Assange lawyers’ links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder, Assange and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange’s defense.

Lucy Komisar

A US government lawyer in the Assange extradition case just wrote a London Times oped promoting the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Ben Brandon is one of five lawyers in a London network whose spokes link to convicted tax fraudster William Browder, the U.S. government, and to both sides of the extradition case against whistleblower publisher Julian Assange.

Here is how the British legal system works. Lawyers are either solicitors who work with clients or barristers who go to court in cases assigned by the solicitors. To share costs, barristers operate in chambers, which provide office space, including conference rooms and dining halls, clerks who receive and assign cases from solicitors, and other support staff. London has 210 chambers. There are not “partners” sharing profits, but members operate fraternally with each other.

Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange.

The law firm and chambers involved in the Browder-Assange stories are Mishcon de Reya, Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers.

Ben Brandon of Mishcon de Reya and Alex Bailin of Matrix Chambers co-authored an opinion article in The Times of London October 24, 2019 in which they repeated William Browder’s fabrications about the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.

The article aimed to promote the Magnitsky Act which builds a political wall against Russia. It is based on the fake claim that Magnitsky, the accountant who handled Browder’s tax evasion in Russia, was really a lawyer who exposed a government scam.

Except that is not true, there is no evidence for it, and the lies are documented here. But the Act has prevented the Russians from collecting about $100 million Browder owes in back taxes and illicit stock buys.

Brandon’s and Bailin’s connections are notable. Law firms, at least in the U.S., tend to stake out their commitments. Lawyers who represent unions do not represent companies fighting unions. It appears to be different in Britain, where legal chambers have members on either side of some cases.

Bailin is a member of Matrix Chambers, which was founded by the wife of Tony Blair, the former neocon Labor British Prime Minister.

He is solidly in the Browder camp. He represented Leonid Nevzlin, a major partner of Browder collaborator Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who according to filings with FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), paid $385,000 for Congress to adopt the Magnitsky Act which has been used by the U.S. as a weapon against the Russian government.

Nevzlin’s suit was for $50 billion against Russia for money allegedly lost by the nationalization of Yukos Oil. Yukos was obtained by Khodorkovsky in the mid-90s in one of then Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s rigged auctions. Khodorkovsky’s bank Menatep ran the auction.

He paid $309 million for a controlling 78 percent of the state company. Months later, Yukos traded on the Russian stock exchange at a market capitalization of $6 billion. Not surprising, after Yeltsin departed, the state wanted the stolen assets back.

To add insult to injury, Khodorkovsky laundered profits from Yukos through transfer-pricing and other scams.

Transfer pricing is when you sell products to a shell company at a fake low price, and the shell sells them on the world market at the real price, giving you the rake-off. It cheats tax authorities and minority shareholders. See how Khodorkovsky and Browder did this with Russian company Avisma, which Khodorkovsky also got through a rigged auction.

The Times oped co-author, Brandon of Mishcon de Reya, has a startling connection. The day after an extradition request targeting Julian Assange was signed by the UK home secretary, Brandon representing the U.S. government, formally opened the extradition case.

Now look at another Assange link. Mark Summers, who is representing Julian Assange is, along with Bailin, a member of Matrix Chambers.

But while he is Assange’s lawyer, Summers is acting for Assange’s persecutor, the U.S. government, in a major extradition case involving executives of Credit Suisse in 2013 making fake loans and getting kickbacks from Mozambique government officials.

Does Assange, or those who care about his interests, know he is part of chambers working for the U.S. government?

And where do you put this factoid? Alex Bailin is representing Andrew Pearse, one of the Credit Suisse bankers that the U.S. government, represented by Summers, is seeking to extradite!

But there’s chambers where two members are each supporting both Browder and Assange.

Geoffrey Robertson is founder of Doughty Street Chambers. He is also a longtime Browder / Magnitsky story promoter. He has pitched implementation of a Magnitsky Act in Australia and has served Browder in UK court.

In 2017 British legal actions surrounding an inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, he represented Browder, who claimed that the Russian, who died of a heart attack, was somehow a victim of Russian President Putin. Perepilichnyy had lost money in investments he was handling for clients and had to get out of town.

Needing support, he decamped to London and gave Browder documents relating to his client’s questionable bank transfers. He died after a jog, Browder claimed he was poisoned by a rare botanical substance, obviously ordered by Putin, but forensic tests found that untrue. Robertson accused local police of a cover-up.

He is a legal advisor to Assange and is regularly interviewed by international media about the case.

Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers also has a Browder connection. She is acting for Paul Radu a journalist and official of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which is being sued by an Azerbaijan MP. OCCRP is a Browder collaborator.

Browder admits in a deposition that OCCRP prepared documents he would give to the U.S. Justice Department to accuse the son of a Russian railway official of getting $1.9 million of $230 million defrauded from the Russian Treasury. The case was settled when the U.S. couldn’t prove the charge, and the target declined to spend more millions of dollars in his defense. OCCRP got the first Magnitsky Human Rights award, set up for Browder’s partners and acolytes.

Robinson is also the longest-serving member of Assange’s legal team. She acted for Assange in the Swedish extradition proceedings and in relation to Ecuador’s request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion proceedings on the right to asylum.

Why did Assange or his advisors choose lawyers associated with the interests of the U.S. government and Browder? Or how could those lawyers be so ignorant about the facts of Browder’s massive tax evasion and his Magnitsky story fabrications?

It raises questions about how they are handling the Assange defense.

The individuals cited were asked to respond to points made about them, but none did.

Here is my audio interview on this issue on Fault Lines, “The Avisma Scandal + The Link Between Browder & Assange.” The Browder-Assange part starts 13:20 minutes in.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Adrian @ J'Accuse

Doughty Streeter Amal Clooney joins such other colourful characters as Meghan McCain (yes, that McCain) and career conman Bill Browder in London this week (November 14, 2019) to hand out awards named after the accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, who, for years, engaged in criminal tax evasion and fraud with Browder et al – exploiting disabled people – an Afghan war veteran, a Chernobyl nuclear plant clean-up victim, people with mental disabilities and more – as part of their crimes.

You really can’t make this up.

John Gilberts
John Gilberts

So good to see this issue finally emerge. It has long been obvious that something funny has been going on with Assange’s defense team. Not only the Browder links and US State Dept asset Amal Clooney but even earlier. ‘Alan Dershowitz joins Julian Assange team’: Politico, Feb 2011. Julian is not only being tortured to death in Belmarsh in full view of the world, he is also being lawyered to death.


