Skip to content

UN rejects UK appeal on Assange

30 November 2016: Today, the United Nations rejected the United Kingdom’s attempt to appeal the UN’s February ruling in favour of Julian Assange.
The decision of 5 February 2016 therefore stands, and the UK and Sweden are once again required to immediately put an end to Mr Assange’s arbitrary detention and afford him monetary compensation.

Earlier this year, the United Nations concluded the 16 month long case to which the UK was a party. The UK lost, appealed, and today – lost again. The UN instructed the UK and Sweden to take immediate steps to ensure Mr Assange’s liberty, protection, and enjoyment of fundamental human rights. No steps have been taken, nearly one year on, jeopardising Mr Assange’s life, health and physical integrity, and undermining the UN system of human rights protection.

Despite initially being given two weeks to appeal the 5 February ruling, the United Kingdom waited until after the first appeal period expired, and instead submitted an appeal for review on 24 March, which the United Nations now found inadmissable.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Kingdom must now respect its commitments.

From the UN press release:

The UN expert group also considered four requests for review of previous opinions, submitted by the Arab Republic of Egypt, the State of Kuwait and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Working Group concluded that the requests did not meet the threshold of a review as enshrined in paragraph 21 of its methods of work, and that they were thus not admissible.

Reactions in Sweden

At time of writing, there is no response from the website of Marianne Ny or from the prosecution authority’s Twitter account, and no mention whatsoever in Swedish media.

Ten Years Ago Today

Today, 4 October 2016, marks the 10-year anniversary of WikiLeaks: it’s ten years ago today that the famous domain was registered.

Updated Date: 2015-10-27T17:08:53Z
Creation Date: 2006-10-04T05:54:19Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-10-04T05:54:19Z
Registrant ID: CP-13000

A press conference was held in Berlin, hosted by Sarah Harrison and featuring journalists John Goetz and Stefania Maurizi, who both talked of their experience working with the organisation. Julian Assange, who at the last minute canceled an appearance on the embassy balcony, spoke via video link, even as supporters gathered outside.

October Surprise?

Online followers of Roger Stone, Alex Jones, and Jesse Rodriguez saw how the trio hyped the event to speculate that today would mark the release of the ‘October Surprise’ documents incriminating Hillary Clinton – especially Alex Jones, who had earlier interviewed Roger Stone and was sorely disappointed. Rodriguez, producer of ‘Morning Joe’, also speculated that the ‘October Surprise’ would come today.

Assange promised a series of releases over the next ten weeks, but it’s not known if there’ll be any ‘October Surprise’.

At 08:00 AM today, Flashback’s ‘Okynne’ (‘Mischief’) posted the following.

‘WikiLeaks themselves describe what today’s press conference is all about. But other people are talking about the big release, preferably about Hillary Clinton, so I’d expect to soon be reading reports saying that WikiLeaks is a bluff because there are no big releases today.’

Less Than Two Weeks Remain

After a six-year wait, Julian Assange is finally to be questioned on 17 October. Meanwhile, Marianne Ny’s dedicated troll is trying to defend her Alamo.

‘The prosecutor claimed that it was illegal to question Assange at the embassy, and that’s evidently not true. But there’s nothing to indicate this was a direct lie on her part, and not just lack of knowledge. Now we all know it’s legal. An interview has been scheduled.’

Forum veteran ‘the saint’ comments.

‘Can’t you hear how that sounds? Lack of knowledge? So we have a high-ranking prosecutor who claims she doesn’t know that she can question suspects abroad, this despite the fact that it’s routine procedure?

‘What does that tell us about Marianne Ny? What more does she not know? How can a high-ranking prosecutor be so lacking in knowledge?

‘But this can explain how she’s been able to drag her feet for the past six years. The question should instead be why no one’s yanked on her ear before the Supreme Court intervened. And before you say anything: yes they did. But that it took so long brings shame on Sweden.’

Stone on Sweden

Oliver Stone spoke with Erik Augustin Palm about his new movie on Edward Snowden, and he didn’t have any words of praise for a country he once respected.

‘Sweden of today is a grave disappointment. The Europe I knew as a young man was different. There was neutrality. There were sovereign nations. And there wasn’t any EU. People owned their own thoughts. They were free. Today people are frightened of the US. Now they talk about Sweden joining NATO because the Russians are coming.

‘There’s something wrong with Sweden – it’s no longer the country I once respected.’

