Resultat:
Skumt eller inte?
| Skumt |
77,60%
|
4021 röster |
| Inte skumt |
22,40%
|
1161 röster |
Antal röster: 5182
Du får inte rösta i den här omröstningen.
Svara
- Ämnesverktyg
- Visa första olästa
- Hitta inlägg efter datum
Citat:
Finns det något särskilt skäl till att du hela tiden upprepar dina åsikter som om det vore fakta, när du inte ägnar dig åt direkta lögner?JA är inte dömd till något, det finns endast ett häktningsbeslut som ännu inte är verkställt. Det är endast JA själv som begränsar område eller annat eftersom det är enbart hans val att stanna på ambassaden eller gå ut därifrån. Någon husarrest handlar det givetvis inte om.
Vi vet redan att du ljuger om Assanges asyl-skäl och ingen är intresserad av att du skall upprepa dina övriga lögner, bedömningar, åsikter och tolkningar i oändlighet.
Du har redan sagt vad du tycker och tror. Alla vet vad du tycker och tror. Räcker inte det?
Citat:
JA är inte dömd till något, det finns endast ett häktningsbeslut som ännu inte är verkställt. Det är endast JA själv som begränsar område eller annat eftersom det är enbart hans val att stanna på ambassaden eller gå ut därifrån. Någon husarrest handlar det givetvis inte om.
Helt rätt! JA är inte dömd till något. Trots det så lever han med betingelser som är betydligt värre än vid en husarrest. En person som har husarrest kan välja om den ska bryta mot villkoren i husarresten eller inte. Om personen bryter mot villkoren så kommer den att få betala konsekvenserna av att inte följa reglerna för husarresten. JA kan avsäga sig sin asyl eller inte. Om han gör det så blir det konsekvenser. De konsekvenserna blir i bästa fall liknande de som hade varit vid en husarrest. I sämsta fall betydligt värre.
Du har ett val att döda din granne. Du kan närsomhelst välja att göra det och det är enbart ditt val om du väljer att göra det eller att låta bli. Men om du gör det så har det antagligen stora konsekvenser. Pss så finns det konsekvenser om JA överger sin asyl som Ecuador på goda grunder har givit honom. De konsekvenserna är på inget sätt mindre än konsekvenserna för någon som bryter mot reglerna för en husarrest. Du har rätt att JA's situation inte är en husarrest utan det JA blir utsatt för är betydligt värre. Detta trots att han inte är dömd till något.
Citat:
Jag tycker man kan argumentera för att han fortfarande befinner sig under husarrest. Marianne har nämligen aldrig mig veterligen lättat på kraven. Befinner han sig inte i husarrest så finns det ju heller ingen borgen att bryta mot, men det brukar du hävda alldeles bestämt, att han sedan han sökte skydd på ambassaden bryter mot borgensbestämmelserna, och i dessa borgensbestämmelser så ingick husarrest. Han befinner sig alltså fortfarande under husarrest. Husarresten hävdes aldrig av Ny. Tanken vore henne skrattretande.
Det är knappast house arrest att frivilligt bosätta sig på en ambassad, han kan gå ut därifrån när han vill. Han är inte frihetsberövad nu enligt tydlig skrivning i HD:s dom. Han vistas helt enkelt på ambassaden på eget bevåg. Jag ogillar verkligen när människor ljuger.
HD ansåg honom inte frihetsberövad ens när han under 18 månader till och med enligt dig satt i husarrest, dvs innan han sökte asyl. Så det argumentet faller platt hur mycket du än försöker räta upp det. Husarrest är ett frihetsberövande, men kallas inte så av svenska domstolar. I alla fall inte när de pratar om Assange.