Looks like the UK justice system is mere bait & switch collusion & cartel corruption disguised as jurisprudence. I guess the robes & court regalia will be enough to ensure a fair trial & justice for journalist Assange.

History advises us to shoot all the lawyers first.


Petra Liverani

I have doubts Magnitsky died as reported. We see photos of him in a casket but could he simply be alive with his eyes closed or some other ruse used? Waxwork?

Like Perepilichnyy (comment below) we have different versions and if we accept the phenomenon that they always give us clues when they’re hoaxing us including different versions of the story this is quite something. Was Putin in on this himself somehow? It makes no sense to me.

BBC – within the same article!:
Mr Magnitsky died in prison in 2009 – allegedly after beatings – but Russia dropped an investigation into his death
Mr Magnitsky is said to have died of acute heart failure and toxic shock, caused by untreated pancreatitis.

The court declared that “by depriving” Magnitsky of “important medical care, the domestic authorities unreasonably put his life in danger.” As Magnitsky reported intensifying pain, the prison authorities confirmed that he had “moderately severe” pancreatitis and needed gall bladder surgery, but their failure to act in a timely fashion on the surgery “may well have contributed significantly to the death of” Magnitsky, the court concluded.

“The Court found in particular that the medical care given to Mr. Magnitsky in prison had been inadequate and had led to his death and that the subsequent investigation had been lacking. He had also been held in over-crowded conditions and had been ill-treated shortly before dying,” the ECHR said.

The Independent
He died in agony on 16 November 2009, following what appeared to be an internal organ rupture.

Visibly sick on the eve of his death, he was transferred to a prison with no medical facilities.
An investigation held under the auspices of then-president Dmitry Medvedev concluded he had been beaten by prison guards in his cell.

Daily Mail: From Bob Browder himself. Worth a read.


Dying ‘after’ being beaten isn’t the same as dying of being beaten. The language is loose but there’s not any contradiction. Their claim is Magnitsky was beaten and then died later of a neglected medical condition.

Of course this scenario is challenged by many.

Petra Liverani

The versions are considerably different regardless. The story of his death simply strikes me as unconvincing apart from the version issue. I have not read anything about Magnitsky till this article and didn’t know many challenged it. So if his death was a hoax does that not imply Putin was in on it?

Petra Liverani

On reflection, I’d like to clarify my response below and repeat yet again a point I keep trying to get through but somehow never can.

Firstly, I made no mention of “contradiction” in my comment so your response is a bit of a strawman.


Dying ‘after’ being beaten isn’t the same as dying of being beaten. The language is loose but there’s not any contradiction. Their claim is Magnitsky was beaten and then died later of a neglected medical condition.

Let’s just take my quote from the BBC. In my quote, what I should have done was put an ellipsis between the two references to death.

Mr Magnitsky died in prison in 2009 – allegedly after beatings – but Russia dropped an investigation into his death

… Further down the page …

Mr Magnitsky is said to have died of acute heart failure and toxic shock, caused by untreated pancreatitis.

So while there is not strictly a contradiction, I’m not sure if “loose” fits either or, at least, accidentally loose. Why would you present two references to death as self-contained units like that. Read by itself the first one certainly suggests the beatings were the cause and it’s not till further down that the alleged cause is given. You call this “loose”, as in, accidentally loose? And all the other instances of different reportings don’t strike you as odd?

My point, as you know, is that they TELL us with their sloppiness of reporting and other signs. When told to me by Ole Dammegard I didn’t have a second’s hesitation in accepting that they tell us because it explained so many things that had previously puzzled me such as the second plane’s nose cone popping out the other side of the South tower on 9/11 and Robbie Parker’s big smile as he walked to the microphone to give a 17-minute press conference the day after his 6 year-old daughter died at Sandy Hook. I also learnt that the telling of us has a name, “revelation of the method”. It’s a definite thing, a definite phenomenon but I see so very, very few people on this site picking up on it. I wonder if you do or whether you can accommodate every oddity in reporting whether a definite contradiction or some other oddity as explained as “loose” or in some other way? Do you accept the phenomenon of “revelation of the method”? If not, why not?

Supposedly, the power elite justify their hoaxing of us because of this very phenomenon. They think that by telling us it spares them karmic repercussions because they push the onus onto us to call them out. If we take on the phenomenon it provides us with a very handy analytic tool, no? and I think we should accept the challenge to call them out, don’t you?

Petra Liverani

I think it’s very sad that you don’t recognise the phenomenon of “revelation of the method”. I really do. Of course, you like most other people.

The power elite have generously exposed to us the weapon that they use against that we, when in possession of the knowledge of it, can use against them and yet we shun this power that they hand to us on a platter. We turn our heads from it, we explain their in-your-face nonsense away with “loose” reporting.

And – of course – the power elite know that we will do this. After all, they’ve been reporting in-your-face nonsense since at least the Great Fire of London in 1666 – and how well has the phenomenon of “revelation of the method” caught on among the plebs in 3 and a half centuries?

But when members of the power elite pass on their wisdom to those in their group, everyone pays attention. It’s just us plebs who don’t.


Browder embellished the story adding new lies with each telling. The beating up in his cell by a gang of thugs was a very late addition.

Adrian @ J'Accuse

Career conman Browder brings to mind the old saying heard on Wall Street/Bay Street etc. – Q: “How do you know when broker/promoter (fill-in-the-blank) is lying?” A: “His lips move.”

Very public, official, records, (eg. those collected in the Prevezon docket in US SDNY court), establish Sergei Magnitsky’s an accountant engaged in criminal deceptions/fraud together with Browder’s team for a decade before BB’s official myth of a whistle-blower is manufactured. That such simple due diligence is not reflected by the positions and statements of legal minds that now envelope Julian Assange tells us plenty.

This intro to matters, from my site, applies as well in this thread, as to the previous one in which it’s posted:

Criminal Case Number 153123

Before the Magnitsky myth is the reality.

In the 1990s, along with the arrival of legitimate operators, predatory capitalists invaded the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR 1922 – 1991) on missions pecuniary, political, and/or a mixture of both – “carpet-baggers from the West” in the words of David Cornwell (best known as novelist John le Carré). Among them one William Felix Browder, New Jersey, USA-born (23.04.1964) – a con-man who’d worked for the crooked UK+ ‘press baron’ Robert Maxwell until the 1991 death of the “Bouncing Czech” off his super-yacht, Lady Ghislaine.

