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.
Can any of the Swedish commenters here confirm to me whether or not it is permissable in Sweden for one lawyer to represents two different clients in the same case? If legal in Sweden, it is highly unusual for a lawyer to do this anywhere else in the world, especially in a ‘rape’ case, because it can seriously undermine both cases. See points 4 and 5 here:
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
Oh, by the way, there were two entries dated 10th September in Claus Borgstrom’s bill and unfortunately Rixstep missed one of them:
10 09 10 Visit with A plaintiff in police custody for submission of mobile and conversations with the investigator
So they’ve got her mobile phone. Interesting. No sign of that in the leaked police protocol. Of course, the latter is only what the prosecutor decided to release to the UK courts (and the defence), so we know it isn’t complete. It’s missing, for example, any of these further police interviews with Anna Ardin, and the 2nd September interview with Sophie Wilen (which presumably she signed) that Marianne Ny decided for some reason wasn’t preferable to the unsigned statement she used in the UK. The 100 or so SMS texts between the women and Assange…
@Arbed
Yes, it is possible.
Hello from Flashback.
Complete links including Borgstroms letter (se Borgstrom 1-5).
I think you get it converted to English within 24hrs when rixstep sees these links.
Have fun
http://bayimg.com/iALcCAaEB ardin legal change
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb prosecutor change
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB legal invoice1(5)
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb legal invoice2(5)
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb legal invoice3(5)
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB legal invoce4(5)
http://bayimg.com/FALhGAAEb legal invoice(5)
http://bayimg.com/FaLHIaaEb borgstrom1-5
http://bayimg.com/FalhKAaeB borgstrom2-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhmAAeb borgstrom3-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlHoAAeB borgstrom4-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhPaaeb borgstrom5-5
I just had a thought regarding the second (probably) signed statement of Sophie Wilen. The 2nd statement might be so different from the original that any presentation of it would allow Assange’s lawyers to cast further doubt on the merits of the Swedish case.
The 2nd statement might have been less grievous, which could explain Wilen’s preparedness to sign it, but would be less compelling (inadequate) in legal arguments supporting Assange’s extradition. The prosecutors needed a signed statement and negotiated with Wilen to produce an actionable complaint that was mutually agreeable. They might have even hinted at prosecuting her for making a false complaint if she didn’t cooperate.
Then again, the 2nd statement might be even more grievous, in which case it would raise suspicions over how a complaint to the police could grow in severity over time – the implication being that the authorities have contrived the matter for political reasons.
I’m inclined to believe it is the former (less grievous) so its highly desirable to discover the contents of that statement. Any Swedish cops visiting here?
Australian Financial Review
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/julian_assange_swedish_judge_view_UKXfH1WonxwgZeaG0XnizI
Stefan Lindskog is a justice of the Supreme Court of Sweden, the highest court in that country. The above is an extract from a speech titled The Assange Affair: freedom of speech and freedom of information, a global perspective, which he will be giving at 7pm on April 3 at Elder Hall, University of Adelaide.
http://www.law.adelaide.edu.au/events/lindskog/
Hello from Flashback.
Complete links including Borgstroms letter (se Borgstrom 1-5).
I think you get it converted to English within 24hrs when rixstep sees these links.
Have fun
http://bayimg.com/iALcCAaEB ardin legal change
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb prosecutor change
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB legal invoice1(5)
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb legal invoice2(5)
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb legal invoice3(5)
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB legal invoce4(5)
http://bayimg.com/FALhGAAEb legal invoice(5)
http://bayimg.com/FaLHIaaEb borgstrom1-5
http://bayimg.com/FalhKAaeB borgstrom2-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhmAAeb borgstrom3-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlHoAAeB borgstrom4-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhPaaeb borgstrom5-5
P.S I tried at 12:15am and got the message (Your comment is awaiting moderation). and did not get published ..?
Hi Jemand,
That’s a very “managed” article, isn’t it? Seems to me, for all the reasonableness in the tone of it, it never actually says No, there is no way we can, or would, extradite Assange if a US request comes in. In fact, my reading is “lots of reasons why we shouldn’t, but we probably will”.