Citat:
Nej, det finns inte alls" bara ett häktningsbeslut", det finns även en internationell arresteringsorder utfärdad av hennes höghet Marianne i egen person. Utan EAWn så skulle han väl inte bli arresterad utanför Sveriges gräns utan bara om han tog flyget tillbaka till Mariannes lilla Sverige för att överlämna sig till svensk polis för att bli kastad i svenskt häkte på obestämd tid under tortyrliknande förhållanden.Dessutom kanske man kan säga att han blev dömd till husarrest på Mariannes order. Han fick i alla fall en dom emot sig. Flera stycken, faktiskt. Han är dömd till att förbli häktad av ett flertal Marianne-lojala svenska domstolar. Något brott är han dock inte dömd för, i alla fall inte i modern tid. En hacker-dom tror jag han har från tonåren då han under den långdragna förundersökningen gav polisen råd hur de skulle komma åt en pedofilring. Märkligt att inte Marianne tiggt och bönat om hans hjälp, hon som är så intresserad av sexbrott mot barn.
Citat:
När upphörde husarresten, anser du Anonymare? När drog Marianne tillbaka kraven? Ge ett datum och en länk till ett dokument som bekräftar detta. Han är inte fri att gå ut. Han är en fånge om han går ut. Med risk att utlämnas till USA som torterar sönder alla de betraktar som terrorister.
Någon husarrest handlar det givetvis inte om.
Den där junikvällen 2012 då han inte återvände till sin husarrestbostad, då ryckte alltså Marianne bara på axlarna och skickade bud till UK att då drar vi väl tillbaka alla kraven då. Nej, Marianne väntar tålmodigt i sin lilla jolle med Sofia tills 2020, för hon betraktar nuvarande tillstånd som ett temporärt verkställighetshinder, inte som en av henne hävd husarrest.
__________________
Senast redigerad av outoftheblue 2016-02-02 kl. 22:47.
Senast redigerad av outoftheblue 2016-02-02 kl. 22:47.
Citat:
HDs argument för att JA inte var frihetsberövad var väl att häktningen inte var verkställd. Ändå räknades han väl som frihetsberövad under de ca 10 dagarna i Wandswortfängelset, innan borgen och husarresten godkändes? Trots att häktningen inte ens då kan ha betraktats som verkställd.Intressant att UN WGAD ska granska. Och om de kommer fram till att allt är OK (JA är inte "detained" utan han har själv valt att fly undan rättvisan på ambassaden), då kommer denna tråd alltså under en period efter domineras av pudlande kring att man har haft fel om detta?
Analysen av UN blir intressant eftersom den förhoppningsvis ger ett internationellt perspektiv på svensk lag och svenska tvångsmedel. Jag vet inte ens vad den bästa svenska motsvarigheten till ordet "detained" är, men det borde finnas ett svenskt juridiskt uttryck för det. "Hållas i förvar"? "Kvarhållas"? (Kvarsittning däremot räknas väl som ett straff, även om det inte är den domstol som dömer.)
Han är väl åtminstone "detained" i UK, kvarhållen i UK, eftersom hans pass tagits från honom och han belagts med reseförbud, något som fortfarande kvarstår. Han är inte fri att resa, inte fri att lämna ambassaden utan att fängslas. Han hålls med andra ord på en viss plats vars enda alternativ är att tvångsförflyttas till ett svenskt häkte för att hållas i förvar där, med risk för utlämning alternativt utlåning till USA samtidigt som han därmed skulle förlora Ecuadors beskydd.
Är man inte fri att på egen hand lämna ett land, en stad, ett kvarter, då är man väl "detained" - kvarhållen - i någon bemärkelse?
Citat:
UN-beslut väntas på fredag:
https://justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html
https://justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html
"Julian Assange submitted a complaint against Sweden and the United Kingdom to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on 12 September 2014."
Detta verkar ha varit samma dag som tingsrättens beslut att häktningen skulle kvarstå överklagades till hovrätten.
Swedish proceedings 2014 - 2015
24 June 2014
Assange requests Stockholm District Court to review the detention order.
16 July 2014
Stockholm City Court decides that Julian Assange is to remain detained.
12 September 2014
Assange appeals the ruling of the District Court regarding the detention.
23 September 2014
The prosecutors present a written comment over the appeal.
27 October 2014
New written comment from the prosecutors to the Svea Court of Appeal.The prosecutors still contest that the Court of Appeal should annul the detention of Julian Assange.
10 November 2014
The defense councils present a written comment over the prosecutors latest official letter.
