I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
Orb and others,
Continuing on researching the “we only wanted to have him tested” narrative:
I have been tracking down when this first appeared in the media, as discussed earlier, and have it back as far as early on the 24th Aug 2010. More on that in a longer post in future.
It would help to know if there were any earlier references in Swedish mainstream media on the 23rd or 22nd of Aug 2010. (Indeed did it appear in Swedish mainstream media on the 24th either?) Perhaps Aftonbladet?
Does anyone who reads Swedish want to check those few days in a few such papers online to be certain.
much appreciated.
Arbed 3 Oct 7:26 am,
Thanks (again) for a great post. To answer a few of your questions
Yes, it’s the 18 Nov 2010 hearing that took 1 hour 15 minutes, and that’s when the 100-page protocol was presented. Obviously that doesn’t leave much time to read it, it took me hours to work my way through it. The explanation I’ve heard is that it’s the oral presentation that matters, and that the protocol is there for reference, if needed. Doesn’t make much sense to me because in this case, a thorough reading of the protocol should have shown how twisted the allegations are. It is as if there is no real safegueard against unnecessary arrests warrants. The protocol for the hearing can be found at
http://undermattan.com/files/2012/08/aktbil-16_M%C3%B6tesdokument_889637_15181291.pdf
I don’t know much about the Svea appeal on the 24th, but the protocol can be seen at
http://undermattan.com/2012/08/23/assange-protokoll-fran-svea-hovratt-overklagande-2010/
About Marianne Ny’s statement that she wouldn’t change her mind, the Swedish word “ny” means new which is why the automatic translation gets into trouble, but you’re right, that she “wouldn’t change her stance even if she was wrong” is a correct translation and shows how rigid she is in her thinking.
If Marianne Ny ‘wouldn’t change her mind even if she was wrong’ it is likely that the reward to her for a successful prosecution must be something special. Perhaps she’s going to be joining Lord Phillips in Qatar on £300,000 a year.
I’ve been amusing myself making another video about how Assange was set up. This episode comes chronologically before ‘Enticement’. Please enjoy and spread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVGdiuzLLo
Thanks.
Hello Orb (4 Oct, 1:25pm) and others,
you are not the only one trying to fathom the way that in court hearings in Sweden primary importance is given to what is said in the present!
More so in he-said, she-said cases, finally heard years after, with the events being retold. So even if there were properly recorded interviews made by the police in the first hours, perhaps they hardly get to be presented in court. That would then help explain why the police and prosecutor may not bother doing more than conceptual interviews over the phone etc. One also wonders to what extent cross-examination takes place.
Listening to the UK Feb 2011 hearings by the superb tweets of Federica Cocco of owni.eu, one was left wondering similarly what part all the documents and “skeleton arguments” played, as opposed to the theatre of cross examination and tripping the opponent up on some small detail to make them look bad. One got the impression that the Swedish lawyers who appeared as witnesses there were not so used to such an adversarial hearing.
The legal principles are called “immediacy” and “orality”, which may help when searching. If anyone finds a nice readable article that looks impartially at the real ins and outs of all this or a few case examples, please post a reference.
I have earlier alluded to some appeals judgements in Sweden concerning the need for evidence in he-says, she-says cases; when I get time I will write more on these and on ousting prosecutors, however I have no appetitie to be dragged into arguments on the “social correctness” of certain matters they will inevitably refer to.
How does one best translate this to pick up any nuances:
“Bada malsagandena besokte mig pa mitt kontor [date].”
or, trying to get the fonts working:
“Båda målsägandena besökte mig på mitt kontor [date].”
It is something like:
“Both victims visited me at my office on [date]”,
in a fairly formal tone. Any better words?
Does it imply both were together at one time? Does it somehow imply this was a first contact? That they just turned up unannounced, or was it an appointment, hence one way or the other prior communications had been made?
thanks.
Snap 1:55 am,
The phrase doesn’t give away much, but I think complainant is a more precise translation of målsägande. “Both complainants visited my office [date]” looks ok to me.
Yesterday was National Poetry Day in the UK. So I penned the following.
The sycophant
Justice Phillips in your ermine gown
you really look the part,
establishment’s own sycophant,
a venerable fart.