And that’s not even taking into account that the request will likely come as a ‘computer crimes’ CFAA offence – ie. a ‘criminal’ offence, not a ‘political’ one (the new Cyber-Threat strategy announced by the White House recently). The article does at least hint as the proposed changes to Swedish legislation making it a crime for journalists to report “foreign military secrets”. Afghanistan, of course – Sweden can claim dual criminality on the basis of their involvement in the NATO alliance actions there.
I don’t buy this “Marianne Ny is still in charge of the investigation” bullshit at all, and neither does Philip Dorling, who based his article on the actual Swedish court document passing the investigation over to the new prosecutor. Here it is:
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb
There in black and white. Ingrid Isgren is now in charge and the case has been passed to Stockholm jurisdiction (Marianne Ny is based in Gothenburg jurisdiction).
Dorling is standing by his story:
https://twitter.com/Ausflatfis…
The claim that Ny is still in charge overall is nothing more than face-saving, he says:
https://twitter.com/Ausflatfis…
I agree with him.
Cover letter Claus Borgstrom sent the Swedish Prosecution Authority for his work on behalf of Anna Ardin:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/03/29/claes-borgstroms-cover-letter/
So, if Borgstrom claims to be still working for Complainant B, Sophie Wilen, a very good question to ask is why he is putting work concerning her complaint onto his invoice for Anna Ardin?
2010-08-24 Review of complaint from 2010-08-20 with attachments – (SW’s statement, not Ardin’s)
2010-08-25 Review of interrogation 2010-08-26 – (SW’s statement (its official police computer date), not Ardin’s)
In fact, I think it’s significant that he omits a line item saying that he’s reviewed Ardin’s statement, which was taken on 21 August. Perhaps he fears some kind of future legal liability if he puts his name to having assessed a client’s statement but he hasn’t ‘counselled’ her appropriately in light of a proper legal assessment of it?
Read this and be surprised. Stefan Lindskog is a member of the supreme court in Sweden. He will give a talk on this next week in AU
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/julian_assange_swedish_judge_view_UKXfH1WonxwgZeaG0XnizI
Hi Axel,
Yes, I’ve read Linskog’s article and, frankly, I’m not surprised by it. See my comments on it at 9.12am above. A PR exercise, designed to exude “reasonableness” and a sympathetic tone, but basically saying – in very carefully hedged statements – Yes, there are ways to extradite him under our laws.
Anyone notice this line-item in Claus Borgstrom’s bill:
2011-07-18 Review of mail with Thomas Hammarberg regarding amicable settlement with Julian Assange
I remember that there was an open letter campaign organised to Thomas Hammarberg – then the Commissioner for Human Rights for Europe – (it was around November 2011, so after the date of this line item in Borgstrom’s bill)? Well, in the reply I received from Thomas Hammarberg’s office it says this:
“According to his mandate, the Commissioner is not empowered to take up individual complaints”
… but now we can see that he clearly did intervene in Assange’s case.
I remember too that after the open letter campaign, Thomas Hammarberg flew to London for a week in early December 2011 (between the High Court refusing the appeal but a week later allowing the petition to the Supreme Court) and made a few rather pointed speeches about free speech and the dangers of cracking down on online media organisations.
PeterP, thanks so much for your constructive comment and the link. I meant to respond before and come back to find there has been a lot of activity. I’m trying to collect enough to make a solid case against Prime but there are obstacles. Thanks again.
As to Anna Ardin I should be really surprised if the prosecution would ever want her to appear in court. There is so much out in the public domain that it would be an experience I would assume neither she nor the legal representative would wish her to take the stand. Although Swedish law is so different from ours (secrecy for example).
It’s Good Friday so I’ve blogged on Jesus and Assange.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/good-friday-julian-assange-and-bradley.html
Note to visiting Flashbackers:
Interesting, isn’t it, that Borgstrom’s bill sets out that Ardin was interviewed again by police on 26 October 2010, the day after the forensics results came back from the SKL that there was no DNA on her condom ‘evidence’?
Second note to visiting Flasbackers:
Why is Claus Borgstrom putting work concerning Sophie Wilen’s complaint onto his invoice for Anna Ardin?