20 November 2014
The Svea Court of Appeal decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
8 December 2014
Assange appeals the decision from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
10 March 2015
The Supreme Court requests the Prosecutor-General's opinion concerning the detention.
...
11 May 2015
The Supreme Court decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
...
ÅMs fullständiga kronologi från google cache 14 Jan 2016 03:29:18 GMT:
Chronology
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
27 September 2010
Julian Assange is arrested in his absence.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the detention of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to detain Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 June 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 August 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
Swedish proceedings 2014 - 2015
24 June 2014
Assange requests Stockholm District Court to review the detention order.
16 July 2014
Stockholm City Court decides that Julian Assange is to remain detained.
12 September 2014
Assange appeals the ruling of the District Court regarding the detention.
23 September 2014
The prosecutors present a written comment over the appeal.
27 October 2014
New written comment from the prosecutors to the Svea Court of Appeal.The prosecutors still contest that the Court of Appeal should annul the detention of Julian Assange.
10 November 2014
The defense councils present a written comment over the prosecutors latest official letter.
20 November 2014
The Svea Court of Appeal decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
8 December 2014
Assange appeals the decision from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
10 March 2015
The Supreme Court requests the Prosecutor-General's opinion concerning the detention.
13 March 2015
The prosecutors request Assange's consent to interview him in London.
24 March 2015
The Prosecutor-General submits a letter of response concerning the detention of Julian Assange to the Supreme Court.
16 April 2015
Assange consents, with some reservations, to be interviewed.
17 April 2015
The prosecutors ask Assange for clarifications.
11 May 2015
The Supreme Court decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
29 May 2015
The prosecutors request legal assistance from the Ministry of Justice, to be able to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The request is submitted by electronic mail to the Division for Criminal Cases and International Judicial Co-operation at the Ministry of Justice (BIRS).
1 June 2015
The prosecutors send the signed request for legal assistance by post. BIRS legalizes and translates the request, which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador.
16-17 June 2015
The assistant prosecutor, Chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, travels to London with the ambition to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, no permission is given and the interview cannot be performed.
13 August 2015
Investigation concerning Julian Assange discontinued in part
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1tV3qIZc1VYJ:www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
27 September 2010
Julian Assange is arrested in his absence.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the detention of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to detain Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 June 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 August 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
Swedish proceedings 2014 - 2015
24 June 2014
Assange requests Stockholm District Court to review the detention order.
16 July 2014
Stockholm City Court decides that Julian Assange is to remain detained.
12 September 2014
Assange appeals the ruling of the District Court regarding the detention.
23 September 2014
The prosecutors present a written comment over the appeal.
27 October 2014
New written comment from the prosecutors to the Svea Court of Appeal.The prosecutors still contest that the Court of Appeal should annul the detention of Julian Assange.
10 November 2014
The defense councils present a written comment over the prosecutors latest official letter.
20 November 2014
The Svea Court of Appeal decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
8 December 2014
Assange appeals the decision from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
10 March 2015
The Supreme Court requests the Prosecutor-General's opinion concerning the detention.
13 March 2015
The prosecutors request Assange's consent to interview him in London.
24 March 2015
The Prosecutor-General submits a letter of response concerning the detention of Julian Assange to the Supreme Court.
16 April 2015
Assange consents, with some reservations, to be interviewed.
17 April 2015
The prosecutors ask Assange for clarifications.
11 May 2015
The Supreme Court decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
29 May 2015
The prosecutors request legal assistance from the Ministry of Justice, to be able to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The request is submitted by electronic mail to the Division for Criminal Cases and International Judicial Co-operation at the Ministry of Justice (BIRS).
1 June 2015
The prosecutors send the signed request for legal assistance by post. BIRS legalizes and translates the request, which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador.
16-17 June 2015
The assistant prosecutor, Chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, travels to London with the ambition to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, no permission is given and the interview cannot be performed.
13 August 2015
Investigation concerning Julian Assange discontinued in part
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1tV3qIZc1VYJ:www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
__________________
Senast redigerad av outoftheblue 2016-02-02 kl. 23:59.
Senast redigerad av outoftheblue 2016-02-02 kl. 23:59.
Citat:
....