(Maxwell purchased the Lady Ghislaine from the Emad Khashoggi family. Emad’s uncle, Saudi arms-dealer Adnan Khashoggi, earned notoriety globally via his association with BCCI – the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International known colloquially as the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals Intl.” Adnan made news in Canada in the 1980s when he endeavoured to cheat creditors by moving assets through Vancouver Stock Exhange-listed+ shell companies.)

In the wake of this curious death-at-sea in 1991, ex-Maxwell employee Bill Browder came under the “like gold” wings of a dubious mentor, the Lebanese-Brazilian banker Edmond J. Safra (mis-spelled as Edmund Saffra in the “black book” of convicted, notorious, sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein). Safra’s Republic National Bank of New York‘s associated with a number of dodgy Canadian stock deals of the 1980s and ’90s – among them: the fraudulent crustacean-trap-to-cellular-privacy share promotion, Cycomm International Inc. (chronicled on the next pages here); and a mid-‘90s mining stock play of Albert Applegath, (the huckster behind New Cinch Uranium Ltd. – Canada’s most notorious “salting” or false assaying scandal until gold-fraud Bre-X came along) – more on that deal should time allow. And, not to be left out, Safra’s RNBoNY served as Corporate Advisor to Bre-X Minerals Ltd. – the greatest fake-assay swindle in stock market history (cratering in 1997).

As detailed in subsequent pages on “J’Accuse News” site, for Browder’s it’s “like winning the lottery” when Edmond Safra (who died, under bizarre circumstances, from smoke-asphyxiation) and French-Israeli “diamond tycoon” Beny Steinmetz, (mired more recently in a massive bribery and money-laundering controversy in Guinea), bank-rolled an operation in Moscow, Hermitage Capital, with him up-front as CEO. Hermitage launched in 1996. (Following Safra’s mysterious 1999 demise RNBoNY’s sale to HSBC was completed – partnering the latter with Browder’s Hermitage team in Russia and offshore, incl. domestic “offshore”, locations.)

Encamped in Moscow, in a particularly callous, as well as lucrative scheme, Hermitage group companies for which Bill Browder served as General Director, and Sergei Magnitsky (alt. spellings Sergey, Magnitskiy) acted as Chief Accountant, for years ’employed’ disabled people – eg. a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster cleanup, an Afghan war veteran, and one challenged with a genetic disease and mental retardation – claiming them to be expert financial analysts ie. essentially props in a multi-million-dollar tax-fraud. Court found that Browder, Magnitsky and team were “wittingly aware that no work will be performed by the disabled people” and carried out their scheme “without creating jobsites for them”. Browder was responsible for filing these sham companies’ tax returns – which he duly signed.

continued @ J’Accuse News


Huzzah!Here’s a Lawyer for our times.

Sidney Powell.

I bet SHE doesn’t pronounce it as ‘Poll’…


There really was’ no there,there’.

The conspiracy revealed and who was in the room the day before Flynn was interviewed and false records presented. BANG.

They are toast.

The next link up the chain won’t be far behind.

Just as with the Epstein case and Miami Heralds lawyers role, I once again think the US system has more ‘leverage’. Maybe JA may get a fairer trial and representation there?


Presumably once Assange is extradited to the US. Are you suggesting that he should be? I thought the argument here is that he should not be extradited but should be freed instead and allowed to stay in the UK or leave of his own free will.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

It should be clear to all, in the absence of adequate UK Laws for Communications & Media ownership & control, especially constitutionally, it’s time for revision & change in UK Law, which was precisely where Lord Justice was headed, with his offer to Ms. May. (May stomped on that idea, immediately!)

Trump has an uncanny knack of forcing people to play their ‘hands’, whilst being entirely UNDIPLOMATIC about it. Think about it: whose fault is this ? The USA ??

No damn way ! You Brits. best get your lazy asses out of your worn out comfy chairs, especially Jeremy Corbyn. For Example: Make a huge national fuss, by doing a Citizen’s Arrest of Judge Arbuthnot, for NOT RECUSING HERSELF !

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Oh, and NEVER TRUST LAWYERS, logic !

They work for big money and can still lose a case, deliberately: and just like Doctors, try and find a Lawyer who will initiate a process against another Lawyer. Good luck with that, especially proving the Mens Rea . . .

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Correction Lord Justice LEVESON was headed


If this is true about Summers, working for both Assange and the US Government, then this is a “Conflict of Interest”, and it is in contravention of the Solicitors Accounts Rules. It is a very serious breach.



Petra Liverani

Not to mention he worked on the hoaxed, 9/11 and post-9/11 anthrax attacks.


Summers etc at the Matrix Chambers and Doughty Streets Chambers are not law firms. They are advocates that are self employed but share facilities. This both sides from same chambers of barristers is common. Not saying its good but it is as it is. The obvious confidentiality issue is just ignored by barrister profession. The SRA governs solicitors. These lawyers are barristers are not solicitors and are not governed by the SRA or members of the Law Soc. Barristers are governed by the Bar Standards Board. This is not a story just a comment on what goes on every day in the UK.


Cheers Fred, yes I read it through again and realised he is a barrister and not a solicitor. It would seem that solicitors are bound by more stringent conflict rules than “briefs”.

Adrian @ J'Accuse

As per your comment, serious reform is apparently needed. Julian Assange’s case is a good time to start – to ensure he’s being served in his own best interest and safety.

Some of the same players are subject of commentary regarding 2013+ conduct in Libyan matters as well eg. see Matrix Chambers’ Conflict of Interest with their Clients: Libya and Abdulla Senussi

This article says: “Matrix Chambers’ members represent BOTH sides of the same issue facing Libya at the ICC. Simultaneously, Matrix Chambers’ Philippe Sands and Michelle Butler represent Libya while Matrix Chambers’ Ben Emmerson represents Abdulla Senussi. As a result, Matrix lawyers have filed briefs before the ICC to both retain Abdulla Senussi on Libyan soil and to move him to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.” And “Leigh Day are the solicitors who have been managing the al-Saadi/Belhadj case. However, Leigh Day then “instructed“ lawyers from Matrix Chambers to advise them. These are Alex Bailin QC, Mark Summers and Alison Macdonald.”

Further, the article linked immediately above, states: “To the Libyan People: these are some of members of the law firm where YOUR money is paid so that they may represent YOU. As members in this Chambers which is a private limited with share capital company, all partners receives a percentage of all money paid for work in the office which is a sliding scale based on their number of shares.

Conflict of Interest. The ethical freedom permitted to UK barristers isn’t ethical, legal or acceptable in much of the world, and most notably, it isn’t acceptable in Libya. Considering the management committee’s choice to represent ALL these Libyan clients, one could argue, the pursuit of money and politics, not human rights was Matrix’s motivation. It seems that Matrix Chambers have blurred the lines of a conflict of interest in order to accept ALL their Libyan clients.”

From the article linked below, starting with a quote from The Guardian: “With the Senussi case active, Alamuddin will not be drawn on why she is defending a man many think deserves all he gets. One clue comes from fellow Doughty Street lawyer John Jones QC, who is defending Saif al-Islam: “Justice needs defence lawyers. The system only works if there’s robust advocacy on both sides.”

‘Robust advocacy’ is exactly what is happening as one law firm represent ALL participants in the case. As all these barristers and their corresponding staff operate within the same physical proximity, does the issue of a breach of confidentiality even raise an eyebrow? It did for us. For our understanding we did a short background of the UK Barrister System with respect to this issue. Review of UK Barrister System

Set aside that it may be legal in the UK, is it ethical? The ethical freedom permitted to UK barristers is not ethical, legal or acceptable in much of the world, and most notably for their Libyan clientele, it is not legal in Libya. Considering what seems to be their Management Committee’s choice to represent ALL these Libyan clients, one could speculate that the pursuit of money, fame and potential book deals NOT human rights was Doughty Street Chambers’ motivation. It seems that Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers have blurred the lines of a conflict of interest in order to accept ALL their Libyan clients.”

As evidence we offer this video that can attest to Matrix Chamber’s decision to represent within different cases BOTH Libyan victims of torture and THEIR Libyan torturer. This Tripoli TV video made on the 25th of January 2009, documents Matrix Client Abdulla Senussi intimidating and berating Matrix Client Sami al-Saadi and Matrix Client Abdel Hakim Belhadj by threatening ‘to have their throats slit’. Abdulla Senussi’s actions in this video are a violation of European Convention of Human Rights and the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 which Matrix Chambers, a human rights law firm, are well aware of the implication of his actions. Here, Here and Here. It is a violation of the essential rights protected by the Human Rights Act in Article 3: The Right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“…considering the threat of UN sanctions looming over Libya, we felt the need to re-emphasize the scandal of the TWO law firms hired to represent the best interests of the Libyan People. Unfortunately for Libya, it seems both Matrix Chambers’ and Doughty Street Chambers’ Management Committees chose to allow other lawyers within their respective firms to represent the opposing side while simultaneously representing Libya. Was this in the best interest of the Libyan People?



Doughty Street is entitled to complain about the behaviour of their competition, Matrix, although it seems surprising they don’t take these grave issues to the Bar Standards Board. However it needs repeating that a Chambers is a collection of self-employed individuals for administrative convenience, not a US-style law factory. Almost all of these comments should be directed to the relevant solicitors, not the barristers they instruct.


It might be, if he was a solicitor. He’s a barrister. Bar Handbook rule C21.3 Guidance:

“However, where there is a conflict of interest between an existing client or clients and a prospective client or clients or two or more prospective clients, you may be entitled to accept instructions or to continue to act on a particular matter where you have fully disclosed to the relevant clients and prospective clients (as appropriate) the extent and nature of the conflict; they have each provided their informed consent to you acting; and you are able to act in the best interests of each client and independently as required by CD2 and CD4.”

With respect, it is most unlikely that any barrister involved in a high profile case of this nature would not have met these requirements, since the hypothetical gain is trivial compared to the likelihood of being struck off.

Adrian @ J'Accuse

The Telegraph reports on a 2015 private dinner in the home of Doughty Street‘s Geoffrey Robertson at which the Magnitsky myth and sanctions against Russia are pitched to then-Labour-Party-leader Ed Miliband, and Doughty Street lawyer Amal Clooney and co.:
Revealed: Ed Miliband’s dinner with George and Amal Clooney

Today we find aforementioned Browder/Magnitsky touts Alex Bailin, QC (Matrix lawyer and “legal writer for The Guardian, The Times and The Lawyer – co-writer of the bogus FT Magnitsky column with Ben Brandon), and Geoffrey Robertson, QC (Doughty Street’s eminence grise), both on the Advisory Board of Amal Clooney’s “TrialWatch” (part of the Clooney “Foundation for Justice“): TrialWatch® Advisory Board


The tentacles of the deep state (no longer secret now) are clamping on our life so tightly that one would honestly wish that one of those extraterrestrial rocks would smash into this planet causing total annhilation –just in order to get rid of these psychopathic mongrels ruling over us.

I am not sure, though, fantasy could solve problems!


The Julian Assange stuff is just one of the final nails in the coffin of freedom and democracy.

Anyone who believes otherwise joins the club of the five-year-olds on LSD who presently rule us.

Five-year-olds (metaphorically speaking), I may add, who are all going to be held to account.

We are coming for you scum.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

How do we fight back? I have been trying to rally support for many years. It is virtually impossible to get people to respond to the call that we now live under fascist regimes. Many times I have given up only to become even more incensed with fury at the behaviour of the psychopaths running the show.
I cannot see a way out at the moment. How do we get these vermin to fear us let alone be taken down by us?


There is only ‘ONE WAY’, 99% of the global community must unite to defeat and eliminate the threat being imposed by the 1% (in reality the hardcore possibly only 0.001%).

This may seem an impossible task but it simply requires a communications/media strategy
capable of enabling people to join a ‘movement’ offering not only to defeat the ‘buggers’ but create a whole new Decentralized World Order as the antithesis to the Centralized World Order they’ve built to control, subjugate and eradicate us.

We need something for the future capable of completely eliminating a problem that has bedeviled humanity throughout history due to the pathology of the 1%.

Petra Liverani

Cassandra, it would be at least 1%, probably significantly more, if you include the collaborators – I think it’s worth including the collaborators as they play a significant role, though perhaps we’re all on the collaboration continuum to some degree.

A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.

When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.

​The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.

Dresden James


Petra, I agree, collaborators (many unwitting of the extremities of the end-game) possibly exceeds 10%.

The remaining 90%, as ably defined by your inclusion of Dresden James’s observation, highlights the principle problem of launching an effective counter attack.

Since 1946 the people have been subjected to a form of ‘mass conditioning’, on many fronts, using highly effective and proven scientific techniques applied 24/7 by an industrialized sized propaganda machine employing thousands.

This enterprise, which has expended 100’s of £billions, reflects the depth of their pockets, their malign intent and the power and influence of they possess to get away with it. I.E. why are our political represents not highlighting this gross perversion of social manipulation? (silly question)

Our only hope in regard to igniting public awareness and an active counter-response lies, I consider, in ‘THEM’ overplaying their hand. Technology, since the mid-seventies, has quickened the pace of their game. They perceive achieving their objective of ‘WORLD DOMINATION’ a given, given the inextricable suppleness of the communications web to entrap the social mind and control over it’s activities.

The construction of a social control matrix, as demonstrated by the Chinese ‘social credit system’ and under test in many other countries, must surely, at some time soon, awaken the public to the nature and danger of what is being built around them.

Reaching such a point is inevitable. But if the 90% suddenly became aware of the attack, like a gazelle about to be devoured by a lion, what can they do about it?


There is no avenue of escape. The system has been developed to prevent or identify decent. Resistance futile.

If awareness hits the 90% prior to reaching this juncture they will not only need a ‘RALLYING’ point to coordinate resistance but have a well established counter offensive strategy in place.

I will not elaborate, but simply reiterate Buckminster Fuller:

‘You never change things by fighting the existing order, To change something, you build a new model that makes the existing one OBSOLETE.’

This in essence encapsulates my strategy for world population survival.

Even without the threat of an EVIL psychopathic orientated cabal/sect/occult disorder breathing down humanities neck, the basic system we are living under is essentially OBSOLETE. The scope for building a whole new world, without EVIL attaining a controlling influence, is well within our capabilities.

90% does represents a majority.

Petra Liverani

I think the new model will probably happen organically when the massively deleterious effects of climate change very seriously afflict us. The bushfires in Australia at the moment are very, very scary. But we’re probably doomed regardless.


Interesting, your response demonstrates what we are up against – re: ‘When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.’ (Dresden James).

Climate change is a complete hoax and a scam.

Petra Liverani

I’m an evidence-based thinker, Cassandra, and what I’ve observed since I woke up 5 years ago after watching the must-see film JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick by Francis Richard Conolly is that very, very few people are purely evidence-based thinkers.

Most people are not ruthlessly evidence-based and will believe based on one or more of the categories below:
— most things said by authorities
— virtually nothing said by authorities
— what accords with their values and beliefs
— plausibility and implausibility
— incredulity
— what suits them or simply don’t care

If I come up against something which challenges my credulity I do not reject it but give time to come round to it while others I think reject it out of hand.

I know that anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax because the science explains quite clearly how it’s happening and the evidence is there. I just watched a program where firefighters were talking about how much worse fires have become in the past few years. The arguments I hear against climate change are simply ludicrous:
— climate change has always happened (as if climate scientists don’t know this – of course it has, the reasons have varied – the current one is us)
— CO2 is plant food (of course, it is just as iron is an essential element in the body – but at the right trace level)

I’m happy to read whatever you say to defend it being a hoax but these are my last words on the subject in this thread.


We can at least be thankful for your last eleven words.

For a ruthlessly evidence-based researcher your analytical certainly evokes Dresden James’s last observation:

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.

Don’t worry, everybody is highly susceptible to ‘brain washing’; it’s just depressing to realise how good they are at it.

Ignore the performers on stage – take a look behind the curtain. Who’s behind it? How far back has it all been planned? What is the outcome objective? Refer to UN Agenda 21 for starters.


They totally do fear us! Why else do ya think they go to so much trouble trying to deter us, delude us and discredit us. They think they’re losing the propaganda war. They just don’t want us to think so.

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

With respect they do not fear us in sufficient quantities to create change, at least not in the U.K. People fall like flies for the propaganda campaigns that will reduce many more to poverty or death in the event of a re-elected Tory regime.
People have their eyes wide bloody well shut, won’t see, can’t see.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

B.P. , respectfully bro. HRC is shitting herself and even Bill is distancing himself from her: there is no question that she has broken the Law, multiple times & in many ways, and should have received a jail-term, which is why she and her Deep State Fascist Corporate Governors flood the media market with Trolls, not just from the 77th Brigade & especially in OffG columns BTL. Even James Comey is thinking of joining Kim Dotcom in New Zealand.

If you then take into consideration the DNC’s choice of IT Guys, (the Awan brothers, one dead & one to go), who were physically removing servers, amongst other things, then the cumulative consequences start to compromise Every member of Congress & the Senate in fact, down to even their credit card numbers, being out ‘there’, at one point.

The cover up of collective governMENTAL inefficiency & corruptibility is such an indictment of bureaucratic inefficiency & corruption of legal principle, that nobody wishes to discuss publicly, though they must, in the end !
How was it all possible, FFS ? Zero background checks ? Well, due to such widely secreted sexual deviancy & depravity, especially by GCHQ, these questions were never going to be raised by the British, first: therefore, it can be argued that Trump is actually doing the British a favour and especially Gary Hoy: simply put, GCHQ and British Military intelligence must publicly own up and cough up to the fact that what they did to the likes of Gary Hoy, an Orphan child, was utterly …
D E S P I C A B L E ! Heads must roll and the history books must be re-written, that simple, no other way.


We have a corrupt and politicised “justice” system used for the purposes of intimidation and political persecution. Some people still believe in fairy stories like the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary.
What we are seeing now is no different from the Lula case in Brazil or any one of a thousand similar cases in authoritarian regimes. Upset the Deep State and you face selected targeted application of the law and the destruction of your life and future.


Unfortunately what we don’t get in Lucy Komisar’s article, perhaps because of the peculiar quirks of the legal system in Britain that may include a great deal of secrecy about how aspects of it operate, is how Julian Assange came to have such a dubious legal representation with its various connections to Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Who recommended Mishcon de Reya and other barristers to Assange and Wikileaks, and who is going to foot these barristers’ bills? Are there no other barristers specialising in human rights cases in Britain who can take on Assange’s case or was the case awarded to certain chambers in some kind of bidding arrangement or some other competitive arrangement?

BTW it’s not unusual for law firms in Britain and Australia to have clients whose interests may be opposed, ie a law firm can represent both a company and a trade union whose members may be employed by that company. What usually happens is that different teams of lawyers work for the two sides and the work of one team is separated from the other team by internal firewalls. The firewalls include physical separations: the teams may even work on different floors so as not to share copiers or other office equipment and lawyers in opposing teams may be discouraged from socialising with each other during lunch and coffee breaks. Sounds bizarre but this does happen.

R Heybroek
R Heybroek

With respect, you can’t judge British law by US standards. Barristers are briefed by solicitors, not individual clients, and associate primarily in areas of competence, e.g. criminal, corporate or tax law. In their specialisation, they generally follow the ‘cab rank’ principle and accept briefs from prosecution or defence as they arise. It’s a strength of the system, not a problem.