2010-08-24 Review of complaint from 2010-08-20 with attachments – (SW’s statement, not Ardin’s)
2010-08-25 Review of interrogation 2010-08-26 – (SW’s statement (its official police computer date), not Ardin’s)
Why is there no line item saying that he’s reviewed Ardin’s statement, which was taken on 21 August?
What is the legal position in Sweden regarding doing work on a plaintiff’s complaint on the same day that you apply to become that plaintiff’s counsel (and the day before you officially are accepted as such)?
Arbed wrote:
“Yes, I’ve read Lindskog’s article and, frankly, I’m not surprised by it. See my comments on it at 9.12am above. A PR exercise, designed to exude “reasonableness” and a sympathetic tone, but basically saying – in very carefully hedged statements – Yes, there are ways to extradite him under our laws.”
Response:
OK, point taken. But note this. Lindskog’s move is unprecedented. It may signal something more than a tactical move, for instance a split inside the cabinet, or between the government and parts of the judiciary.
Axel, 6.05pm
Likewise, point taken. 🙂
It’s really good to have your feedback on Lindskog’s article because, of course, as a Swedish citizen you will have a much better ‘gut instinct’ on what this might signal in terms of Sweden’s internal politics.
moderation-check as vital links has not been listed here yet, so whats the problem ?
3 trial of listing links, all in swedish typo, all these got 24 hrs news-blockade by swedish press (1).
http://bayimg.com/iALcCAaEB ardin legal change
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb prosecutor change
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB legal invoice1(5)
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb legal invoice2(5)
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb legal invoice3(5)
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB legal invoce4(5)
http://bayimg.com/FALhGAAEb legal invoice(5)
http://bayimg.com/FaLHIaaEb borgstrom1-5
http://bayimg.com/FalhKAaeB borgstrom2-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhmAAeb borgstrom3-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlHoAAeB borgstrom4-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhPaaeb borgstrom5-5
3rd trial, links to the infamous docs from court, that was blocked by all swedish media for 24 hrs.
Mod has to check ip-filtering.
http://bayimg.com/iALcCAaEB ardin legal change
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb prosecutor change
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB legal invoice1(5)
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb legal invoice2(5)
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb legal invoice3(5)
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB legal invoce4(5)
http://bayimg.com/FALhGAAEb legal invoice(5)
http://bayimg.com/FaLHIaaEb borgstrom1-5
http://bayimg.com/FalhKAaeB borgstrom2-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhmAAeb borgstrom3-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlHoAAeB borgstrom4-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhPaaeb borgstrom5-5
Hi Duqu,
I’m not sure what exactly the moderation arrangements are on Craig’s blog (except that it’s very light-touch) and I haven’t noticed the moderator around in a while – perhaps they are having a break or holiday?
If there’s any docs available in Flashback you think we need to see over here in the UK, are you able to drop them in this thread? (I think English-language translated ones would be best, but if not, perhaps just a note saying to use Google translate?)
Thanks very much for all your efforts – you have no idea how much I appreciate Flashback’s visits here to inform us all. I was commenting in a British newspaper last night about Sweden’s new Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95) law and no one seemed to have even heard about it, let alone worked out its relevance to Assange’s extradition.
Oddly (;) – I think WL HQ must track the comments to articles that say Assange has been charged) Wikileaks tweeted about it a short time later. At last this worrying development is getting a bit of the attention it deserves – hopefully in time for Stefan Lindskog’s lecture in Adelaide on 3 April.
In light of the seemingly sympathetic tone of Lindskog’s article (and I do take on board Axel’s comments above about it perhaps signalling a shift in Swedish domestic politics), it will be interesting to see what Lindskog has to say to questions from audience members about this new law criminalising reportage of Swedish military engagements that seems almost purpose-designed for Assange’s onward extradition to the States.
