “conducting an aggressive investigation” into whether WikiLeaks had 260,000 US diplomatic cables and the material’s whereabouts. 

     

  5. 40.Two days later, an article titled ‘Pentagon Manhunt’ appeared, describing Pentagon investigators desperately trying to track me down in relation to the impending publication of Cablegate: 

     

    “Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange”. 

     

  6. 41.On 17 June 2010 US Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell stated there was an  

ongoing criminal investigation [concerning WikiLeaks], involving the Army Criminal Investigation Division, as well as, I believe, some other law enforcement agencies.

  1. 42.The Pentagon officials “would not discuss the methods being used to find Assange, nor would they say if they had information to suggest where he is now.” On reading this, I realised WikiLeaks continued ability to publish effectively and my own personal safety were at serious risk.  

     

  2. 43.During the month of July I worked with a team of journalists in the United Kingdom to publish the Afghan War Diaries: 75,000 secret Pentagon documents about the war in Afghanistan, which included the detailed records about the deaths of nearly 20,000 people. The day after WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diaries, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that WikiLeaks “poses a very real and potential threat”. 

     

  3. 44.I published the Afghan War Diaries approximately two weeks before I travelled to Sweden. In the aftermath of the publication, US government officials made efforts to influence the way in which the media reported on our publications. The purpose was to delegitimise WikiLeaks protections as a publisher under the US First Amendment. For example, it attempted to falsely cast WikiLeaks as an adversary, opposed to US national interests, a false claim that I would later see echoed in Swedish media.  

     

  4. 45.The New York Times reported that the White House had emailed its reporters with suggested “reporting tacks to take” on WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks disclosures, in an attempt to induce news outlets into referring to WikiLeaks in these terms. 

     

  5. 46.The White House sent an e-mail with the subject heading “Thoughts on Wikileaks” containing a memo in which the White House 

     

      • “advised journalists on possible reporting tacks to take on the [Afghan War Diaries] documents […] As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.”

  1. 47.I also learned from news reports that security authorities from my home country Australia were assisting the US intelligence investigation into WikiLeaks and me:  

“Australian security authorities are assisting a United States intelligence probe into the whistleblower website Wikileaks and its Australian founder and editor, Julian Assange. The US request for support in what Australian national security sources described as ‘a counter-espionage investigation’ preceded Wikileaks’ dramatic publication yesterday of a leaked US military operations log, described as an ”extraordinary compendium” of 91,000 reports by United States and allied soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.”

  1. 48.On July 28th, just three days after publishing the Afghan War Diaries and two weeks before I travelled to Sweden, US Department of Defense Secretary Gates “called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI’s assistance in [the WikiLeaks] investigation as a partner.” The US Defence Department declared: 

“Calling on the FBI to aid the investigation ensures that the department will have all the resources needed to investigate… noting that use of the bureau ensures the investigation can go wherever it needs to go.”

  1. 49.The New York Times reported that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates 

“declined to comment about the investigation beyond noting that he had enlisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist Army investigators, a move that is seen as a precursor to potentially charging people who are not uniformed service members […] A person familiar with the investigation has said that Justice Department lawyers are exploring whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks could be charged with inducing, or conspiring in, violations of the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of national security information.”

  1. 50.On 1 August 2010, the press reported that the FBI and British police were carrying out searches and interrogations in the UK, where I found myself at the time, in connection with WikiLeaks publications. 

  1. 51.Over the next days, US rhetoric and actions against WikiLeaks intensified. Prominent commentators and former White House officials championed extraterritorial measures and the violation of international law “if necessary”.  

     

  2. 52.One of these commentators was former presidential speech writer Marc Thiessen, who published a Washington Post article entitled ‘WikiLeaks Must be Stopped’: 

“…the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice.”

  1. 53.Thiessen argued that the US should put pressure on any state in which I was located and that the US should, if necessary, arrest me even without the consent of that state. He cited legal advice from the Department of Justice regarding FBI operations abroad: 

“The United States should make clear that it will not tolerate any country — and particularly NATO allies such as Belgium and Iceland — providing safe haven for criminals who put the lives of NATO forces at risk. With appropriate diplomatic pressure, these governments may cooperate in bringing Assange to justice. But if they refuse, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval.”

  1. 54.Thiessen further asserted that the FBI could violate international law in order to stop me and apprehend other people associated with WikiLeaks’ publishing activities. Thiessen cited a Department of Justice memo: 

“the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law” and that an “arrest that is inconsistent with international or foreign law does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world.

Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information.

This should be done, ideally, through international law enforcement cooperation. But if such cooperation is not forthcoming, the United States can and should act alone.”

  1. 55.Seven days before I travelled to Sweden I was acutely aware that my personal safety was at risk. Scott Horton, legal affairs and national security contributor at Harper’s, wrote the article ‘WikiLeaks: The National-Security State Strikes Back’: 

[Assange] will certainly be targeted for petty harassment and subject to steady surveillance, and efforts to kidnap him are almost certainly being spun at this very moment.

  1. 56.Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell announced an anti-WikiLeaks task force comprised of 80 people was operating 24 hours a day. One month later, it had grown to 120 people. The “distinct responsibility” of the Information Review Task Force – dubbed by some occupants as the “WikiLeaks War Room” – was 

     

      • “…to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.”

  2. 57.The article “’The General Gunning for WikiLeaks” described the task force: 

“In a nondescript suite of government offices not far from the Pentagon, nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks.

Dubbed the WikiLeaks War Room by some of its occupants, the round-the-clock operation is on high alert this month …”

  1. 58.The same article states that Brig. General Robert A. Carr, who runs “the Pentagon’s equivalent to the CIA”, the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was “handpicked” by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to head the team because he “is highly respected …and a fitting adversary to Assange”. 

  1. 59.General Carr’s “central assignment” was reportedly “to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks”. General Carr testified at the Chelsea Manning sentencing hearing on 31 July 2013. 

  1. 60.I followed closely how pressure mounted on US allies to track my movements and to stop our publications. Official sources within the administration revealed to the press that the US was not only considering how to prosecute me in relation to WikiLeaks’ publications in the US, but was also requesting their allies to prosecute me under their own national security laws: 

     

American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others […]

Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges.”

An article published the day before I went to Sweden stated that “The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say.”

  1. 61.In addition to the stated intention to restrict my freedom of movement, the US government attempted to convince its allies not to allow me entry into their territory as a warning to me, to those working with me and WikiLeaks, and to our supporters: 

     

Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments, that Assange should not be welcome on their shores either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk.”

  1. 62.The Australian government publicly entertained the possibility of canceling my passport, reportedly as a result of pressure placed on Australia by the United States. Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland assured the United States that the Australian government would “provide every assistance to United States law-enforcement authorities”, including by exploring the possibility of canceling my passport. 

     

  2. 63.US pressure even resulted in public attempts to influence decisions based on human rights considerations where I and WikiLeaks were concerned. Through US ambassador to Switzerland Donald Beyer, the Obama administration pressured Switzerland not to grant me political asylum while I participated at the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of the United States. US ambassador Beyer gave an interview to Swiss newspaper Sonntag: 

     

“The United States ambassador to Switzerland, Donald Beyer, has also entered the Wikileaks debate. He has warned the Swiss government against granting Assange asylum, which the Australian founder of Wikileaks has said he was considering requesting. “Switzerland should very carefully consider whether to provide shelter to someone who is on the run from the law”.

  1. 64.The Daily Beast reported that Washington was prepared to review its diplomatic relations with Iceland because parts of WikiLeaks operations had been conducted in that country:  

“An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs.”

  1. 65.In the context of my heightened concerns about US activities in the United Kingdom in relation to the WikiLeaks investigation, I decided to leave the country. When I travelled to Sweden on 11 August 2010, the aggressive rhetoric against me had reached new heights. Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith told National Public Radio:  

“I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be very aggressive […] If I were the US government, I would be trying to make it as difficult as possible for the WikiLeaks founder to continue to do business… To the extent we can persuade our allies to consider prosecution, I think that’s all to the good.”

  1. 66.On the same day I arrived in Sweden, 11 August 2010, I received information from an Australian intelligence source that extra-legal actions might be taken against me by the US or its allies. This was later reported in the Australian newspaper The Age: 

“An Australian intelligence official privately warned Wikileaks on August 11 last year that Assange was the subject of inquiries by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and that information relating to him and others associated with Wikileaks had been provided to the US in response to requests through intelligence liaison channels. The Australian intelligence official is also claimed to have specifically warned that Assange could be at risk of ‘dirty tricks’ from the US intelligence community.”

