Spanish Superjudge To Represent Assange 196
First time accepted submitter ccguy writes "Spanish ex-judge Balsazar Garzón will represent wikileak's Julian Assange in his extradiction case. In the past 30 years Garzón has led the most important investigations in Spain: Against drug cartels, against terrorist groups (ETA), and against corruption. He's also famous for his attempt to extradite Chilean dictator Pinochet to Spain to judge him for crimes against humanity. In his last investigation Garzón ordered in-prison conversations between corrupt politicians and their lawyers to be monitored. This is legal in Spain if the goal is to prevent further crimes to be committed (such as the inmate telling his lawyer to destroy evidence, or offshore funds). This caused Garzón to be disbarred as a judge. The president of the Supreme Court that signed this disbarment (Carlos Dívar) was later on made to resign, after it was discovered that he used taxpayers' money for deluxe vacations."
needs more prefixes (Score:5, Informative)
Since he was removed from his judgeship, he'd be an ex-super-judge, no? Or perhaps a super-ex-judge?
Re:needs more prefixes (Score:5, Funny)
Superjudge Returns.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this means that the UK will have assange tried by Judge Dredd [imdb.com]
SUPERJUDGE! (Score:3)
Will he be borrowing the cape and goggles from Cory Doctrow, for this latest exploit?
Re:needs more prefixes (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn in YOUR geek card now. Three sea shells was from Demolition Man.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the Stallone movie was a pile of crap. Dredd never takes off his helmet, and yet Stallone spent the majority of the movie with it off.
That, and it had Stallone in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Superjudge just so happens to be my lucha libre name.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know [youtube.com]
Superjudge = Superman? (Score:5, Funny)
Superjudge [wikimedia.org]
Superman [blogspot.com]
You be the... "judge".
Re: (Score:2)
You be the... "judge".
And you're the man!
Re: (Score:2)
He IS the law... only more so.
Nice stunt (Score:2)
Does this character even have any legal standing in England or Sweden? He certainly doesn't in Spain.
No way would this get me out of that embassy.
Re:Nice stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nice stunt (Score:5, Funny)
illegal wiretaps, though?
he should apply for US citizenship!
Re:Nice stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the wikipedia article on him [wikipedia.org] makes it sound a lot more complicated than that, in that "Under Spanish law, such wiretaps are only expressly permitted for terrorism cases and the legality of their use in other cases is more vague". There were a number of other charges too.
From the sound of it, he was a very popular judge among the left because he went hard after members of the former Franco government for crimes against humanity. But he sounds like he at the very least "bent the rules" to do so, and the right in Spain was more than willing to take him down for it.
Re:Nice stunt (Score:5, Informative)
He is banned from practicing law in Spain
He isn't banned from practicing law. He's banning for the judicial career, but he has a law degree (obviously) and he can work as a lawyer.
Keep in mind that this guy has worked with lots of international agencies, and apparently he's found the people with the largest balls in each. Otherwise Pinochet wouldn't have spent almost a year in London, for example.
The reason he was unseated in Spain was for issuing illegal wiretaps on member of the government that were suspected of corruption.
Suspected as in jail no less. He ordered a wiretapping indeed, and everyone else in the process agreed, to make sure that the people in jail wouldn't use their lawyers to continue to commit crimes. In fact, the tapes proved that they were doing so.
To be honest the reason I submitted the story (one date late indeed, but I expected an Assange story to appear rather quickly) is to bring a bit of awareness on Garzon's story as well as the blatant corruption going on over here (Spain).
We really owe a lot to this guy, even if the end it seems like the bad guys are getting their way.
Re:Nice stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nice stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
We certainly do. But still, this man has the ego the size of a medieval castle and thought he was above the law. He himself lent the bad guys the weapons they used to destroy him. A pity, but a self inflicted pity.
Are we talking about Assange or Garzon here?
Re: (Score:3)
He consciously did something ILEGAL
No, he did not.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be new here. Slashdot summaries are always misleading, and frequently outright incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
How can he practice law elsewhere? Law is not engineering. It is specific to each country. Some countries, others like france have a "civil code". Basically all that you've learned to practice in your country is meaningless to practice in another. While he might provide advice, I don't see how he could be a lawyer anywhere else but Spain. I haven't read TFA, so I'm not sure what he's going to actually do, but it cannot be actual representation in court.