ÅMs fullständiga kronologi från google cache 14 Jan 2016 03:29:18 GMT:
ÅMs fullständiga kronologi från google cache 14 Jan 2016 03:29:18 GMT:
Chronology
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
27 September 2010
Julian Assange is arrested in his absence.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the detention of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to detain Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 June 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 August 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
Swedish proceedings 2014 - 2015
24 June 2014
Assange requests Stockholm District Court to review the detention order.
16 July 2014
Stockholm City Court decides that Julian Assange is to remain detained.
12 September 2014
Assange appeals the ruling of the District Court regarding the detention.
23 September 2014
The prosecutors present a written comment over the appeal.
27 October 2014
New written comment from the prosecutors to the Svea Court of Appeal.The prosecutors still contest that the Court of Appeal should annul the detention of Julian Assange.
10 November 2014
The defense councils present a written comment over the prosecutors latest official letter.
20 November 2014
The Svea Court of Appeal decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
8 December 2014
Assange appeals the decision from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
10 March 2015
The Supreme Court requests the Prosecutor-General's opinion concerning the detention.
13 March 2015
The prosecutors request Assange's consent to interview him in London.
24 March 2015
The Prosecutor-General submits a letter of response concerning the detention of Julian Assange to the Supreme Court.
16 April 2015
Assange consents, with some reservations, to be interviewed.
17 April 2015
The prosecutors ask Assange for clarifications.
11 May 2015
The Supreme Court decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
29 May 2015
The prosecutors request legal assistance from the Ministry of Justice, to be able to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The request is submitted by electronic mail to the Division for Criminal Cases and International Judicial Co-operation at the Ministry of Justice (BIRS).
1 June 2015
The prosecutors send the signed request for legal assistance by post. BIRS legalizes and translates the request, which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador.
16-17 June 2015
The assistant prosecutor, Chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, travels to London with the ambition to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, no permission is given and the interview cannot be performed.
13 August 2015
Investigation concerning Julian Assange discontinued in part
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1tV3qIZc1VYJ:www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
27 September 2010
Julian Assange is arrested in his absence.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the detention of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to detain Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 June 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 August 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
Swedish proceedings 2014 - 2015
24 June 2014
Assange requests Stockholm District Court to review the detention order.
16 July 2014
Stockholm City Court decides that Julian Assange is to remain detained.
12 September 2014
Assange appeals the ruling of the District Court regarding the detention.
23 September 2014
The prosecutors present a written comment over the appeal.
27 October 2014
New written comment from the prosecutors to the Svea Court of Appeal.The prosecutors still contest that the Court of Appeal should annul the detention of Julian Assange.
10 November 2014
The defense councils present a written comment over the prosecutors latest official letter.
20 November 2014
The Svea Court of Appeal decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
8 December 2014
Assange appeals the decision from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
10 March 2015
The Supreme Court requests the Prosecutor-General's opinion concerning the detention.
13 March 2015
The prosecutors request Assange's consent to interview him in London.
24 March 2015
The Prosecutor-General submits a letter of response concerning the detention of Julian Assange to the Supreme Court.
16 April 2015
Assange consents, with some reservations, to be interviewed.
17 April 2015
The prosecutors ask Assange for clarifications.
11 May 2015
The Supreme Court decides that Julian Assange will still be detained in his absence.
29 May 2015
The prosecutors request legal assistance from the Ministry of Justice, to be able to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The request is submitted by electronic mail to the Division for Criminal Cases and International Judicial Co-operation at the Ministry of Justice (BIRS).
1 June 2015
The prosecutors send the signed request for legal assistance by post. BIRS legalizes and translates the request, which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador.
16-17 June 2015
The assistant prosecutor, Chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, travels to London with the ambition to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, no permission is given and the interview cannot be performed.
13 August 2015
Investigation concerning Julian Assange discontinued in part
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1tV3qIZc1VYJ:www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Under spoilern hittar vi följande ur kronologin (mina fetningar):
Citat:
1 June 2015
The prosecutors send the signed request for legal assistance by post. BIRS legalizes and translates the request, which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador.