No Debate

On 17 December 2010, in the wake of their interception of the Swedish police documents in the Assange case sent by Swedish attorney Björn Hurtig to Jennifer Robinson then at FSI, the Guardian published a series of articles, one of which was written by Esther Addley. 17 December 2010 is a long time ago – nearly six years – but one thing sticks out immediately when revisiting.

Mr Justice Ouseley, the head of the administrative court who rejected the appeal against Assange’s bail, acknowledged the dispute in his judgment: “There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial.” He was proceeding, he said, on the basis that it was an extradition warrant for trial. A charge by the requesting country is a prerequisite for a valid EAW.

Say what you want about Assange or WikiLeaks, but there is no debate. A UK court magistrate should know that before making an official statement. The facts of the matter are as follows.

Many in the world around have commented negatively on Swedish legal procedures, and with good reason. Sweden has indefinite detention, prosecutors are not bound to issue charges before beginning an investigation, suspects can be kept in indefinite detention with restrictions, completely incommunicado if they wish and for as long as the “state” wishes. Courts must formally approve extensions on detention on a regular basis, but this is a rubber stamp process. At least one suspect in recent years was held in indefinite detention for over three years before being released – that’s to say before the prosecutors admitted they had no case. Prosecutors can engage in “wild goose chases” if they so wish, a strategy that’s often been used to attempt to implicate people they know to be innocent, this only to save face. The wheels of justice can grind excruciatingly slowly in Sweden.

That being said, there are certain rules that do exist. There are rules that normally must be obeyed.

As in other countries, crimes are divided into two major categories: felonies and misdemeanours, where the former are considered the more serious. And some crimes, usually the felonies, are further categorised as “crimes against the state”, what Claes Borgström called crimes calling for “public prosecution”, which is a direct translation of the Swedish term allmänt åtal. In these cases, the “state” is the formal plaintiff.

The rules change somewhat here. Victims don’t file complaints – the state does. With ordinary crimes, a victim can withdraw a complaint, but victims cannot withdraw complaints when the state is the plaintiff. Only the state can.

This is not to say that a victim cannot make an investigation disappear. On the contrary: all a victim has to do is change the testimony; if this is done in a convincing manner (and it often is) then the police investigator will of course close things down.

Swedish prosecutors are given free rein to conduct their investigations however they want. They can let a case file sit and collect dust on their desks however long they want; they simply need to tell the courts that they’re working hard, and the rubber stamp is applied to an extension on the detention of the suspect.

This can also be considered to be what’s happened over the years in the Assange case. No one really looked at Marianne Ny’s submitted documents. Courts take prosecutors at their word.

It can take prosecutors a long time to complete an investigation and arrive at a decision whether to take a case to court. The “rule” is that a prosecutor must take a case to court if the assessment is that a case can be “proven”. A prosecutor may not take a case to court if the assessment is otherwise.

That “rule” is theoretically very strict, and prosecutors can theoretically suffer dire consequences if they defy this rule, but in practice it’s very difficult to prove malfeasance. Recent judicial scandals in Sweden serve to demonstrate this.

The cases of Catrine da Costa, Billy Butt, and above all Thomas Quick are ample proof that the above rule can be treated with defiance.

(Sweden also allows what may be referred to as “free evidentiary evaluation” (fri bevisvärdering), meaning prosecutors – and courts – can mix together several forms of “evidence”, such as hearsay, that aren’t even permitted in more stringent national judicial systems.)

The case of Catrine da Costa depended on the testimony of four year old girl recalling events that happened when she was but one and one half years old. The case of Billy Butt depended on hilariously concocted testimony and the defendant’s “singular appearance” (Butt is an Indian, and the Court of Appeal conjectured that no Swedish girl would have willingly had sex with someone who looked like him). The eight cases of Thomas Quick depended solely on confessions by a drugged-out mental patient trying to stay in prison for his own protection.

In all three cases, the prosecutors knew up front that they had no case and they pursued them anyway. They never suffered consequences.


A cornerstone of the Swedish judicial process is the formal serving of notice of coming prosecution. Prosecutors must meet with suspects in person to turn them into defendants.

The suspect is formally “served”: the suspect is told there will be a court case – and for the first time, the prosecutors have to go “all in”: they must at this point share all “evidence” with the suspect (and the suspect’s attorneys).