Re:Nice stunt (Score:4, Informative)
Not illegal, which is why he wasn't prosecuted, but subject to significant constraints on when a judge's discretion to use these extraordinary powers is justified. Since, after all, eavesdropping on conversations between a client and his lawyer is not normally permitted, not even in serious cases. He was found to have abused that discretion.
Re:Sorry for your decision Julian (Score:5, Informative)
(i am a spaniard) Sorry for assange he better get more lawyers or at least ones with better work history. Garzon directly asked for money to the owner of the bank he was judging for his conferences in the US (http://diariorc.com/?p=6950)
This isn't true and has been disproven already.
Garzon is accused by one spanish counter terrorist (whichever trust this might have) of hiding the real person in charge of spanish inmoral and illegal war against terrorism
Uh? If you are referring to GAL, anyone who can prove anything can go to another judge. Saying that this particular judge, who discovered *the whole thing* decided to keep the GAL boss hidden is absurd.
, by this time he became for some time a politician affiliated to the political party who was accused of supporting this death squadron.
Get your facts straight. He was brought on board by PSOE to fight corruption, he wasn't allowed to apparently and he left quite quickly and went back to his judicial career. of course when he did this he became the enemy of many in PSOE (left wing party in Spain for those who don't know). He already had lots of enemies in PP (right wing party).
Garzon was accused of not investigating a possible crime commited by the army and police minister or someone close of aborting a terrorist raid agains them ....mmmm many things to make me wonder if this is the only lawyer assange should have.
Link?
Re:Nice stunt (Score:4, Informative)
Does this character even have any legal standing in England or Sweden? He certainly doesn't in Spain.
Think before you write. Baltasar Garzon had to give up being a judge in Spain... not a lawyer. And, he is acting as Assange's lawyer, not as its judge, obviously.
On extradition (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious what the /, groupthink thinks of his attempt to extradite a Chilean and try him for crimes in a separate country. We all know the opinion on the US doing it, but what about Spain?
Re:On extradition (Score:5, Interesting)
Spain claims worldwide jurisdiction over certain crimes, though I think they only try to enforce it in the Spanish-speaking portion of the world. The War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague claims worldwide jurisdiction over certain crimes as well.
Both are fine with me, as long as they use legal means to attempt extradition, and stick to prosecuting mass murderer, genocide, etc., against people who would never be tried in their home countries. Some morality has to be global, and any reasonable person can differentiate between basic, fundamental morality and things that reasonably vary from culture to culture. Slippery-slope arguments to the contrary are fallacious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your mass murderer is someone else's freedom fighter. Certainly a number of countries would feel that way about George Washington for example.
There's no global morality. Chile certainly disagreed about morality of extraditing Pinochet - that makes it not "global". What's the rule for "global" then, 50%? 75%? What if all Islamic countries decide that since usury is *very* clearly immoral, all US bankers should be extradited there for a trial?
Re: (Score:3)
The US has evidently declared internet gambling immoral and will find a way to get you here to throw your ass in jail, so the thought of other countries trying what you say isn't out of the question, it's just the US has a rather big stick to beat the world with at this time. Just wait till China gets to use theirs.
I'm pretty sure the UK does still feel that way about Washington based on what I read on internet forums.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure very, very, few people in the UK give a flying fuck about George Washington. What forums are you reading?
Or are you taking jokes about "the colonials" a little too literally?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it depends on the nature of the crime and the system in which the suspect is tried.
Consider the US drone assassination program. The crime is conspiring to attack innocent civilians -- so far so good. The trial system of "guilty if you can't survive a Hellfire missile strike," could use some work.
Re: (Score:2)
Spain claims jurisdiction over crimes committed to Spanish citizen wherever committed.
The War Crimes Tribunal does not claim worldwide jurisdiction, it has jurisdiction in many places due to signed and ratified international treaties.
So the fact the USofA as so far failed to ratify such a treaty means the tribunal accepts it has no jurisdiction over what US citizen do in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Curious what the /, groupthink thinks of his attempt to extradite a Chilean and try him for crimes in a separate country. We all know the opinion on the US doing it, but what about Spain?
The grounds for the extradition request where that he killed and tortured Spanish citizens.