Justice Phillips in your cloistered world
made only for the rich,
with tightly-knit embroidery
it only takes a stitch,
Justice Phillips, in your toadyness,
to stitch-up a good man,
with tightly-knit embroidery,
regrettably you can.
Justice Phillips, it’s regrettable,
Assange regrets it too,
but sad regrets are coronets
to sycophants like you.
Justice Phillips, you are leaving us
while Julian remains,
it must be really paining you
for all your toady pains.
Justice Phillips, I hope Qatar gets,
right up your beakish nose,
a country full of sheikhs and slaves,
and oil-rich slimy toads.
John Goss
Thanks Orb! (10:24 am),
Oh well, so it is everyday speech. Not much to infer from it then beyond the date, as the line stood alone in a lawyer’s letter. Still, I presume he mentioned this to establish some legal point, but then it seems like there would have been a more formal expression to describe that. It is preceded by another point with a date. Do I spot a few more words there giving a litle emphasis to “me”?, as in:
“Bada målsägandena besökte mig på mitt kontor [date].”
(hope that looks better)
“Both complainants visited me at my office [date].”
Hopefully these few key letters get translated soon!
Arbed, 3 Oct, 2012 – 7:26 am
“¨I know Hurtig was at the hearing on 18 November because he’d been shown (but not allowed to copy) the infamous SMS texts between the women the day before. Now, this is where I get confused… Is it the 18 November hearing which took 1 hour, 15 minutes to review a 100-page protocol, or is that the Svea appeal on the 24th? Who was at the Svea court on behalf of Assange? Were the defence fully informed there? Were all Assange’s legal rights respected, or did Ny do her usual fast-and-loose with the ethical guidelines of her office? Rixstep has outlined some of the laws Hurtig feels she’s broken; anything pursuable in these:
http://rixstep.com/2/20120806,01.shtml “
I see you are at it again. Using sources that are not reliable. Ever thought of what that make you?
What do you think is real and true in Rixsteps article? And what do you base it on? Just want to before setting things straight-
And how about charge and indict? Are they the same to you still?
Arbed,
“I do know journalist Helene Bergman tried to file something recently via JO, which was turned down flat, and there was an earlier “investigation” of the on-duty prosecutor via the same Judicial Ombudsman – also quickly shut down with a “nothing to see here” fob-off, so I had assumed that attempts by that route generally fail. I’m pretty sure I’d have no standing as a UK citizen to make legal complaints in Sweden, and I don’t personally know anyone in Sweden who could do so.”
Have you tried to think the “unthinkable”? That you and Helene Bergman and many more are simply wrong about this case?
I will help you contact JO (Parliamentary Ombubsman) and make sure that they will accept a complaint from you. Since you are most likely wrong nothing will happen.
If there was something seriously wrong in this case it would have been reported a long time ago. The problem is you and many of you on this blog are so ill informed about what has happened. Sources like Rixstep, Daddy’s, Professor’s Blog, Justice4Assange are not telling the truth. And neither is Julian Assange and his flock of lawyers. The defence they produced was totally worthless. The more facts that come out the sillier the lot looks.
And please tell me, what is the difference between charge and indict?
Rico Santin,
“At this stage the technical details of what “charged” means are a masturbation with words.”
What you do to yourself with or without words is not the issue here. You may use a rubber doll if you are so inclined.
Julian Assange was charged on 20 August 2010. His and his lawyers lack of understanding the Swedish criminal procedure meant that they spent lots and lots of time arguing something they could never ever win. If your comment is supposed to mean that the lawyers were also into some weird form of masturbation I think you are right.
The Judges didn’t use their hands to play with themselves. They used their fingers to turn pages in law books and found out that Julian was to be considered charged. Case lost.
Proving it takes more to be a lawyer than just a wanker.
Rudling, you are bullshitting. The chickens are coming home to rooost. The Swedish establishment that is. They are now in panic mode, knowing their called rape case is just bollocks….
This condom affair has already made Sweden an international laughing stock.
Rudling, while at it, what funding are you getting for peddling the bollocks on the pathetic SAMTYCKE site you push out???
Rudling…..
The text below is from the Swedish Prosecution Authorities wesite:
Varför kan inte åklagaren förhöra Assange i Storbritannien?