There is also something called slasken, which is the body of evidence the prosecutors have accumulated but will not be using in court. This slasken need not be shared with the defence. The prosecutors are also legally able to destroy the slasken.

(This one of the reasons Assange attorneys Thomas Olsson and Per E Samuelson have pushed so hard to get the notorious SMS messages put into court records – as once there, they are a matter of public record and cannot be removed by a prosecutor. Those who have seen the messages claim those messages contain decisive exculpatory evidence, with former Assange attorney Björn Hurtig going so far as to say they make the cast “moot”.)

Rolling the dice

But once the prosecutor makes the decision to prosecute, the Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est. The die is cast. There is no turning back. The defence now has the complete case to be used by the prosecutor, and the case will now go to trial.

To reach this stage in a Swedish criminal judicial process, a prosecutor must meet with the suspect, serve notice to the suspect, and share all evidence.

The suspect may at this point make a statement, which is put into the official record.

All the above is eminently available information. Yes, it’s going to be found in Swedish, but certainly Justice Ouseley could have tasked someone in the United Kingdom with finding that information, instead of – like the silly British armchair anthropologists of old – simply proceeding on conjecture, on a guess. As Ouseley stated himself:

A charge by the requesting country is a prerequisite for a valid EAW.
 – Justice Ouseley

The EAW is a very important piece of legislation. Proper application could have been carried out with due diligence and the greatest of ease. But Ouseley says he’s “proceeding on the basis”. Such behaviour is simply not worthy of a British court justice.

On the fence

Marianne Ny stayed on the fence throughout the spring of 2011 when the British court proceedings were underway. Encouraged by Paul Close of the Crown Prosecution Service to not move her case forward, to not question Assange in the UK, as Close feared her case would fall apart, Marianne Ny had to offer substance to Ouseley’s “basis” while at the same time defending herself on the home front in the Swedish media, as everyone in Sweden knows the basic rules of legal procedure as outlined above.

Many pundits have claimed that Marianne Ny hasn’t needed to meet with Assange at all, as he’d already been questioned once (30 August 2010). But this is not the case. That questioning concerned a single misdemanour count (filed by Anna Ardin) whereas Marianne Ny’s new complaint in the case of Anna Ardin had four counts. And no prosecutor had served Assange a notice of prosecution. The “rape” case (Sofia Wilén) had been reopened by Marianne Ny two days after the 30 August questioning.

This is not to say that Assange couldn’t have been “served” all these years. Of course he could have been. Marianne Ny’s reluctance to commit to a decision may be due to how she understands it would limit her options: with no prospect of getting Assange into a Swedish courtroom for the foreseeable future, this would give the defence unlimited time to study the case, with Marianne Ny unable to do anything herself. Keeping her options open, Marianne Ny can keep on doing whatever she wants with the case files and the direction she’s going.

One thing is certain: the decision by Justice Ouseley was incorrect and not worthy of the British courts. “A charge by the requesting country is a prerequisite for a valid EAW”, Ouseley correctly noted.

But there was no such charge. And there still isn’t.

Black Friday

16 September 2016: a black Friday. Lauri Love lost in his struggle to stop his current extradition process, and Julian Assange lost in his appeal to quash Marianne Ny’s arrest warrant. The forces of light have been defeated by the forces of darkness, at least for now. Both Love and Assange will appeal today’s rulings.

Westminster Magistrates Court

As reported by the Courage Foundation, judge Nina Tempia granted the US request to extradite Love from the UK, or more specifically:

I will be extraditing Mr Love, by which I mean I will be passing the case to the Secretary of State.

Sarah Harrison, director of the Courage Foundation, responded.

This is a very disappointing ruling, not just for Lauri and his family but for everyone who was angry about what happened to Gary McKinnon. Clear assurances were given that legal changes would prevent the McKinnon situation from happening again and frankly, if the forum bar can’t help Lauri Love, it’s very difficult to understand how it could ever help anyone. This is not what the public was led to believe at the time and it’s not something we should stand for.

Wrangel Palace

The Svea Court of Appeal today published the verdict in the appeal of Julian Assange, after a one-week delay. The full verdict in English is available online.

Assange is to be questioned by Ingrid Isgren and Cecilia Redell on 17 October.

Press Release: Assange Files Appeal to Enforce UN Findings

9 August 2016

This morning, Julian Assange filed an appeal at Sweden’s Court of Appeal of Svea, arguing that Sweden must comply with the UN’s February 5th findings that his deprivation of liberty is unlawful and that Sweden must release and compensate him immediately for the harm caused.