Re:On extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange is accused of rape and espionage. Pinochet was accused and convicted of ordering the torture of over 40,000 people and murder of over 3000 (not even counting his violent overthrow of a democratically elected government). Assange's crimes, whatever they may be, are in no way equivalent to Pinochet's crimes against humanity [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that GP was not so subtly accusing most Slashdotters of hypocracy by supporting a guy who extradited Pinochet and opposing the people who want to extradite Assange, implying that those two positions were inconsistent. My argument was simply that the two situations are vastly different, and thus treating them differently is in no way inconsistent (and in fact would be in keeping with international law).
Re:On extradition (Score:5, Informative)
Assange is accused of rape and espionage.
First, Assange is certainly not being extradited, accused of espionage nowhere in Sweden or in the UK... obviously. That is just some USA wet dream.
Second, the only dumb enough people to use the term "rape" for what he did, are the Swedish. He had sex, by mutual consent with a woman, and she found out the condom broke. Assage claims he didn't know (may be true or not, but it happened to me before and I can tell you, it's not very easy to know the exact conditions of a condom around your penis when you are inside a woman), strange enough she continued having intimate relations with Assage for some time after that, as did the other "victim" clamming the same. It was only when the two lucky girls found out we was not faithful to them, that they decided to press charges... talk about a moral high ground here.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Second, the only dumb enough people to use the term "rape" for what he did, are the Swedish.
Go and read the various UK court rulings on the matter - in one of them the Judge actually affirmed that the things Assange was being extradited for would also be classed as rape in the UK.
The problem is that no one on Slashdot gives a fuck about the truth in the Assange case, they just like to spout bullshit catch phrases such as yours, rubbish about "swedish rape"...
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf [judiciary.gov.uk]
Points 70 onwards, discussing the "dual criminality" (that
Re: (Score:2)
Go and read the various UK court rulings on the matter - in one of them the Judge actually affirmed that the things Assange was being extradited for would also be classed as rape in the UK.
Just because a judge in the UK is as dumb (or as politically biased) as his Swedish counterpart, doesn't make your argument any better.
And just for the sake of the integrity of your character, perhaps you should mention that one of the "victims" is a feminist nut job know as Radfem Anna Ardin who had published on her blog “Rebella” a list of how women could legally take revenge on an unfaithful partner – including sabotage of his new relationship, enticing his new partner to be unfaithfu
Re: (Score:2)
That is not in the slightest bit accurate [judiciary.gov.uk]. Or, for a more concise but less referenced version, here [guardian.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
That is not in the slightest bit accurate [judiciary.gov.uk]. Or, for a more concise but less referenced version, here [guardian.co.uk].
From your own sources: The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
Well, this guy's penins, must be 1 in 5 bilions, cause it willingly seems to be able to "do something" to condoms and rip them at its own will.
Please give us all a break. The fact that "rape" cases in Sweden are 8 times higg
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, knowing how people tend to shut out any conflicting information once they've made up their mind, I'm pretty sure you won't even view the actual accusations, so I'm not sure why I bothered fetching the links.
Re: (Score:2)
"Assange is accused of rape"
No he isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
From the information submitted by the Swedish prosecutor, 4. feb 2011:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assange is accused of what is known as Swedish rape: This means sex with a willing woman but with a damaged/broken condom.
Also known as sex with an unwilling woman, if he knew her consent was conditional on use of a functional condom. Or rape. There's also the matter of sex with an unconscious woman. Also potential rape.
Having read the accusations presented in the English court judgments, he is definitely accused of rape under English law (don't know about other jurisdictions). Whether or not his is guilty of that is a matter for a trial (involving evidence, witnesses and so on) if he ever gets one.
Can we stop pretending that
Re:On extradition (Score:4, Informative)
Waking up woman with foreplay is not the same a fucking a passed out drunk woman.
These women only screamed rape when they found out about each other.
It's kind of like the old joke "I'm sorry miss, this $20 bill is counterfeit. Oh my god, I've been raped."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you have any idea how hard it is to even admit to yourself what happened, let alone admit it to others, let alone go to the police? There's a reason most rapes go unreported.