16-17 June 2015
The assistant prosecutor, Chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, travels to London with the ambition to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, no permission is given and the interview cannot be performed.
The prosecutors send the signed request for legal assistance by post. BIRS legalizes and translates the request, which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador.
16-17 June 2015
The assistant prosecutor, Chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, travels to London with the ambition to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, no permission is given and the interview cannot be performed.
Notera...."which is thereafter submitted to Ecuador". När är "thereafter"? Här ger man inget datum för när ansökan faktiskt sänds. JD/BIRS tog god tid på sig för att legalisera och översätta dokumenten, vilket irriterade Ny. Åklagarmyndigheten mörkar detta faktum.
Det är just denna omständighet som avslöjar att Ingrid Isgrens resa till London var en bluff. Man reser utan att ha fått klartecken för intervju. På vinst och förlust. För att plocka en poäng. Det är inte seriöst.
__________________
Senast redigerad av trenterx 2016-02-03 kl. 11:06.
Senast redigerad av trenterx 2016-02-03 kl. 11:06.
Citat:
UN-beslut väntas på fredag:
https://justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html
https://justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html
Beslutet tillkännages på fredag.
Enligt "The age" har beslutet redan tagits och regeringarna är informerade. Allmänheten och Assange informeras på fredag.
"Ms Taylor said the UN Working Group had already made their their determination and informed the countries involved, however, the decision will be made public - and Assange himself informed - on Friday, most likely in the morning, London time."
http://www.theage.com.au/world/united-nations-panel-could-rule-in-favour-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-20160202-gmk2k8.html#i xzz3z65afOw5
Det är oklart exakt när beslutet togs, men om svenska och brittiska regeringarna redan vet så finns det givetvis färdigformulerade kommentarer när beslutet offentliggörs på fredag.
__________________
Senast redigerad av trenterx 2016-02-03 kl. 11:06.
Senast redigerad av trenterx 2016-02-03 kl. 11:06.
Citat:
Som UD uppträder just nu, och svenska mediers blackout i detta ämne, ser det ut som den redan fastställda domen som blir officiell på fredag, blir till Assanges fördel för det är just nu mycket nervöst "där uppe". Och tidpunkten kan inte bli bättre, Sverige är redan indraget som avskräckande exempel i både medias mörkningar (censureringar) och den totalhavererade invandringspolitiken.
En stalltips är att Assange-affären landar i det pågående amerikanska president-racet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR2Zrq1fZPg&
Citat:
"Ms Taylor said the UN Working Group had already made their their determination and informed the countries involved, however, the decision will be made public - and Assange himself informed - on Friday, most likely in the morning, London time."
http://www.theage.com.au/world/united-nations-panel-could-rule-in-favour-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-20160202-gmk2k8.html#i xzz3z65afOw5
http://www.theage.com.au/world/united-nations-panel-could-rule-in-favour-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-20160202-gmk2k8.html#i xzz3z65afOw5
"The group made their decision based on written submissions from Assange, the UK and Sweden, and applied domestic law as well as international human rights law."
Skillnaden mellan detta beslut och tidigare beslut är kanske att även om inhemska lagar tagits med i beräkningen så har de tagit mer hänsyn till internationella lagar om mänskliga rättigheter än vad Sverige och UK har gjort. Det spelar till exempel väldigt liten roll om svenska HD genom svensk undflyende terminologi påstår att han inte är frihetsberövad, när han uppenbarligen är frihetsberövad i ordets verkliga bemärkelse. Ett positivt beslut för Assange innebär i förlängningen att svenska domstolar inte brytt sig tillräckligt om mänskliga rättigheter. I UK lär man redan ha insett sitt misstag:
... [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?"Marianne har alltså missbrukat EAWn och ingen har lyckats stoppa henne. Förrän kanske i veckan.
This question remained unanswered as Ny deployed the European Arrest Warrant, a draconian product of the "war on terror" supposedly designed to catch terrorists and organised criminals. The EAW had abolished the obligation on a petitioning state to provide any evidence of a crime. More than a thousand EAWs are issued each month; only a few have anything to do with potential "terror" charges. Most are issued for trivial offences, such as overdue bank charges and fines. Many of those extradited face months in prison without charge. There have been a number of shocking miscarriages of justice, of which British judges have been highly critical.