For those who haven’t heard about Sweden’s upcoming new “espionage” legislation, here are the relevant links. If you support the idea of a free press or the value of investigative journalism, these will make your hair stand on end:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advokatsamfundet.se%2FNyhetsarkiv%2F2013%2FFebruari%2FForstarkt-straffrattsligt-skydd-mot-spioneri%2F
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fdebatt%2Fkrigsjournalistik-maste-fa-vara-fri%2F
Re:Arbed
Well -my ordinary ip is blocked here, thats why you don´t get any links, says waiting for moderation, while I could do a direct test (as listed above) that worked with another ip.
The latest docs from court
http://bayimg.com/iALcCAaEB ardin legal change
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb prosecutor change
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB legal invoice1(5)
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb legal invoice2(5)
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb legal invoice3(5)
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB legal invoce4(5)
http://bayimg.com/FALhGAAEb legal invoice(5)
http://bayimg.com/FaLHIaaEb borgstrom1-5
http://bayimg.com/FalhKAaeB borgstrom2-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhmAAeb borgstrom3-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlHoAAeB borgstrom4-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhPaaeb borgstrom5-5
http://bayimg.com/iALcCAaEB ardin legal change
http://bayimg.com/iALCFAaEb prosecutor change
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB legal invoice1(5)
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb legal invoice2(5)
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb legal invoice3(5)
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB legal invoce4(5)
http://bayimg.com/FALhGAAEb legal invoice(5)
http://bayimg.com/FaLHIaaEb borgstrom1-5
http://bayimg.com/FalhKAaeB borgstrom2-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhmAAeb borgstrom3-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlHoAAeB borgstrom4-5
http://bayimg.com/fAlhPaaeb borgstrom5-5
My ip is blocket, and so the system refuses to receive my links, so you have to go to flashback, and the go to the link section for the latest release of court docs. Have tried several times with no success now…
FYI, you should be very aware of the following fact:
The Embassy of Sweden in Pyongyang acts as the United States’ interim protecting power. And those B2:s that got scrambled to “patrol” the south korean area, was by rumor equipt with the latest W66 neutron bomb system. So we are more in the dirt than you can image, with or without wiki and Assange.
Hi Duqu,
I think I may know what the problem is. Craig mentioned a while ago that he had accidentally blocked the IP of one of his contributors, then deleted something and he unfortunately had no way to know who it was or how to contact them to let them know of his mistake. He suggested that the person contact him using the Contact details in the blog’s header above and he will reinstate them.
So I’d try that, if I were you.
PLEASE RE-POST IN FLASHBACK FORUM. THANK YOU.
I see that Flashback intend to email their questions for Stefan Lindskop’s lecture to Fairfax Media in Australia. Can I join in please?
I was really excited to see news of Sweden’s SOU 2012:95 law reach Australian Wikileaks supporters on Twitter, and that they were preparing questions for Lindskop’s public lecture because I think the timing is perfect.
The title of Lindskop’s lecture is “The Assange case and Freedom of the Press” so there is a great chance, with tough questions from the audience about this new law designed to silence war reporting, to turn this embassy-funded PR exercise into a PR disaster for the Swedish government.
As the lecture is only two days away, and we don’t know how Fairfax media intends to cover it, can I suggest that maybe Espressino (@ulvdis) makes a Twitlonger of the best questions and tweets it at some of the most prominant Australian Wikileaks supporters (@jaraparilla, @JLLLOW, @AssangeC, @karwalski, @akaWACA) and asks them to forward them to people who are likely to be attending the event, so questions can be asked from the audience?
Here are the questions I would love to see Stefan Lindskop asked:
1.
Background: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/are-troops-talking-to-assange-communicating-with-the-enemy/
2.
3.
Background: http://falkvinge.net/2011/09/05/cable-reveals-extent-of-lapdoggery-from-swedish-govt-on-copyright-monopoly/
4.
Background: http://notes.rjgallagher.co.uk/2013/03/wikileaks-grand-jury-timetable-doj-obama-administration.html
5.
Background: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advokatsamfundet.se%2FNyhetsarkiv%2F2013%2FFebruari%2FForstarkt-straffrattsligt-skydd-mot-spioneri%2F
Re: Arbed april 1st 11:07 am (PLEASE RE-POST IN FLASHBACK FORUM. THANK YOU.)
Done !
regards
Duqu