Whatever I may think of some of the barristers in Matrix or Doughty, it would be foolish to assume that everyone in a chambers shares the same political views or attitudes. They do not. They argue like cats and dogs, usually with considerable professional respect.

I see nothing dubious about the range of experience of Assange’s legal team. If his solicitor thinks a barrister has a conflict of interest, he will withdraw the brief. I’d suggest you direct your enquiries to the instructing solicitor.


Julian Assange was a dead man walking from the time he was taken (totally illegally) from the Ecuadorian embassy.

Just about all the Wikileaks team are now totally corrupted; and as this article points out, most of Assange’s legal team are also corrupted.

The alleged mental deterioration of Assange, combined with harsh (and totally unnecessary) prison conditions, might account for some of this.


But surely it’s odd that at the same time he is representing Julian Assange against the US government, Mark Summers is also acting for the United States government in another case in which three British-based Credit Suisse bankers are fighting extradition to the US on charges of security fraud and money laundering?

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

And lets not forget the independence of the judge has been called into question.

Apparently the judge (Emma Arbuthnot) is married to Lord James Norwich Arbuthnot, a Conservative peer. Lord Arbuthnot was a Tory MP for 28 years and was chair of the Defence Select Committee between 2005 and 2014. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI). And he is chair of the advisory board of the UK division of multinational defence manufacturer Thales.

It’s probably just a coincidence that a judge deeply enmeshed with Britains defence sector has been asked to preside over the case of a journalist who has demonstrated that the UK and US favour amoral foreign policies that offer wonderful profits for corporate shareholders, even the cost is invariably mass murder and wanton destruction of once beautiful towns and cities.

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

It is definitely no coincidence that Arbuthnot was chosen as presiding judge. Her husband has made a fortune out of armaments sales. She apparently from what I have read made no attempt whatsoever to hide her lack of impartiality.

R Heybroek
R Heybroek

Whether or not the judge(s) are biased is another matter. A conflict of interest would usually require that a judge recuse if their objectivity was called into question. But we don’t expect barristers to be impartial, we expect them to be as partial to our case as the law allows.


The feeling I get increasingly about the political world is one of unreality. It feels like the Truman Show. A piece of theatre whose performance of real life falls apart in close analysis.

Both sides of any alleged conflict are revealed as sharing friends, lawyers, social clubs. You get the feeling of a rep company going out drinking after the show, all pretend conflict put aside.

Is Julian even in that prison?Are Pilger and Murray just playing their own parts? Is this why they also don’t question the OBVIOUS anomalies?

I am starting to think we are duped way beyond our most ‘paranoid’ guess.

If Julian is real he is being used and let down even by his supposed supporters who clearly don’t give a toss about his wellbeing but just want him to suffer as some sort of symbol for their cause. So neither option here is good.

Petra Liverani

Julian is real – his physical and mental conditions are clear evidence.

His legal team is clearly indicated to be controlled opposition – if not all members at least some including Mark Summers.

The evidence shows Chelsea Manning is an intelligence asset and the Collateral Murder video is faked. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html

In my opinion, John Pilger is a gatekeeper who somehow blinds himself to obvious facts such as 9/11 being an inside job. In the case of Craig Murray he could be either controlled opposition – they’re capable of pushing out a lot of truth – or simply a gatekeeper like John Pilger.


Name one piece of hard evidence that JA is in that prison.

All we have is testimony from the very people you admit are probably controlled opposition. No one sees him in prison besides his lawyers and a few of the inner circle. All we know is he has appeared twice in court by video link (which is very abnormal and unexplained) and once apparently in person. Where he is the rest of the time is anyone’s guess.

There is something deeply wrong with this story. I suspect it is deeply deeply fake in some way, but I’m not sure in what way at this time.

Petra Liverani

When you say hard evidence I’m not sure what you expect. Obviously, lots of CCTV footage would show it but they’re not going to show us that. I lived next door to his father for 13 years and I know his demeanour indicates he’s pretty upset. As I say his obvious physical and mental state indicate it. My obsession is fakery and the two phenomena I’ve observed in every single instance without fail are that when they hoax us:

— they give us signs and they give us lots of signs for Chelsea and the Collateral Murder video

— they never fake any aspect so well that it can be used to defend their story.

They are scrupulous in this unlike the logic applied by their critics and believers.

Who knows? Perhaps they engineered it so Julian appeared in his motor cycle jacket to arouse suspicions.

There are simply no signs that I’ve seen to imply Julian’s fake and to expect hard evidence of the CCTV variety is unrealistic.

Tallulah, you might be interested in my page on the way they always TELL us loud and clear.


So no reason to think the Julian thing is fake

other than the fact Wikileaks was set up as a honeypot and has almost never produced any ‘leaks’ that seriously undermine the official story of the war on terror?

Or the fact his legal team seem to be playing at defending him rather than actually doing it

Or the fact he’s ‘supported’ by a bunch of B-list Hollywood celebs, washed up old journalists and ex-diplomats who seem more interested in using his name for self-promotion and establishing themselves as priests of the Church of Julian than making sure he has even basic amenities.

Seriously it’s turned into a weird pseudo-Christian death cult. These people go on all the time about how he’s gonna die in prison. But his lawyers do nothing. And his supporters don’t even complain about their inaction! It’s obvious the scenario is mapped out. They’re waiting for Julian to actually die – why, so they have a martyr? It’s majorly fucked up.

FYI I think his parents are likely genuine and not in the loop. Did you see Christine Assange’s tweet yesterday? Basically saying she doesn’t trust the people around her son.

It was deleted after about an hour.

Petra Liverani

Some supporters are making noises about his legal team. I think many others simply don’t follow that side and don’t understand it as I don’t myself but when I saw the 9/11 and post-9/11 hoaxes Mark Summers’ on CV I knew immediately he was controlled opposition. I’ve been trying to tell people for a few months now that Chelsea Manning is an agent and the Collateral Murder video is a fake and they simply won’t listen. It’s hard to know how seriously Wikileaks has been infiltrated which may explain lack of documents but I wouldn’t know.

Julian is not a fàke but he has made unwise decisions and trusted the wrong people.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Good lord, ‘what a surprise’, you’ve changed your tune again. Not long ago, you accused Assange, Manning, Snowden, Binney & Wiebe of being controlled opposition, (your standpoint being controlled opposition, imho). So,
what happened to change your mind about Assange and do you still think that Binney & Wiebe are controlled opposition ? or is our Flaxgirl Jury still out to lunch, waiting for a shave, on that score . . . ?

You’ve made unwise decisions and trusted the wrong people, clearly. But don’t let that bother you, just try answering the question for once.

Have you researched “Parallel Platforms”, yet … ?
Because, until you understand about the computerised side of Military Intelligence, you have ground zero chance of comprehending everything else and where the missing $$$Trillions$$$ disappeared, the evidence of which was to be found in WTC7 & have a wild guess in which Pentagon Wing …

R Heybroek
R Heybroek

No, it isn’t. Barristers are instructed by solicitors, not (as a rule) end user clients. It would be like saying your accountant couldn’t work on tax reports for clients who are business competitors. In fact, as clients we want barristers (and accountants) with the greatest knowledge and ability to go to bat for us.


But there is a possibility of a conflict of interest involved for Mark Summers in that he is acting for a client (Julian Assange) against another client (the United States government) in an extradition matter. The Bar Standards Board Handbook has this to say:

A barrister must not accept instructions to act in a particular matter if:

There is a conflict of interest between the barrister’s own personal interests and the interests of the prospective client in respect of the particular matter.

There is a conflict of interest between the prospective client and one or more of the barrister’s former or existing clients in respect of the particular matter, unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to the barrister acting in such circumstances.

Do we have any way of knowing if either Julian Assange or the US gave his/their informed consent to their respective solicitors or Mark Summers?

Adrian @ J'Accuse

Julian Assange is not so foolish as to be comfortable with his lawyer also representing the US gov. None of us should be. As for the US gov, they are in the catbird seat.

As for being enveloped by promoters of career conman, convicted tax-evader/fraudster, and US/UK state/intell ally Bill Browder and/or the Magnitsky hoax propaganda, no good’s to come of that, either.

In this court action, the most political of our time, these associations are wrong and should be eliminated.

Petra Liverani

I’m afraid Julian and his genuine supporters have simply been too trusting. I asked why Mark Summers was chosen and was told simply that it was on the recommendation of Gareth Peirce. All I did was take one look at his CV to know he was controlled opposition because it showed he’d worked on the hoaxes, 9/11 and the post-9/11 anthrax attacks.

Adrian @ J'Accuse

You raise a key question regarding Julian and informed consent – hopefully it will be answered.

Petra Liverani

You wouldn’t work in the legal profession by any chance?

Regardless of the system these people are dodgy. I knew Mark Summers was controlled opposition the moment I looked at his CV and saw he worked on the 9/11 and post-9/11 anthrax attacks hoaxes.




An important subsidiary question becomes, why aren’t any of his high profile champions asking these questions? John Pilger? Craig Murray?

They all bang on about stuff like ‘torture’ but never point out that his lawyers totally fail to address this pretty darn crucial issue.

Craig Murray says ‘Julian has great lawyers’. Really? If we step back and think for a minute, does it honestly look that way?

They can’t even get him out of solitary or into a lower security prison.

Shit, they can’t even get his mail delivered adequately or uphold his right to get regular legal visitation!

And yet no one, not even his parents, are complaining about these failures!

And who is running Wikileaks these days? Do we have any way of being sure they aren’t just a co-opted shell?

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

To be fair Pilger is one of the few real supporters of Julian along with a handful of musicians. His lone voice is not enough. I saw a clip of Pilger crying after the recent spectacle of a so called hearing. The presiding judge, The Honorary Upyourbottom should have been in the dock for perjury, fraud, lying before a court and crimes against humanity.


I’m a 2nd year law student and I can confirm that questions about the conduct of Assange’s defence are legion in my school. MNynpeople talking about the inexplicable lapses. Just s fee usdyes often discussed:

Why didn’t the defence take up the judge’s offer of bail application? To say ‘well they would lose’ is counter to the basics of juridprudence.

Why is there no complaint being lodged about his detention in a maximum security facility when he’s on remand – not serving a sentence – pending an extradition hearing?

Why don’t his lawyers lodge an appeal to the ECHR based on the testimony of the UN observers?

Why are his lawyers keeping such low media profiles?

It’s generally agreed something is very ‘off’ about this.

L Took
L Took

I think his lawyers stated that they were never offered a bail application, even though the judge claimed they had refused one. But I’m not sure; I had heard previous to this event that the lawyers would not ask because if they lost (the appeal?) Assange could be further punished for the loss. Is this accurate?

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Why don’t YOU go and perform a CITIZEN’S ARREST of that Judge Arbuthnot, for Not Recusing Herself ? Seriously, I studied law, too >>> just make sure you find the right police station, having researched by whom your accusations & charges will be processed, formally, i.e. there are good policemen out there, just believe me & in yourself.

Do I really have to haul my ass back to the UK and perform this simple step, on your behalf.
Where I am, is far more dangerous & complicated legally, within the most corrupted EU Justice system, where I’ve had to defy Judges and their threats, in Cyrillic . . .

Just do it, man, man up and kick ass …


It may be relevant that one of Assange’s barristers also represents the corporate psyop Extinction Rebellion!


Assange lawyers’ links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions

The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder, Assange and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange’s defense.

Assange lawyers’ links to US govt & Bill Browder raises only one question: What the?

I know it’s not comedy, because people get seriously hurt and killed as a result of the transformation of a more or less democratic government into a well organized criminal organization. Who better to run the courts, than the mob? Mob ‘Law’ enforcement included. So, organized crime owns everything. The big club. The biggest profits are made with stuff that was bought to blow up something. Or somebody. One could ask: ‘With links like these, who needs enemies?’ Anybody interfering into, or compromising the Mob execution of the owners’ plan, will be taken care of. Laws are written to owners’ demands and are quickly as needed in show trials.

The eloquence in describing what is happening right now – and in all other show trials – is comforting.

As it is more like ‘a gang of lawyers in revolving door roles in organized crime by Browder and US regime et al versus Julian Assange, providing Defense for Julian Assange in his case against the same people and the same regime.

I forgot where, but I have heard of such things before.

The World will have to understand that, without the immediate release of Julian Assange, no more rule of law exists on Earth. And to whomever has not connected the Assange affair with ‘pre-emptive incarceration’, might for a little longer enjoy playing outdoor chess on the deck of a sinking cruise ship.

Oh, and yes, the qualifier “six ways to/from Sunday” should also be mentioned as an exemplary business practice by the Mob regime. Actually, the Mob merged with the regime, with the regime belonging to the owners’ club.