The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW - whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre - the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been "misled" by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.
However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange's barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.
The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November last year. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-siege-of-julian-assange-is-a-farce-a-special-investigation
Så FN ger förhandsbesked i Assangeärendet till berörda stater.
Svenska åklagarmyndigheten städar i panik i historiken på websidan.
Är det korrekt uppfattat?
Obetalbart.
Svenska åklagarmyndigheten städar i panik i historiken på websidan.
Är det korrekt uppfattat?
Obetalbart.
Hittade en ett par kommentar av Old Wolf på en blog ( https://juridikbloggen.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/om-det-anda-vore-sa-enkelt/ )
Det verkar alltså som om Marianne haft som mål att i första hand "lagföra" Assange. Det verkar ha blivit ett verksamhetsmål i sig.
Någon precis definition av begreppet "lagföring" har jag aldrig sett, det ges mest exempel på vad det kan innebära. Det finns ett expertutlåtande om översättning av termerna "lagföring" respektive "överåklagare" i EAWn: http://web.archive.org/web/20110711045431/http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/ExpertOpinionofChristopheBrunski.pdf Både översättningen av "lagföring" och av "överåklagare" kritiseras.
Så, för att summera. EAWn skulle aldrig ha utfärdats och när ändå den utfärdades så innehöll den en rad missvisande översättningar. Men huvudsaken att Marianne vill uppfylla ÅMs självändamål att lagföra mera, utan hänsyn till rättssäkerheten för de inblandade. Bara det ser bra ut i ÅMs statistik och att kvinnorna får sin tillfredsställelse genom att se mannen "lagförd".
Här finns en "dekorerad" diskussion om begreppet lagföring: http://www.grammaticalframework.org/~peter/simplypedia/simplypedia.cgi?site=svwiki&title=Diskussion:Lagf% C3%B6ring
Citat:
Ett litet underligt verksamhetsmål som åklagarmyndigheten har:
Lagföring
”Ett av Åklagarmyndighetens verksamhetsmål är att fler brott ska leda till lagföring.
Åklagarmyndighetens verksamhetsmål är att lagföring ska ske för fler brott och att fler personer ska lagföras. Lagföring vid Åklagarmyndigheten är vanligen att en person blivit åtalad men innefattar även utfärdande av strafföreläggande och åtalsunderlåtelse.”
Med ett sådant mål är det väl fara för att objektivitetsprincipen lätt frångås aka Assange
http://www.aklagare.se/Om-oss/Statistik/Lagforing/
Lagföring
”Ett av Åklagarmyndighetens verksamhetsmål är att fler brott ska leda till lagföring.
Åklagarmyndighetens verksamhetsmål är att lagföring ska ske för fler brott och att fler personer ska lagföras. Lagföring vid Åklagarmyndigheten är vanligen att en person blivit åtalad men innefattar även utfärdande av strafföreläggande och åtalsunderlåtelse.”
Med ett sådant mål är det väl fara för att objektivitetsprincipen lätt frångås aka Assange
http://www.aklagare.se/Om-oss/Statistik/Lagforing/
Citat:
Åklagarmyndighetens verksamhetsmål är att lagföring ska ske för fler brott och att fler personer ska lagföras.
För mig är det en oacceptabel målsättning att räkna antalet lagförda personer. Målsättningen måste väl vara att ha en så stor rättssäkerhet som möjligt, både för målsägande och den misstänkte. Och i förlängningen av detta genomföra så bra utredningar att en gärningsman blir fälld utom all rimligt tvivel.
Lagföra kan aldrig vara ett mål i sig om man inte tycker som Marianne Ny:
Domstolsverkets rapport om kvinnofridslagen 2001:
Först då mannen frihetsberövas och kvinnan i lugn och ro hinner få lite perspektiv på sin tillvaro, får hon en chans att upptäcka hur hon egentligen behandlas”. ”Marianne Ny menar att lagföringen har god effekt som skydd för kvinnan, även i de fall gärningsmannen åtalas men inte döms.”