I let my rapist walk me back to my car. What's the point in fighting *after* the fact? No, I never filed charges. I couldn't imagine going through that against someone who's *not* an international celebrity, let alone someone who is like Assange. Yes, it took days before I told anyone what happened to me, but it took about three
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly didn't read a single thing I said or linked. So why even bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Waking up woman with foreplay is not the same a fucking a passed out drunk woman.
Yes. Both could be rape, both could not. Hence the word "potential". English law is a little complex on this point, but there are these things called "evidential presumptions about consent [legislation.gov.uk]"; basically, if the complainant is "asleep or otherwise unconscious" at the time, it is presumed that (s)he didn't consent "unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented."
Then there are some "conclusive presumptions about consent [legislation.gov.uk]", whereby if "the defendant intentionally deceived the c
Re:On extradition (Score:5, Interesting)
"Can we stop pretending that what he is accused of isn't rape"
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped, beaten, and dumped in an alleyway. And didn't throw parties next day to celebrate. Or tweet about how cool their rapist was. And certainly didn't get international police hunts organized to find/extradite their rapists.
The last thing I read, Julian Assange was accused of "Surprise Sex", punishable by a 750 Euro fine. Maybe the girl's stories have got more elaborate since then. Why wouldn't they? With no evidence it's just his word against theirs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Can we stop pretending that what he is accused of isn't rape"
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped, beaten, and dumped in an alleyway.
That's a bit of an insult to all the women who have definitely been raped after being drugged, and who were accused of making it up because they were not beaten and dumped in an alleyway.
Re: (Score:2)
BOTH women have retracted their claims, and admitted, they were pressed into it by government officials and a bit of jealousy.
Facts! They may be true, may not - I don't know. But that doesn't matter; what matters for the purpose of extradition is what he is *accused* of doing by the Swedish Prosecution Authority (not by the women involved). Yes, I think there's a chance this whole thing is politically motivated (which is kind of what the Supreme Court appeal was about) and there's some dodgy stuff going on, but the point I was trying to make was to dispel this idea that "sex with someone while lying about a condom" or "sex with so
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the Assange fanboy echo-chamber has jumped the shark with this one! Are aliens going to get involved next?
Re: (Score:3)
Pinochet was indicted for crimes against Spanish citizens. Just because you have a certain citizenship does not mean you cannot be prosecuted in other countries. Spain is not the only country that claims universal jurisdiction for some crimes; Italy, for example, prosecutes child molestation by its citizens in any country, and Norway prohibits buying sexual services anywhere in the world.
Also, "the opinion on the US doing it" is mostly influenced by kidnapping and torture by the CIA and other parts of the U
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Spanish citizens allegedly had been tortured and/or killed by Pinochet's regime..
Get some information before commenting on "group think"
Re: (Score:2)
Next time wear glasses.
Awww sheeit (Score:2)
Dayum it's on now! Da game is ON!
Too late (Score:2)
Assange has already lost the extradition case and violated his bail conditions, there is nothing this guy can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is. He can try to stop the USA from grabbing him if he goes to Sweden...
How is he going to do that? (Score:2)
How is he going to do that when Julian has fled his bail? Isn't Julian technically in another country right now since he is holed up in the embassy? Honestly, I think Julian has painted himself into a very small corner.
Re:mediawhoring (Score:4, Insightful)
In US, closest equivalent to Garzon would be Kenneth Starr or Spiro Agnew, or Lynne Stewart.
That doesn't speak very well of the US, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
well, it is what it is. all of the above believed that 'the end justifies the means' without regard to justice.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
well, it is what it is. all of the above believed that 'the end justifies the means' without regard to justice.
Yes, without regard to justice, as in, they were not seeking justice, but pursuing a political agenda, whereas this "superjudge" was doing the opposite. Thanks for making my point for me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Garzon has no credibility
What you mean is "Garzon didn't take a backhander from a corrupt legislature, so can no longer be a judge".
as he acted as political activist, not a judge
As any fool knows, an activist judge is someone who interprets the law in a way you do not like.
the best defense attorney for a mediawhore is another mediawhore
Well, it helps when the parties are celebrities. Your angry post proves this.
In US, closest equivalent to Garzon would be Kenneth Starr or Spiro Agnew, or Lynne Stewart.
I don't see why insulting the US is relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking Gloria Allred [wikipedia.org]. As soon as there is any case where there is even the chance of some media attention, she pops up 2 seconds later on every talk show that will let her on, claiming to represent the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
This is becoming more and more media circus. Garzon has no credibility, as he acted as political activist, not a judge.
Could you elaborate?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm referring to Pinochet case, obviously.
I hope the irony isn't lost on /. crowd of the fact that Garzon attempted to extradite Pinochet asserting "universal jurisdiction" for crimes that weren't prosecuted in Pinochet's home country. It isn't all that much of a stretch from Pinochet to Kim Dotcom or Assange.
My point is, let's be consistent. If Pinochet case was a good precedent, then Dotcom and Assange are in trouble. Otherwise, Garzon is talking with both sides of his mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers talk from both sides of their mouth all the time, sometimes even at the same time. It is very common for people to switch from prosecution to defense in the life of ones law career. Defense generally pays better.
Re:mediawhoring (Score:5, Interesting)
I see no duplicity in what he's doing:
* Pinochet was bad for humanity.
* The people trying to extradite Julian Assange are bad for humanity.
In both those cases he's fighting against the bad people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He is consistent. Universal jurisdiction does NOT apply to all crimes, only to a select few ones - and Pinochet has committed most of these crimes while Assange has not (and nobody accused him of doing so).
Re:mediawhoring (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't all that much of a stretch from Pinochet to Kim Dotcom
Let's see: one is accused of copyrights infringement, the other of murdering thousands.
Yeah, not much of a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Garzon (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to be against the idea of "nations" to believe Assange is not a traitor. To think he's a "traitor", you just have to be a stupid American who thinks US law and policy applies globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably too young to remember Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw, and Assange's work with Press TV and other agents of our enemies marks him out as the absolute worst of the worst.
Unless a lot of the /. readership is in their late 70's-early 80's or older, no one here is going to remember Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw-Haw, outside of historical references.
That aside, it's a specious comparison. Both Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw were propagandists working for specific governments in an attempt to demoralize soldiers and citizens. Assange is a free agent ostensibly working to create a method of exposure where governments and multi-national companies can no longer operate in the shadows.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you become a traitor by exposing inconvenient facts?
If that's the case, arguably, the governments which had their dirty laundry exposes were the traitors, since they're "free" and as such are not supposed to be doing all those things.
Or are you seriously arguing that, say, Blackwater supplying preteen boys for sexual slaves to Afghan warlords is somehow in the interest of the West at large, and anyone who exposes that scheme or complains about it is a "traitor"?
Re: (Score:3)
Or are you seriously arguing that, say, Blackwater supplying preteen boys for sexual slaves to Afghan warlords is somehow in the interest of the West at large, and anyone who exposes that scheme or complains about it is a "traitor"?
Yes, he is, and lots of Americans (most notably evangelical Christians) vocally believe this too.
Re: (Score:3)
Is he charged with rape?
You've been watching too much Fox News...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about a little stomach bug. I'm talking about the reason we have hospitals - serious stuff. Everyone ends up in the hospital sooner or later. We all hope for "later", but we can't control that. Is the Ecuadorian embassy supposed to transform itself into a surgical theatre and have a medical team waiting on standby for him?
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody ends up in hospital.
Doctors can go to the embassy, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think an embassy is equipped to save lives in remotely the same way as a hospital, you're sadly mistaken. And do you think doctors are just going to abandon a hospital and loot it's equipment to haul it down to the Ecuadorian embassy because some guy inside got sick? Even if a team of paramedics comes in - i.e., the best "mobile" medical care you can get - well, there's a reason paramedics take sick people to the hospital instead of trying to treat them themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's probably not a country on Earth who's cooperated more with the US on the whole secret-extradition thing than the UK. The UK even ran some of the operations. Sweden handed over two people who came to the country illegally (to apply for asylum). That's nothing compared to what the UK has done. And, under a european arrest warrant, to re-extradite him from Sweden would require the UK to approve the re-extradition request anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If he is afraid of extradition to the US, he would have a much better chance in Sweden then the UK.
Nope.
It's actually much easier for the US to get him if he's in Sweden: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]
In Sweden all they need is a flimsy excuse and they can 'borrow' him for questioning. Want to bet if they'll give him back or not...?
Re: (Score:2)
Scandinavians have never really felt the need to establish strong laws and maintaining them, the place is just to cosy 'I know you, you know me'.