Good to see another article on this, seen several people raising concerns about these associations in independent media over the last few months, though it’s no doubt one of those things that will never be ‘officially’ addressed. Many people with more knowledge than I have questioned the wisdom of certain decisions his legal team have made (or not, as the case may be) in recent proceedings. Craig Murray’s account of Julian’s recent court appearance reads like something you’d expect from a country with ‘the people’s democratic republic’ in the name.

On a tangentially related note, anybody reading this who has the impetus to write to Julian in support;

The ‘writetoJulian’ website which appears at to the top of Google’s search results for those who google how to go about such a thing, is either accidentally or deliberately (one can probably guess which) mis-advising its readers of the requirements. The website advises several times NOT to include Julian’s prisoner number on any correspondence sent to him, but I know from direct knowledge of communicating with the incarcerated that without the prisoner number your correspondence will be destroyed and neither you nor the receiver will be notified. I hate to think how many well meaning messages of support for Julian have been ‘legally’ destroyed without him seeing them as a result of this.

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

Do you know his prison number?


Ah, in a limited sliver of good news;
The aforementioned website seem to have cottoned on to their mistake after several people bringing it to their attention. They now advise you should include his number on all correspondence.

Mr Julian Assange
Prisoner #: A9379AY
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

Thank you. Really appreciate that piece of info.



Courtesy of (if I recall correctly) a BTL contributor on Craig Murray’s blog, I checked out the HMP Belmarsh website which, reassuringly, instructs:

If you do not know the prisoner’s prison number, please address the envelope [as above] with the prisoner’s date of birth next to his name.

But something which may get overlooked is that it is a requirement that any correspondent must include their own name and address on the back of the envelope, or else the letter will not be delivered to the prisoner.


L Took
L Took

Then mine has been destroyed.

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

Keep writing, do not let these c*nts stop you. Write weekly and don’t stop. It’s all we have at the moment when so few are aware of the travesty of lack of democracy and justice.

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

I have long suspected that Julian is not getting proper legal council. That his lawyers have not yet been able to get a proper hearing whilst he is left to rot in a maximum security prison is suspect in the extreme. The obvious Nazi style behaviour of the unlawful and fascist U.K. government and its lick spittle judiciary are apparent to all with absolutely no fight back from the excuse of a media nor indeed 99.9 percent of its compliant increasingly dumbed down and wilfully ignorant population.
What is obvious now to anyone with half an eye open is that the U.K. is now a rogue state where law and justice are meaningless, where bribery and corruption are common place. That Julian Assange is slowly dying in front of the whole world, will die without some kind of major intervention is a stain on every single aware English resident. Mind you with a population seemingly set to vote back in the same filthy vermin that have turned the country into the complete shithole it has become, it’s hardly surprising.
Does anybody know if Gareth Pierce is still involved in his case?

Petra Liverani

I know that Gareth Pierce recommended Mark Summers which raises a big question mark over her, doesn’t it?

Betrayed planet
Betrayed planet

Christ above, are there no decent lawyers out there to take on one of the biggest human rights abuses of our time? An abuse that will return to haunt us all.


It’s all a media show, though I am reasonably well convinced that the Julian Assange story is mostly true. He may well have in the past worked for one or other Intelligence Agencies, and maybe still does. It is highly suspicious, that he never told the truth about 9/11, and his appearance a couple of years ago, in a motor cycle jacket, after a 6 hours wait, gave me the distinct impression that he had just arrived on the back of a motorbike.

I mean why wear leathers???? It was a warm day, and he only had about 20 feet to walk if he had been there all the time. I know Pamela Anderson is an actress, but she looked very convincing to me, when she had just seen him banged up in Belmarsh. She was also very good on US TV.

I find it hard to believe, that the likes of Craig Murray and John Pilger have been duped, and he most certainly did spend some considerable time in the Ecuadorian Embassy. So even if he was formerly a spy, of which there is no proof, he could easily have been thrown under the bus, and the current story is completely true.

I think they are torturing him to death in Belmarsh Prison, and there is little if any chance of him going free, unless he is declared dead, which is a posibility. I am fairly convinced that some people have got away with it, and are still alive.

The reality doesn’t matter. Its what people think, that these evil bastards in control are concerned about.



For quite some time now, an odd possibility offers itself – theoretically.

Julian Assange is not the messenger. He is the message.

As a messenger, he is somewhat ineffective. He has not been able to
convince people that the need for an uprising against lawlessness
exists. That any form of government cannot work when the judiciary
is corrupt and that there is no justice in a society ruled over by a regime.

As a message however, he is in the eyes of masses of people. Probably a
majority of humans on Earth know who Julian Assange is. How many
know who he is, where he came from and what it was exactly he did,
before he published videos showing how well the ‘Support our Troops’
deserve was used up in the way it was intended, can only be a guess. Or
a dedicated team of statisticians to hold polls in every country.

So, the published material, that was also leaked by a whistle blower,
was proof of how deserving those soldiers were of our support – showing
them killing innocent human beings and ‘our Troops’ having the greatest
times of their lives doing it.

The message is simply:

Look, if we can do this to Assange, what do you think we will do to you
from Monday to Sunday – if you get any ideas?

No matter where you are. No matter who you are.

The only antidote to this insanity is the Truth and it be given its day(s) in court.
‘Justice Mondays’.




It is highly suspicious that he never told the truth about 9/11…

You presumably mean that he never reported the truth about 9/11. He has always stressed that the raison d’etre of WikiLeaks is to publish information supplied to the organisation by others, and only after its veracity has been checked and double-checked. If no one has given him information on 9/11 for the purposes of publication by WikiLeaks, it is not his job to go looking for it. And information based on ‘suspicion’ isn’t suitable for publication. If a whistleblower came to him with definitive evidence of an inside job or cover up that would be a different matter, but presumably that hasn’t happened.

2. Ref the motorcycle jacket, the documentary film ‘Risk’ which followed Julian’s activities over several years included his ‘bail skipping’ exploits. It specifically showed him in the lead up to the quest for asylum, and travelling at speed (and I was amazed that he survived the journey!) to the Ecuadorean Embassy on a motorbike. He was wearing a black leather jacket. This would have remained one of his, probably, relatively few items of clothing all the time he was in the Embassy.


We can’t have this sort of stuff. If there is no suffering of a remote, persecuted personality on which they can latch redirected behaviour, then people might start to think about the injustice in their day to day lives. God forbid, they might even do something about it.

John Thatcher
John Thatcher

Thank you for the article.