En förklaring till åklagarens beslut att inte förhöra Assange i Storbritannien.
I ärenden där en misstänkt person befinner sig utomlands måste åklagaren överväga vilka förundersökningsåtgärder som är möjliga enligt svensk rätt och internationella instrument. Vidare måste åklagaren överväga vad som krävs i det enskilda fallet för att utredningen ska kunna genomföras på ett rättssäkert och effektivt sätt utan att kvaliteten åsidosätts. Åklagaren måste också överväga hur en eventuell rättegång ska kunna genomföras, om utredningen leder till att åklagaren väcker åtal, och hur ett eventuellt straff ska kunna verkställas.
I detta ärende utmynnade åklagarens överväganden i att Julian Assange begärdes häktad för de brott han var misstänkt för. Med stöd av domstolens häktningsbeslut utfärdade åklagaren en europeisk arresteringsorder.
Åklagarens bedömning är att Julian Assange av utredningsskäl behöver vara tillgänglig i Sverige under förundersökningen. Det som kan nämnas, utan att gå in på utredningsarbetet i detalj, är att det finns behov av att vid förhör med Julian Assange kunna presentera och höra honom om den bevisning som kommit fram i utredningen samt att i den fortsatta utredningen vid behov kunna genomföra kompletterande förhör med Julian Assange och andra inblandade personer.
Enligt svensk lagstiftning krävs att den åtalade är personligen närvarande vid rättegången när det gäller den här typen av brott. Om förundersökningen leder fram till att bevisningen bedöms räcka för åtal mot Julian Assange krävs hans personliga närvaro i Sverige för att en rättegång ska kunna genomföras och för att ett eventuellt straff ska kunna verkställas. Domstolens häktningsbeslut innebär att Julian Assange är häktad för att säkerställa detta.
Where the fuck does it say that he is “CHARGED”????
There is also no logical reason in terms of civilised proportionality not to interview him in the UK at the Equador Embassy.
Tell your government to subsidize dildos for the largely sick Swedish female population. In this way the world will be a better place.
Hello Rico Santin, I wonder if you can help with this. I’ve posted the following on two of this week’s Assange-related articles because I think it helps readers to get to the heart of the issue reasonably speedily. Any chance you could translate and spread further into Sweden?
****
It’s a pity that the extradition request for Assange and the UK court hearings agreeing to it were based on false evidence handed in by one of the women complainants – a torn, “used” condom which the Swedish national forensic lab could find NO DNA, male OR female, on it – and that the Swedish prosecutor was fully aware of that forensic lab report before she issued the EAW for Assange’s extradition:
Mats Gehlin 20/10/10 15:08
In conversations with SKL up came the following.
On the condom from MA2 home has not found any DNA.
On vaginal swabs from MA1 found DNA from MA1 and DNA from a man.
The condom bit that was found in the MA1’s apartment found DNA from MA1 and from the same man who was on the vaginal swab.
MA1 have not noticed that some condoms have been broken when it was dark in the room and she heard that the suspect put on the condom it was part sounds like he pulled a balloon. Condom piece found under the bed, under the part of the bed that suspect was then put on the condom.
Oh, what’s that about Sophie Wilen (MA1) hearing “popping balloon” sounds and finding part of a destroyed condom under the bed? She doesn’t mention anything about that in her formal (unsigned) interview with Irmeli Krans, which Eva Finne reviewed and decided there was no case for Assange to answer and “there is no reason to suspect that he has committed rape”.
Oh, how odd! Well, perhaps it relates to Ms Wilen’s informal interview with Linda Wassgren that Anne Ardin sat in on and, as she told another witness, said “I believe Sophie is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me”? That’ll be the same Anne Ardin who’s handed in a fake “deliberately torn during sex” condom. And that’ll be the same informal interview on which the first prosecutor decided to issue an arrest warrant for double rape before Sophie Wilen’s formal – you know, the one missing any details about “popping balloon sounds” – interview has even finished.
Sorry Rico – meant to say I’d posted it on two of this week’s The Local.se articles.
Please feel free to edit or amend as you see fit. Perhaps the sarcasm in the first sentence wouldn’t come across if you translated word-for-word. What the whole is hinting at is that the two women did indeed tell EXACTLY the same story when they first visited Klara police station – about condoms being deliberately damaged by Assange – but Wilen told a different, watered-down story in her formal statement to avoid being busted for false allegations.
Orb
at the top of this page you wrote (21 Sep, 1:17 pm):
“It’s not just US that has troops in Afghanistan, Sweden does too, and perhaps Sweden wants a go at him for any Afghanistan related leaks, or something else, before handing him over to the US. Even if the immediate goal may not be to send him to US, once in custody they can always do so later.”
I’ve posed a question on this on the Aiding and Abetting thread, since I felt it was a better place to continue Wikileaks related discussion. I recall seeing something once – by Carl Bildt maybe?
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/aiding-and-abetting/
Dear Swedish readers and sleuths,
I was hoping to stimulate some curiosity about cases where complaints have been made about their incorrect handling by prosecutors or police, and these have been taken up and investigated by the Justice Ombudsman (Riksdagens ombudsmän – JO) which are online at http://www.jo.se hidden away in a database in Swedish under JO-beslut.
In particular I am aware of at least two reports in there which may illuminate the working practices of Marianne Ny, and the department she is part of. There are also other names of interest which appear in other reports in some capacity.
This could help to give context to a broader discussion about the particulars of the Assange case mishandling and on the sort of delays in detention while investigations proceed, files are left on the shelf etc. that could await him should he get to Sweden.
Given all the investigative sleuths on flashback, I humourously called it a “treasure hunt”, but if there are signs of serious interest I’m happy to indicate the references. What we most need is someone who can report back in English the essentials.
Any other ideas how to encourage some engagement on this are most welcome.
Thanks.
——————–
See the earlier post (Snap, 29 Sep, 8:43 pm):
A small treasure hunt for the weekend:
Which two words most easily find in the JO-beslut search at http://www.jo.se/ the two JO decisions which in some capacity include reference to Marianne Ny?
Now for the real treasure hunt:
[part 2 ….. ]
Rico Santin,
It seems like you don’t understand the High Court ruling:
“In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage: there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.
In our view therefor, Mr Assange fails on the facts on this issues.”
Mr Assange is “considered charged”. And it is a very important finding for the court. If Mr Assange was not “considered charged” he could not have been extradited.
You have some difficulties in understanding Swedish legal terms as well. Read this line a couple of times from the Prosecution Authorities web site:
“I detta ärende utmynnade åklagarens överväganden i att Julian Assange begärdes häktad för de brott han var misstänkt för.
If after reading you have any problems I will help you to understand if you can avoid sentences like “At this stage the technical details of what “charged” means are a masturbation with words.” That you don’t understand is evident. It was very important indeed for both the Magistrates’ and High Court.
Goran,
There is no decision as under Swedish law to “charge”. The Swedish authorities have deliberately played with the differences in concepts and terminology to mislead the UK courts and international opinion.
He can only be charged as you well know after “questioning”, which is what he is wanted for and can be done and should have been done two years ago in the UK. This is such a shitty case that has no chance of going the mile in any civilized country.
I take strong exception to you calling people liars as you have done with Mr. Murray. You also insinuate that my understanding of Swedish legal terminology is wanting which is pure bollocks. I have previously indicated that your source on the Anna Ardin twitter messages was via Flashback and the police report via your ex wife who was a press spokesman at the migration board. I challenge you and all persons on this blog as well as Flashback to look into and specify your source of funding and amounts involved for your SAMTYCKE website. You most definitely have an agenda in profiling yourself for financial and other gain in this Assange case.
I urge that you stop your nonsense. Wikileaks is a serious international issue which people like youself and the Swedish government have turned into a “condom issue”. Not surprising given Swedens double standards in centuries of history. though.
These two cartoons about how Julian Assange was set up are now presented chronologically. People in Sweden I have been in contact with think the whole condom affair makes Sweden the laughing-stock of the world. If only that were true. Unfortunately the truth about what happened in Sweden has not yet made the Zionist-funded press in this country. Please watch and distribute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVGdiuzLLo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIrLS3gI8A&feature=context-gau
Rico Santin, Sweden is not yet being laughed at because of the condom issue because, apart from Assange supporters and those who follow blogs like this are the only ones who know about it. The UK media have been unbelievably quiet on this issue probably in case justice is done.
Rico Santin,
“There is no decision as under Swedish law to “charge”. The Swedish authorities have deliberately played with the differences in concepts and terminology to mislead the UK courts and international opinion.
He can only be charged as you well know after “questioning”, which is what he is wanted for and can be done and should have been done two years ago in the UK. This is such a shitty case that has no chance of going the mile in any civilized country.”
“I take strong exception to you calling people liars as you have done with Mr. Murray. You also insinuate that my understanding of Swedish legal terminology is wanting which is pure bollocks.”
It is obvious that you are confused about the criminal procedure in Sweden. I say it again. There is no formal decision to charge in the Swedish criminal procedure.
According to Marianne Ny in her 4 February 2011 statement: “According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.”
Charge and indict are not the same thing.
“I have previously indicated that your source on the Anna Ardin twitter messages was via Flashback and the police report via your ex wife who was a press spokesman at the migration board.”
Instead of making silly claims why don’t you for once support your claims with facts. You can easily prove to anybody that I might have taken the Anna Ardin twitter messages from Flashback if they exist on Flashback prior to me writing about them. Where on Flashback are the Anna Ardin twitter messages?
I know where I got the police report from. Why don’t you say I got it from my CIA drop box. Or from my SÄPO cousin.
(Moderator. You can take away previous post since there are errors in formatting. This comment can be wiped to. Sorry for the trouble)[Mod/Jon – done].Rico Santin,
since you said earlier you are a businessman, are you familiar with the ins and outs of looking up business records such as registrations, tax filings and political donations?
In some local communitites in Europe, even individual tax records are available to the public – so how is it in Sweden or Stockholm? There is a curious mixture of privacy versus openness through “Freedom of Information”, so it could well be that quite a lot could be discovered if anyone (journalists?) made an effort to investigate.
On the other hand, I read that donations to political parties do not have to be declared, since, acording to former Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, “People must be allowed in a free country to support different parties and organisations without revealing how they vote”. Arguably, that’s a non-sequitur.
Another source for such groups is the funding made by the Foreign Office – “Utrikesdepartementet” (UD), through SIDA, Forum Syd, etc. Do they produce detailed budget and activity reports that list the groups they support?
Looking up the web sites records at loopia.se, one finds many of these are registered by general web hosting providers in Sweden, so if someone would need to request “Owner and Administrative Contact information” for the particular sites from the given provider by email.
It would be rather revealing to find out who may be providing funding to some of these groups and web sites with political activist agendas. Might quieten them down too… 🙂
Also, aren’t there Church taxes as in Germany, Switzerland etc. collected by the state, and funding to political parties once they reach a certain percentage of the vote or elected candidates?
Has anyone figured out the overlap of politics and religion in Sweden, as evidenced by such groups as the “Broderskapsrörelsen” – the “Christian Social Democrats Brotherhood movement”?
How does this all work? Do they campaign with policies or beliefs? 🙂
Who funds them?
Further recipients of funding from the Swedish Foreign Office (UD) though SIDA are various University departments for projects abroad, such as the Minor Field Studies at Uppsula Uni. which supported AA’s time in Cuba. SIDA is said to be like USAID.
The Faculty of Law, Lund University, has been provided with financial support by SIDA to manage since the late 1990s an extensive programme entitled “Strengthening Legal Education in Vietnam”. The name that appears with this is Dr. Christoffer Wong, assistant prof. — Heard of him recently? 🙂
SIDA also sponsors programs at the Department of Sociology of Law at Lund University. One also comes across the beneficence of the Wallenbergs:
Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Lund, Sweden http://rwi.lu.se
Goran states:
“According to Marianne Ny in her 4 February 2011 statement: “According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.”
So legally he has NOT BEEN CHARGED, correct Goran. The bitch can do her preliminary investigation at the Equador Embassy as has been done previously in many other much more serious cases involving murder and millions of pounds of fraud, eg. TRUSTOR case involving Lord Moynihan.
Rico Santin,
Julian Assange is not indicted yet even if you don’t know what it means.
He is considered charged from approx 16:11 20 August 2010.
Your limited capacity in understanding should not be underestimated.
He has been charged. He has not been indicted yet. What is the problem with you?