  1. 67.Friends and associates of mine and volunteers for WikiLeaks were regularly  targeted at borders from this moment on. Border searches and interrogations have affected security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, who had given the keynote speech in my place at the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010. In an interview for Democracy Now, Appelbaum described the targeting he experiences at airports: 

In the period of time since [the HOPE conference on 16 July 2010] they’ve started detaining me, around a dozen-plus times… I was put into a special room, where they frisked me, put me up against the wall… they took my laptop… then they interrogated me, denied me access to a lawyer. And when they did the interrogation, they have a member of the U.S. Army, on American soil. And they refused to let me go. They … implied that if I didn’t make a deal with them, that I’d be sexually assaulted in prison.

  1. 68.Within days of arriving in Sweden I became concerned about my safety and security there, in particular because of the pressure being brought to bear on US allies, including Sweden.  

     

  2. 69.I was aware of the publicly stated attempts to track my movements. I used a number of risk minimisation procedures, including relying on the goodwill of friends and their circles for my safety and to protect the confidentiality of my whereabouts and communications. 

     

  3. 70.My contacts in Sweden had arranged for me to stay in two safe houses during the few days I had intended to stay in Sweden. One of the safe houses belonged to a journalist who I knew and another to a Social Democrat party figure unknown to me who had lent her apartment while she was away, or so I had been told. However, because these two original safe houses arranged prior to my arrival became known very soon, I stayed in three additional safe houses between 11 and 20 August 2010.  

     

  4. 71.I travelled to Sweden to put in place a legal strategy to try to protect our publishing servers, some of which were in Sweden. I believed these assets were at risk as a result of the intense political pressure from the US described above. I met with the Swedish Pirate Party, which was represented at the European Parliament at the time, who agreed to host copies of WikiLeaks servers under their party name in order to further protect our publishing work. I also felt it was best to leave the United Kingdom at that time because the FBI was known to be carrying out operations in connection with the investigation into our publications. I intended to stay in Sweden for less than a week. 

     

  5. 72.My dependency on other people while in Sweden was aggravated when, shortly after my arrival in Stockholm, my personal bank cards were blocked. On 13 August 2010, the WikiLeaks organization’s Moneybookers account could no longer be accessed. That same day, I contacted the company, who replied: “following recent publicity and the subsequently (sic) addition of the Wikileaks entity to blacklists in Australia and watch lists in the USA, we have terminated the business relationship”. I requested further information from MoneyBookers on 13 August and 16 August regarding the closure, including which blacklists and watchlists my accounts and/or WikiLeaks’ account had been added to, but I was refused this information. 

     

  6. 73.The freezing of WikiLeaks’ Moneybookers account was an early example of what in December 2010 would become a concerted extra-judicial global economic blockade against WikiLeaks by US financial service companies, including VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America, Western Union and American Express. The blockade was the subject of several court actions, a European Commission investigation, a resolution by the European Parliament, and condemnation by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. On 24 April 2013 the Supreme Court of Iceland found the blockade against WikiLeaks to be unlawful. 

     

  7. 74.As a result of being suddenly cut off from personal and organizational funds upon arriving in Sweden, I had to rely on others not only for shelter, but also for food, safety and telephone credit. Unfortunately, I knew very few people in Sweden and those I did were only sporadically in the country. 

     

  8. 75.On 13 August 2010 one of the main Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet, published an article entitled ‘Defence ministry prepared for the next leak‘, which reported that the Swedish Ministry of Defence had a dedicated group preparing for WikiLeaks next publication and had analysed 76,000 previous publications from WikiLeaks in relation to Swedish troops in Afghanistan. 

     

  9. 76.Five days later, Swedish state television (SVT) published a segment entitled ‘We risk United States relationship deteriorating‘, which argued that the presence of WikiLeaks in Sweden would negatively affect the strategic relationship between Sweden and the United States. 

III. THE PERIOD 14-20 AUGUST 2010

  1. 77.I met “SW” during my visit to Stockholm. The first time I met her was on the morning of 14 August 2010 when she came to a speech I gave on what my work revealed about the war in Afghanistan, in which Sweden has troops under US command. She sat in the front row and photographed me. She came to the small private lunch after my talk where one of the organizers stated that she was a volunteer for their organization although they would later claim that this was not true. Due to the security threats against me as a result of my work, I was in a precarious situation. I relied on the kindness of strangers and the safety and discretion they were willing to offer me. I was in a foreign northern country, where I did not speak the language. I had no access to cash because the bank cards I was travelling with had been frozen due to the extra-judicial political measures taken by financial service companies against my organization and me (which are well-documented and the subject of extensive litigation). 

     

  2. 78.Prominent “pro-war” personalities were calling for my assassination and capture, and the US administration had stated publicly that my movements were being tracked. “SW” appeared to be sympathetic to my plight and also appeared to be romantically interested in me. She was not close to people I was close to, so it seemed that those who meant me harm would be unlikely to try to find me by monitoring her movements. She said she worked at the National Museum so I asked her to show me, to try to establish her bonafides. At the Museum an IMAX film was playing, where she kissed me and placed my hands on her breasts. She asked whether I was staying with woman “AA”, a Swedish politician, and seemed concerned by it in a manner which I found strange. 

  1. 79.At her initiative we met again on the evening of 16 August 2010 and she suggested we go to a hotel in Stockholm. For security reasons, I said I would prefer to go to her house even though it was outside of Stockholm. She then invited me to her home. We went by train and she paid for my ticket since my bank cards had been frozen. 

     

  2. 80.“SW” made it very clear that she wanted to have sexual intercourse with me. I felt concerned about the intensity of “SW”’s interest and I also deeply loved another woman, which played on my mind and left me emotionally distracted. “SW” knew an unusual amount of detail about me, and appeared annoyed with me when I was on my phone searching for news related to the US official government statements against me. I perceived she was irritated when I wasn’t giving her my full attention. 

     

  3. 81.I felt there was a risk my location would be revealed and that she might act unpredictably if she believed I was rejecting her. During that night and again in the morning we had consensual sexual intercourse on four or five occasions. Her words, her expressions and her physical reactions made it clear to me that she encouraged and enjoyed our interactions. 

     

  4. 82.I would later discover that she had collected dozens of photos of me in the weeks before we even met. Her recent FLIKR photo account was filled with pages and pages of photos of me and no other person. 

     

  5. 83.In the morning she went out to pick up breakfast for us. After enjoying breakfast together, I left her home on good terms. At no stage when I was with her did she express that I had disrespected her in any way or acted contrary to her wishes other than to not be interested in her enough to pay her attention above my security situation or attempts to sleep. She accompanied me to the train station on her bicycle and we kissed each other goodbye. She asked that I call her so we could see each other again and I said I would. She called the next day or the day after. We made friendly small talk but we were quickly disconnected due to a failing mobile connection. I did not call her back due to problems obtaining telephone credit (as a result of  my bank cards being blocked) and the pressing security situation. 

     

  6. 84.I spoke to her next on Friday 20 August, after a Swedish friend said that he had heard that “SW” was at the hospital and that she wanted to talk to me. As I had not called her back, and she had previously gone through considerable effort to attract my attention, I was initially concerned that she may have attempted self-harm in order to force me to pay attention to her. So I called her. She said she was at a hospital and asked me to come down to meet her to test myself for sexually transmitted diseases so she would not have to worry while she was waiting for her own test results (HIV, for instance, needs months to show up). 

     

  7. 85.But I was busy that day attempting to deal with the escalating political and legal threats against me from the Pentagon. I said I couldn’t do anything until the next day (a Saturday). She said that it was normal in Sweden to go to the police to get advice about STDs and that if I didn’t come down to the hospital she would go to the police to ask whether I could be forced to get tested. I told her I found her mention of police strange and threatening. She stated that she was only concerned about the tests and that it had no concealed meaning. I agreed to take the test out of goodwill and to reassure her, although I told her I could not do it until the following day, Saturday.  

     

  8. 86.We were in agreement and arranged to meet the following day in the nearby park around lunchtime when I would have time to get tested. She said she was fine and seemed at ease. 

     

  9. 87.You can imagine my disbelief when I woke the next morning to the news that I had been arrested in my absence for ”rape” and that police were ”hunting” all over Stockholm for me.  

     

  10. 88.Her behaviour towards me on the night in question and in the morning made it clear that she actively and enthusiastically wanted me to have sex with her. This is also shown by text messages “SW” sent to her friends during the course of the evening I was at her home and during that week, which the Swedish police collected from her phone. Although the prosecutor has fought for years to prevent me, the public and the courts from seeing them, my lawyers were permitted to see them at the police station and were able to note down a number of them, including: 

     

      • On 14 August 2010 “SW” sent the following text to a friend: I want him. I want him. Followed by several more of similar content (all referring to me) in the lead-up to the events in question (13:05); 

      • On 17 August “SW” wrote that we had long foreplay, but nothing happened (01:14); then it got better (05:15); 

      • On 17 August, after all sex had occurred, “SW” wrote to a friend that it ”turned out all right” other than STD/pregnancy risk (10:29); 

      • On 20 August “SW”, while at the police station, wrote that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06); 

      • On 21 August “SW” wrote that she “did not want to accuse” Julian Assange “for anything”, (07:27); and that it was the “police who made up the charges (sic)” (22:25); 

      • On 23 August “AA” (the other woman whose case was dropped in August 2015) wrote to “SW” that it was important that she went public with her story so that they could form public opinion for their case (06:43); 

      • On 23 August “SW” wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing (16:02); 

      • On 26 August “AA” wrote to “SW” that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper (13:38); 

      • On 28 August “AA” wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid (12:53); and “SW” wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid (15:59); 

         

  1. 89.These text messages clearly show what really happened between “SW” and me. It is clearly consensual sex between adults. The communication between “AA” and “SW” later sadly speaks for itself. 

     

  2. 90.The prosecutor’s allegation in the extradition proceeding was reported to be that one of these sexual interactions started the next morning while “SW” was asleep (in the same bed after a night of consensual intercourse) and that when she woke up she consented to the intercourse in question, but for the first few moments was not theoretically capable of consent due to sleep. 

     

  3. 91.This is false. I was certain “SW” was not asleep. I was also certain she expressly consented to unprotected sex before such intercourse started. This is also evidenced by “SW”’s own text messages. For example, my lawyers refer me to the following text message to her friend: 

     

      • 17 August, 08:42 am: JA did not want to use a condom. 

         

  4. 92.Then a day later she explicitly texts her friend that she had not, in fact, been asleep. 

     

      • 18 August, 06:59 am: I was half asleep. 

IV. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

  1. 93.Although the police initially opened an investigation into ‘rape’ in relation to woman AA, there was no allegation in her testimony that she had been raped. She expressed in her statement to the police that she consented to sex and subsequently tweeted on 22 April in 2013 “I have not been raped. 

     

  2. 94.The press was immediately and unlawfully informed that there was a warrant for my arrest for what was reported as the “rape of two” women. The prosecutor unlawfully, and without any subsequent explanation or remedy, immediately confirmed to the press that there was a live warrant for my arrest. The prosecutor’s breach triggered an avalanche of news reports. Within days there were millions of references online which associated my name with the word ‘rape’.  

     

  3. 95.Immediately the police accusations were used to attack WikiLeaks’ work and my reputation as its publisher. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates celebrated the news of my ‘rape’ arrest warrant with a smile, telling reporters that the arrest “sounds like good news to me”. Various twitter accounts officially associated with the Pentagon spread descriptions of me as a “rapist” and a “fugitive”. This slander was then used as a means to attack my organization’s reputation. 

     

  4. 96.I canceled my other appointments and remained in Sweden. I gave an interview to the police on 30 August 2010 in relation to the only remaining allegation. The Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues submitted to the Supreme Court of the UK states: 

     

“On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation, attended for police interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect of AA’s report. He answered all questions asked of him.”

  1. 97.I was highly concerned for my personal safety and the safety of WikiLeaks’ operations while I remained in Sweden, but I stayed for another five weeks after the ‘preliminary investigation’ was initiated in order to clear my name and to cooperate with the police investigation. Only after I had obtained an assurance from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I could leave the jurisdiction did I prepare to leave the country 

  1. 98.Less than 24 hours after the warrant for my arrest was issued, the chief prosecutor of Stockholm was appointed to take over the investigation and canceled the arrest warrant, stating “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”. 

     

  2. 99.Shortly after prosecutor Marianne Ny had resurrected the “SW” allegation, the head of the Swedish military intelligence service (“MUST”) published an article ‘WikiLeaks is a threat to our soldiers‘. I became increasingly concerned about Sweden’s close relationship to the US government in military and intelligence matters. 

     

  3. 100.Through the diplomatic cables I also learned of secret, informal arrangements between Sweden and the United States. The cables revealed that Swedish intelligence services have a pattern of lawless conduct where US government interests are concerned. The US diplomatic cables revealed that the Swedish Justice Department had deliberately hidden particular intelligence information exchanges with the United States from the Parliament of Sweden because they believed the exchanges were likely unlawful. 

     

  4. 101.The US diplomatic cables, reports by major human rights organizations, and the UN’s own findings made me aware that Sweden had been complicit in torture as a result of its participation in secret CIA renditions from 2001 through to at least 2006 (which I would subsequently reveal). The rendition of the Swedish political refugees Agiza and Alzery resulted in strong condemnation by the UN Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others. There is still complete impunity for the officers of the Swedish state involved and their US counterparts. No charges have been laid although the complicity of the Swedish state has been well established in successful civil litigation. I subsequently learned that Sweden was partly implicated in CIA renditions of its own citizens from Djibouti in 2013. My Swedish lawyer Thomas Olsson represents one of the rendered. 

     

  5. 102.Through an intelligence source, I became aware that on 19 August 2010, the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO) had requested information about me from an Australian intelligence organization. The Australian intelligence organization (ASIO) responded to the request with information about me on 21 August 2010. 

     

  6. 103.On 29 November 2010 WikiLeaks commenced publishing Cablegate, 251,287 US State Department diplomatic cables. The classified diplomatic dispatches related to every country in the world. In terms of content, it was the largest set of classified documents ever to be published. 

     

  7. 104.The next day State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that “we are investigating aggressively” into WikiLeaks and that a State Department “War Room”, which is different from the Pentagon “War Room”, had been set up. 

     

  8. 105.On 30 November 2010, two days after WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate, Interpol, at the request of Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, issued a Red Notice to 188 countries for my arrest in relation to the Swedish “preliminary investigation” (for which no charges or indictment existed). At the request of the Swedish prosecutor Interpol also made the notice public. 

     

  9. 106.The Swedish prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant on 2 December 2010 to the UK which was processed by the UK Serious Organised Crimes Agency (SOCA). 

     

  10. 107.I lost my freedom on 7 December 2010, the day after UK authorities certified the Swedish extradition warrant. I appeared at the police station, having made a prior appointment. I was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in the highest security unit of Wandsworth prison, the CSU. 

     

  11. 108.The day after I was imprisoned, the UK newspaper The Independent reported that US and Swedish officials had entered informal talks regarding my extradition from Sweden to the United States in connection with the US Grand Jury and FBI investigation against WikiLeaks. 

     

  12. 109.After ten days, the UK courts found that I should be released on bail. In response the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny instructed her representatives in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to appeal to keep me in prison, but the UK courts found her request to be excessive. 

     

  13. 110.I was moved to house arrest after providing UK authorities with £340,000 (nearly half a million dollars) and having an electronic monitoring device fitted to my ankle. 

     

  14. 111.On 13 January 2011 the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wrote to Marianne Ny, assuring her “Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request“. 

     

  15. 112.I was forced to meet with police for 551 days in a row. I continued publishing regardless. 

     

  16. 113.I applied for asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy on 19 June 2012. The embassy was then surrounded by police at an admitted cost to the UK taxpayer of £12.6 million by October 2015.  

     

  17. 114.On 28 October 2014, the UK Minister of State of Hugo Swire, told Parliament that “if she [Marianne Ny] wishes to travel here to question Mr. Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that, indeed, we would actively welcome it.” 

     

  18. 115.On 14 November 2014 I submitted my case to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD). 

     

  19. 116.On 20 November 2014 Sweden’s Court of Appeal (Svea) found that the Swedish prosecutor had breached her duty by failing to accept my statement. 

     

  20. 117.On 12 October 2015 the UK announced that it was removing the overt police around the embassy as it was “no longer proportionate”.  

     

  21. 118.On 14 October 2015 London police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe told the Standard that the visible police were being removed from the embassy encirclement as “it seems a disproportionate response” and “we think the public are not necessarily supportive of it.”  

     

  22. 119.Subsequently (6 Feb 2016) the London Times would report that the removal of overt police was also due to “fears that officers of the diplomatic protection group standing guard were thought to resemble jailers” during the UNWGAD determination.  However the 12 October statement reveals that the “overt” police had in fact been replaced with a “strengthened” “covert plan”. 

     

  23. 120.On 5 February 2016 UNWGAD found that I have been unlawfully deprived of my liberty since 7 December 2010 as a result of the actions of the Swedish prosecutor.  

     

Answer to subsequent questions:

You have subjected me to six years of unlawful, politicized detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and four and a half years at this embassy. You should have asked me this question six years ago. Your actions in refusing to take my statement for the last six years have been found to be unlawful by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and by the Swedish Court of Appeal. You have been found to have subjected me to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. You have denied me effective legal representation in this process. Despite this, I feel compelled to cooperate even though you are not safeguarding my rights. I refer you to my statement where all these questions were answered.