And thus they would happily send Assange to the US because "they would just like us never do something bad to the man", forgetting that in the US lenient means 'no death penalty' and i
Re: (Score:2)
There's people in Guantanamo accused of the heinous crime of wearing the wrong sort of watch [wikipedia.org].
Decades of torture for...wearing a cheap Casio watch? Not just one or two people, either. Dozens of them.
Strong Laws Present! (Score:5, Informative)
What evidence do you have to support your rather strange claims about Scandinavian law? Your claims are not in line with books or scholars on the subject. What are your credentials?
As a Scandinavian lawyer I have to disagree with your frankly unfounded claims on the basis of our legal history. Our law is built on the foundations of both Roman (Code Civil) and German (BGB) law. If that's not solid and strong then nothing is! Most countries in the world have similar foundations - with the exception of the former British colonies and some Muslim countries (mixed).
In modern times our laws have absolutely been constantly maintained and expanded with new laws from both national, regional and European sources. You do realize all the Scandinavian countries are subject to both the Council of Europe and EU law (either directly or indirectly)? According to most ratings, reviews and analysis human rights are better protected in Scandinavia than in the UK or US.
You are either ignorant or lying when you claim that Sweden or any other Scandinavian country would extradite a person to the US more easily. The US has been denied their own citizens on the basis that even US prisons are not satisfactory in terms of human rights according to our courts! The threat of the death penalty means a whole lot more to civilized countries where it's already illegal. It's also illegal under our laws to extradite if there's even the slightest chance that he could receive capital punishment! I can refer you to countless cases and verdicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the USA always plays by the rules ... and there's been nothing corrupt about the process so far.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between kidnapping very public people in developed countries and making it all seem legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he lose his case and all the appeals?
Didn't SCO lose all of theirs as well, and we are still hearing about new SCO court rulings . . . ?
The judicial universe is kinda sorta like the real universe . . . it expands into itself.
Re: (Score:2)
That is at least partly to punish SCO's shysters. They agreed to represent SCO to the bitter end for some stock. Making it cost them lots and lots of money is a good thing, especially if you have staff Nazgul. The job isn't done until all the partners of this law firm are destitute.
Re: (Score:2)
He has the ability to take it to the European Court of Justice - although, him skipping bail and hiding in another countries Embassy might not go in his favour in that matter.
It's just a stunt anyhow (Score:2, Interesting)
There's nothing to represent. Assanage has lost his case, and all appeals. He is to be deported. Hence why he jumped bail (which means he screwed all his supporters who posted it, they don't get their money back) and is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy. This judge isn't going to accomplish shit. Either Ecuador will decide to grant him asylum or not, and if they do he'll either successfully get out of Britain or not. If the answer in either case is "not" he'll be deported to Sweden.
This judge is just pulling
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing to represent. Assanage has lost his case, and all appeals. He is to be deported.
He can represent him in Sweden and represent him against the USA when they try to grab him once he sets foot on Swedish soil.
Re: (Score:2)
If the USA wanted him, why wait till he was in Sweden?
It would almost certainly be easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden.
Hell, if the USA seriously wanted him, a drone strike is cheaper and quicker than an extradition request, even if he's hiding in the Ecuadoran Embassy....
Re: (Score:2)
It would almost certainly be easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden.
Nope [justice4assange.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Your link includes much speculation,and very little in the way of facts.
It also includes outdated information - Assange is NOT in his 597th day of house arrest (he never was under house arrest, he was simply required to wear that monitoring anklet) - he's in his 37th day on the lam from the law in the UK.
Useful hint for Mr. Assange - if you don't want people to think you're a criminal, don't break laws. And yes, jumping bail is a violation of the law.
Note that the rape accusations he may beat, likewise
Re: (Score:2)
Your link includes much speculation,and very little in the way of facts.
Presumably because all the facts are in sealed envelopes.
It also includes outdated information
They don't update it every single day just for you? That hardly makes the rest of it invalid. There's plenty of links/citations to the relevant documents. It's pretty clear that Sweden has an agreement where they can send Julian Assange to the USA for 'questioning' on any pretext the USA cares to invent. Once in the USA, all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as long as he's not a god damned toaster.
Re: (Score:3)