För mig är det en oacceptabel målsättning att räkna antalet lagförda personer. Målsättningen måste väl vara att ha en så stor rättssäkerhet som möjligt, både för målsägande och den misstänkte. Och i förlängningen av detta genomföra så bra utredningar att en gärningsman blir fälld utom all rimligt tvivel.
Lagföra kan aldrig vara ett mål i sig om man inte tycker som Marianne Ny:
Domstolsverkets rapport om kvinnofridslagen 2001:
Först då mannen frihetsberövas och kvinnan i lugn och ro hinner få lite perspektiv på sin tillvaro, får hon en chans att upptäcka hur hon egentligen behandlas”. ”Marianne Ny menar att lagföringen har god effekt som skydd för kvinnan, även i de fall gärningsmannen åtalas men inte döms.”
Det verkar alltså som om Marianne haft som mål att i första hand "lagföra" Assange. Det verkar ha blivit ett verksamhetsmål i sig.
Någon precis definition av begreppet "lagföring" har jag aldrig sett, det ges mest exempel på vad det kan innebära. Det finns ett expertutlåtande om översättning av termerna "lagföring" respektive "överåklagare" i EAWn: http://web.archive.org/web/20110711045431/http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/ExpertOpinionofChristopheBrunski.pdf Både översättningen av "lagföring" och av "överåklagare" kritiseras.
Citat:
The translation of the word lagföring as criminal prosecution in the EAW of 2 December 2010 is too narrow. Lagföring is a general term which relates to the entire legal process and can be used in either civil or criminal context. It is something of an umbrella term that encompasses other stages and legal procedures that are more strictly defined in and of themselves. There are more precise terms for prosecution in Swedish, namely åtala or åklaga, both meaning prosecute or indict.
[...]
I have also been asked about the translation of överåklagare, which is the title of the issuing authority, Marianne Ny, in the Swedish version of the EAW. It is incorrectly translated as "Director of Public Prosecution" in the certified English version of the EAW. The term överåklagare should preferably be translated in English as a senior prosecutor, and usually refers, in more exact terms and in a Swedish context, to a prosecutor who is the head of a department in the office of the Prosecutor General or head of a so-called development centre (utvecklingscentrum). [...] The Swedish equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions such as it exists in the UK is in fact the Prosecutor General, Riksåklagaren, as explained in the definition below [...] Therefore the English translation of the EAW provided by the Swedish National Police Board has incorrectly denoted Ms. Ny's title. She is not the Prosecutor General/Riksåklagaren, thereby not the equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
[...]
I have also been asked about the translation of överåklagare, which is the title of the issuing authority, Marianne Ny, in the Swedish version of the EAW. It is incorrectly translated as "Director of Public Prosecution" in the certified English version of the EAW. The term överåklagare should preferably be translated in English as a senior prosecutor, and usually refers, in more exact terms and in a Swedish context, to a prosecutor who is the head of a department in the office of the Prosecutor General or head of a so-called development centre (utvecklingscentrum). [...] The Swedish equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions such as it exists in the UK is in fact the Prosecutor General, Riksåklagaren, as explained in the definition below [...] Therefore the English translation of the EAW provided by the Swedish National Police Board has incorrectly denoted Ms. Ny's title. She is not the Prosecutor General/Riksåklagaren, thereby not the equivalent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Så, för att summera. EAWn skulle aldrig ha utfärdats och när ändå den utfärdades så innehöll den en rad missvisande översättningar. Men huvudsaken att Marianne vill uppfylla ÅMs självändamål att lagföra mera, utan hänsyn till rättssäkerheten för de inblandade. Bara det ser bra ut i ÅMs statistik och att kvinnorna får sin tillfredsställelse genom att se mannen "lagförd".
Här finns en "dekorerad" diskussion om begreppet lagföring: http://www.grammaticalframework.org/~peter/simplypedia/simplypedia.cgi?site=svwiki&title=Diskussion:Lagf% C3%B6ring
__________________
Senast redigerad av outoftheblue 2016-02-03 kl. 15:12.
Senast redigerad av outoftheblue 2016-02-03 kl. 15:12.
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera