Assange's attorney: Swiss violating their reputation for banking secrecy; Assange contacted Scotland Yard about US action
english.ruvr.ru/2010/12/08/36470921.htmlPosted Dec 9, 2010, 8:39 AM UTC
539
english.ruvr.ru
As Mr Assange is an Australian, I belive he would have the right to request help from the Australian Consulate, then Gillard treasonus attitude of sucking up to foriegn countries (eg USA) would be shown up
5
John Robles: How can you properly prepare a case in one day? I don’t think that’s possible.
Mark Stevens: No, neither do I...
I think this is pretty telling that what they (governments) really want right now is for Mr. Assange to be kept in jail/quiet for the time being. We will really see if this is their motive if after the court hearing Assange is granted bail or not.
3
you bet:
John Robles: Are you kidding? You haven’t been allowed to see him yet?
Mark Stevens: No, I haven’t spoken with him or anything else.
3
It seems to me the entire Swedish case is just a decoy to distract Julian and his legal team while the US prosecutors build a case against WikiLeaks itself.
2
Even the most hard-up conservative judge would be forced to concede the United States has no jurisdiction to prosecute Assange for any crime.
3
I agree wholeheartedly
3
that may not be the issue, if Assange is deported to Sweden, then whilst he is in custody the Us can attempt to charge Assange with a crime, even if he is found of innocent of the rape case the US can invoke their bilateral agreements with Sweden in order to prosecute Assange in the US soil for that alleged crime.
It is still a worst case scenario, but it may become more likely if he is indeed extradited to Sweden by the British legal system.
2
Right, but any case against Assange will be thrown out in court almost instantly.
1
While I am sure Mr. Stephens (why does the article have his name misspelled?) is a good attorney, I'm beginning to wonder if Mr. Assange would have been better off hiring an international criminal atty. I'm not so sure this is being pushed to the extent it should be. It seems there has been a lot of "stand around and wait" involved in this case.
1
[deleted]
-2
Swiss Post is as much a bank as my hairdresser is one: both have no banking licence.
The Post is concerned mainly with letters and parcels, and as a service for domestic customers operates PostFinance, over which Swiss residents can transfer moneys to each other. This service stems from a time when not everyone had a bank account yet. It is true, that in time the number of services offered grew, but it never was the plan to admit non-residents to the system.
Why SwissFinance detected this just at this time remains an open question to me, but one thing is for sure: The lawyer made a very poor decision in opening a PostFinance account for non-resident Julian Assange.
Also, as far as I understand it, Mr Assange or someone on his behalf (with proper paperwork of course) just needs to say, where the money has to be transferred to. I don't doubt it'll be transferred the very same day.
Just thought this might shed a bit of light on that recurring Swiss Bank issue. On a side note, I closed my account anyway over this.
[deleted]
Your pathetic defense is transparent to anyone who has lived in a country with a similar postal service bank. Backed by the government, owned by the government, offering every service that banks do... considered banks by the governments, the press and the public.
Stop twisting in the wind... for all accounts and purposes it is a BANK!
EDIT: so you and your cronies don't get to downvote another post... You are a lazy sonofabitch aren't you... I write longer posts than your little diatribe before 5am. Try not to be too proud of your 200 word accomplishment.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The lawyers come, in general, over as not very clever. If Assange was my client, I would strongly advise him to accept extradition to Sweden. The chances for Sweden extraditing him to the US are much, much smaller than in UK.
Didn't you read the cable about Sweden becoming a "closet" NATO member?
No hint of this was available to the population, the gov just did what they wanted in secret, forming a partnership with the US which many see as a human-rights-violating warmonger state.
(I know the US is much more than just that, also doing many good things, and full of good people as well as crazies, but this is not untrue and is the view of many outside her borders)
I guess he's referring to the special extradition agreement in place between the UK and US (see the Enron case).
[deleted]