Despite never having been charged with any offence, while visiting the United Kingdom police seized his Australian passport and imprisoned him on Sweden’s request. Mr. Assange has been deprived of his liberty since December 7, 2010–first in isolation in Wandsworth prison, then under house arrest and for the last four years in an embassy surrounded by police. For six years now, his rights have been severely violated, as have the rights of his children. WikiLeaks started its publication of US diplomatic cables on November 29, 2010, a week before Sweden and the UK arbitrarily imprisoned him.

A representative of Mr. Assange’s legal team said “The proceedings will test whether Sweden complies with its binding treaty obligations and whether it acts in good faith under the UN human rights system.”

On May 19 this year, the FBI and US Department of Justice informed a federal court in the United States that “prosecutive efforts” remain underway against WikiLeaks. The alleged offences include espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, electronic terrorism and general conspiracy.

Mr. Assange has already previously been found to be innocent in Sweden of the only remaining allegation. Police records show that the alleged ‘complainant’ stated that the police “made it up” and placed her under duress. Mr. Assange has been deprived of his liberty for a period that far exceeds the maximum penalty of the alleged offence. He has never been charged. The formal stage of Swedish matter is “preliminary investigation”.

Last week WikiLeaks released twenty thousand emails showing election rigging in the US democratic primary process. The President of the US Democratic Party and three other senior executives resigned as a result.


Assange case fact-checker:
UN press conference and information about the Assange UN decision:
Donate to the legal defence fund:

On the Occasion of Julian Assange Celebrating His 45th Birthday Within the Confines of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London

Today, 3 July 2016, on the birthday of the greatest truth-teller of our times, it might be appropriate to congratulate and celebrate with Julian Assange (and his friends and his cat).

But is is also appropriate to review the persecution he has endured now for so many years. And no one is more suited to that task than the United Nations, as per their ruling from 4 December 2015.

Their description of the conditions of Julian Assange’s persecution unequivocally places the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny in a category solely her own, forever displacing Claes Borgström as the country’s (perhaps the world’s) most incompetent (and most heinous) jurist ever.

The Ruling of the United Nations

The Working Group is convinced once again that, among others, the current situation of Mr. Assange staying within the confines of the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London, United Kingdom, has become a state of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The factual elements and the totality of the circumstances that have led to this conclusion include the following:

  1. 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;

  2. the duration of such detention is ipso facto incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has been denied the right to contest the continued necessity and proportionality of the arrest warrant in light of the length of this detention, i.e. his confinement in the Ecuadorian Embassy;

  3. the indefinite nature of this detention, and the absence of an effective form of judicial review or remedy concerning the prolonged confinement and the highly intrusive surveillance, to which Mr. Assange has been subjected;

  4. the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London is not and far less than a house or detention centre equipped for prolonged pre-trial detention and lacks appropriate and necessary medical equipment or facilities. It is valid to assume, after 5 years of deprivation of liberty, Mr. Assange’s health could have been deteriorated to a level that anything more than a superficial illness would put his health at a serious risk and he was denied his access to a medical institution for a proper diagnosis, including taking a MRI test;

  5. with regard to the legality of the EAW, since the final decision by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Mr. Assange’s case, UK domestic law on the determinative issues had been drastically changed, including as a result of perceived abuses raised by Sweden’s EAW, so that if requested, Mr. Assange’s extradition would not have been permitted by the UK. Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom has stated in relation to Mr. Assange that these changes are ‘not retrospective’ and so may not benefit him. A position is maintained in which his confinement within the Ecuadorian Embassy is likely to continue indefinitely. The corrective UK legislation addressed the court’s inability to conduct a proportionality assessment of the Swedish prosecutor’s international arrest warrant (corrected by s. 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, in force since July 2014). The corrective legislation also barred extradition where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156).


The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Assange is arbitrary and in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government of Sweden and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to assess the situation of Mr. Assange, to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy would be to ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

4 December 2015

December 10, 2015: The Silence

A week Saturday it will be two months since Stefania Maurizi released the FOI documents that turned the case of Assange in Sweden on its head – or more accurately: put it out of its misery, once and for all.

Stefania’s documents showed, in black on white, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Sweden’s chief prosecutor Marianne Ny has been lying to Assange and his attorneys, and lying as well to both Swedish and international media.

The documents also showed that neither Marianne Ny nor Great Britain took the allegations seriously – although they took the threat of WikiLeaks seriously. Their ‘cat and mouse’ game, ongoing since September 2010, was meant to ‘contain’ Assange – to ‘neutralise’ him. Or even better: keep him locked away. Somewhere, anywhere.

In one of the letters, Paul Close of the Crown Prosecution Service repeated his admonition to Marianne Ny to not question Assange in Great Britain, as her case would fall apart.

This was at the same time Marianne Ny was telling TIME Magazine that questioning suspects abroad is illegal according to both Swedish and British law.

And only a few months later, Carl Bildt was telling Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson that it’s also unconstitutional.

That Marianne Ny and Carl Bildt couldn’t understand they’d be exposed sooner or later: it’s staggering. Of course it’s not illegal to question suspects abroad: EU member states have something called ‘Mutual Legal Assistance’ precisely for this purpose.

Yet even more incriminating: during the same time Assange was asking (over and over again, ultimately over thirty times) to be questioned, only to be ignored by Marianne Ny, the same Swedish prosecution authority questioned 44 (forty-four) other people in Great Britain, whereof 18 (eighteen) as suspects, in criminal investigations.

But Carl Bildt, Marianne Ny, and Sweden stuck to their story that questioning suspects abroad is either illegal or unconstitutional or both.

Sweden’s media have never challenged this claim.

At one point, Ivan Johnson (@figaropravda) poked deeper into the matter, and got Carl Bildt’s office to retract and admit their claims were not true. And yet the charade continued.

There are so many anomalies in the Assange case that people at large have long ago tired of giving Sweden any benefit of the doubt. The FOI tranche of 19 October should have ended the charade once and for all. Or so one would think.

But as with the publication of the report from the state crime lab five years earlier, which embarrassingly showed that Anna Ardin had supplied the police with fabricated evidence, Swedish media as a whole gathered their covered wagons in a circle and kept to a total blackout. The people of Sweden have still not, two months later, heard of these developments, much less had a place to discuss them.

Members of the Flashback forum have for the longest time been reporting that their journalist friends, who otherwise are eager to talk about almost anything under the sun, fall into complete silence when asked about the Assange case or why they’re not allowed to write about it. They admit that it stinks to high heaven, but they dare say no more.

There’s also evidence of ‘Sweden the state’ being able to censor their own media. When Marianne Ny first talked to TIME, several news sites in the country scooped the interview; yet one day later, they’d all either changed their articles or made them disappear.

Sweden’s media have at least a responsibility to report on Stefania’s FOI documents, this especially as they otherwise report on the most unnecessary trivialities in the Assange case. They could have attempted to analyse the documents, even if they wanted to dismiss their relevance. For the news of these documents spread across the globe like wildfire, with several hundred articles appearing within hours, all the way from the Americas to the British Isles to Assange’s own Australia.

Sweden’s media could have at least been expected to comment on this tremendous development. But they chose instead to do nothing – to report nothing at all. And this, if anything, should convince even the most cynical observer that there must be something very very wrong.

For should one mainstream site – just one – break the blackout, it’s game over for Marianne Ny and Sweden.

The Silence

So in an attempt to get to the bottom of the matter, Assange in Sweden contacted the following people ten days after the FOI release.

  • Henrik Alexandersson, former salaried assistant to MEP Christian Engström in Brussels. Henrik’s often written about what’s wrong with the Assange case, but not now.

  • Stefan Wahlberg, editor-in-chief of Dagens Juridik, Sweden’s leading site for judicial matters. Stefan’s enjoyed a comfortable reputation, and the site’s reported several times on the case. Stefan’s been been contacted several times.

  • Svante Thorsell, an active attorney in Sweden who’s previously been outspoken about the case.

  • Anne Ramberg, general secretary of Sweden’s bar association. Anne’s previously been outspoken about the case as well.

One week ago, two sites representing Sweden’s ‘alternative media’ were also contacted.

Only Svante Thorsell has replied. Svante replied the same day. Since then: nothing more.

It is great,
I will study the material with interest.

There is, in our minds, nothing at all that can explain the blackout without pointing a finger at an increasingly corrupt Sweden. There are over 150 news sites in the country, and yet there’s still total silence. The same mechanisms, once used to redact the story of Marianne Ny’s fiasco with TIME, are evidently in play again.

Common with Interrogations Abroad

From Sweden’s Journalisten (The Journalist) 9 November 2015.

Swedish prosecutors have for several years refused to interview Julian Assange in Great Britain. They’ve claimed that ‘it’s uncommon for Swedish prosecutors to interview suspects abroad’.

The Journalist can today show that this is a misleading claim.

Since 2010, and all the way forward and into the spring of 2015, prosecutor Marianne Ny has refused to interview Julian Assange in Great Britain. Since 2012, Julian Assange has resided at the Ecuador embassy in London.

This past August, The Journalist reported that 44 (forty-four) people were interviewed by Swedish prosecutors in Great Britain between 18 November 2010 [the date of Marianne Ny’s most recent warrant against Assange] and 31 March 2015 [when Marianne Ny finally began negotiations with Ecuador].

Julian Assange had, during this period, repeatedly requested to be interviewed, but Marianne Ny refused to contact Mutual Legal Assistance in Great Britain.

Karin Rosander

Karin Rosander, director of information at the Swedish Prosecution Authority, told The Journalist that those statistics were ‘misleading’.

‘It’s very unusual for a Swedish prosecutor to interview suspects abroad. On the other hand, it’s not unusual to question witnesses abroad. I doubt whether the facts cited in the article really come from Great Britain. It’s likely that they register all requests [suspects and witnesses] under Mutual Legal Assistance.’

But documentation now obtained by The Journalist shows that this is not true – it is not at all unusual for Swedish prosecutors to conduct interrogations with suspects abroad.

Of the 44 interviews, 16 were with suspects and 28 with witnesses. It’s about every third month that a Swedish prosecutor travels to Great Britain to question a suspect in a Swedish criminal investigation.

This according to data provided by the British Home Office.

The Journalist has sought the Swedish Prosecution Authority for comment.

This is the first mention in Swedish media of any one of a number of critical ‘anomalies’ in the case of Assange in Sweden. Others, involving how Marianne Ny and Paul Close of Great Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service deliberately circumvented Assange’s requests to be interviewed, all the way back to December 2010, are still being blacked out.

Re: Developments in case ‘Assange in Sweden’


The undersigned have, since August 2010, conducted an ongoing and thorough investigation of the legal case surrounding Julian Assange in Sweden. It is we who supplied the English translation of the police documents used by the Belmarsh court. And of course we still follow the case closely and with great interest.

On Monday 19 October, journalist Ms Stefania Maurizi of l’Espresso published a tranche of documents she received from the Crown Prosecution Service of Great Britain and the office of Marianne Ny. Those documents show unequivocally that Mr Paul Close of the Crown Prosecution Service, already in 2010, advised Marianne Ny to not pursue a questioning of Julian Assange in Great Britain, as they seemed to agree the case would not hold up.

The cover story is here:

And the revealing FOIA documents are here:

Ms Maurizi’s story was, to say the least, sensational, and it spread quickly around the world, from the Guardian in the UK to mainstream outlets in Australia, to news sites such as teleSUR in the Americas, to Sputnik, to RT, and so forth. Hundreds of news sites covered the story within hours! The story was also picked up by several international celebrities in the social media – the story had, to put it mildly, caused a storm.

Here’s a sampling.

Yet now well into the second week since first publication, the story still hasn’t been seen ANYWHERE in the Swedish media. On the contrary, there seems to be a concerted – some would say a ‘directed’ and deliberate – blackout.

We’ve been checking Google News for Sweden on an hourly basis these past two weeks. We have a list of 150 Swedish news sites to consult. We find no references to the story anywhere, despite it being the biggest news in the case in five years, since the case was moved from Eva Finné to Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010.

Several people have suggested this is because Swedish news sites have been threatened. Others suggest it’s because they’ve been persuaded to not spread the story. Others still suggest that they have been bribed.

So our question to you:

We wondered if you have an opinion in this matter, off the record of course, about how such a strange thing can occur.

We’re also naturally curious as to why you’ve not commented yourself in public about it.

We’re very interested to find out what’s going on, so your reply will be very welcome.

We plan on going public with this story in a few days.

Thanks for your time.
‘The truth will out, the truth wins out’

The above was sent to a number of journalists and jurists in Sweden. So far: no reply.


By Planboksbok at the Flashback forum.

Now, as our thread runs in low gear through the holiday season, and as our aces at the offices of the country’s prosecution authority hopefully get their act together and undertake their intrepid journey to faraway London to interrogate Julian Assange, perhaps we have some time to reflect on a few things.

Such as whether the agreement between Sweden and Ecuador will be ready by the time they journey out again. For such an agreement is required for almost all countries outside the EU in order to interrogate for criminal proceedings at an embassy or in another country.

This bit about an agreement being required: most of us already knew. Certainly most people working with law already knew. But sadly Marianne Ny did not. She evidently thought it was peachy enough to reach an agreement between herself and the accused’s Swedish attorneys!

Then too she sent her assistant Ingrid Isgren, police interrogator Cecilia Redell, and press representative Karin Rosander, all three, on a win or lose adventure, despite not having received Ecuador’s go-ahead.

Yes, what a stupid and incompetent person Marianne Ny seems to be. Although there’s of course the possibility that she’s playing dumb in order to make it look like she’s trying to get a hearing but failing oh so miserably – who knows what’s most likely there.

Ever since Julian Assange reported to the London police back in December 2010, almost five years ago, he’s made it patently clear that he wants to be interrogated. Julian’s attorneys and his representatives at the Ecuadorean Embassy have done the same many times. Marianne Ny’s cute little lapdog ‘Anonymare’ at the Flashback forum keeps claiming that this isn’t true, but we all know it is, and as we all know by now, the lapdog ‘Anonymare’ functions as Marianne Ny’s parrot in the forum – and of course has never been able to back up a single claim.

What’s more interesting is why Marianne Ny has categorically refused to interrogate Julian Assange in London. Marianne Ny is not only a prosecutor – she’s also the prosecutor who overruled the decision of a chief prosecutor in Stockholm who’d already closed the case, she’s also the prosecutor who decided to reopen the case and also appoint herself the new chief investigative officer, and she’s also the prosecutor who not only resumed the case but extended it with an additional five (5) new accusations – this without anything at all having been added to the investigation.

Marianne Ny didn’t want to interrogate Julian Assange right away, didn’t want to give the suspect a chance to tell his version of events, someone who’d been accused of rape and other things and who’d been portrayed as such in the world’s media. Oh no – Marianne Ny showed she thinks it’s more important to hear what Sofia’s colleagues at work think, people who’ve never even met Julian Assange, more important to hear what AA’s friends and acquaintances heard from AA about Julian Assange – things such as not showering and not flushing the toilet at nighttime. To Marianne Ny, hearsay like this from third parties is far more important than testimony from a principal witness.

And where did her ‘flight risk’ and ‘obstruction of justice’ get off to? The things that were ever so important before, so she could request full restrictions on incarceration, things that became the main justification for requesting a warrant in the first place? The prosecutor who let her precious prey slip through her fingers before she tried to close the trap?


The word ‘promptly’ occurs frequently in legal texts dealing with the rules and regulations governing prosecutorial work. ‘Promptly’ – appropriate when describing Eva Finné’s actions when, after only a few hours, she quashed the arrest of Julian Assange. ‘Promptly’ – appropriate when describing how Eva Finné closed the main part of the Assange case after a mere three days. ‘Promptly’ – again appropriate when describing how Eva Finné closed the entire case after a mere five days. And ‘promptly’ is appropriate to describe how Eva Finné managed to interrogate Julian Assange about the misdemeanour part within ten days.

But to describe anything done by Marianne Ny with the word ‘promptly’ is to grossly mislead. Marianne Ny has consistently refused to interrogate Julian Assange in London because it’d be detrimental to her outstanding investigative work. Everyone knows that it’s the duty of Marianne Ny – and only Marianne Ny – to further the investigation, but no one thinks she’s done that, not even the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of the country.

On the contrary: both courts saw that the case had stalled, and both wondered why Marianne Ny hadn’t tried other means to move it forward. They both found that there were, under the circumstances, good reasons to quash the warrant, but concluded that in the public interest, the case should be (at last) moved forward by Marianne Ny. And Marianne Ny was of course by now promising that she’d interrogate Julian Assange in London…

So we’re forced to conclude that, in practice, a Swedish prosecutor has the means to arbitrarily detain anyone and then do absolutely nothing for as long as she wants – and should a court of appeal or even the supreme court ask her what’s going on, she can just tell them ‘oh yes of course I’ll get around to that in due time’, and then she’s spared egg on her face from them overruling her and quashing her warrant.

This is outrageous, mind-boggling. Can’t someone review this?