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.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Amal Clooney rode Assange’s coattails to a very profitable marriage that included becoming a top bundler for Hillary Clinton and best pals with the Obamas. Robinson rode in a boat with Bill Murray to the Clooney wedding. Amal uses the Magnitsky Act in every one of her cases (see: Nasheed in the Maldives, etc) and is ‘press freedom ambassador” to the UK. Explain why she has not been asked about much of anything.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
… Further down the page …
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?
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.
No, there is no evidence Magnitsky was beaten. His mother says he was neglected but never mentions a beating when she’s interviewed in Nekrasov’s film. The Moscow Public Utility Commission Report Browder cites mentions no beating. Nor do either of the two documents Browder links to on his Magnitsky website. This article is long but this stuff is covered in second half. https://aclearerpicture.net/2019/04/22/how-one-incredibly-unreliable-mans-preposterous-story-about-russia-just-might-get-us-all-killed/
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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 . . .
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.
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”.
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’S AMAL ALAMUDDIN, JOHN JONES AND WAYNE JORDASH & ALL THEIR LIBYAN CLIENTS
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.
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 very afraid.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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
— 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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:
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?
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.
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.
You raise a key question regarding Julian and informed consent – hopefully it will be answered.
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
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
London SE28 0EB
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:
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.
Then mine has been destroyed.
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.
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?
I know that Gareth Pierce recommended Mark Summers which raises a big question mark over her, doesn’t it?
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.
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.
Thank you for the article.
A fearless lawyer needs to come forward – a new Mansfield, Pearce or Khan – a modern Rumpole.
I wonder if Alexander Perepilichnyy’s death happened any which way – if indeed he was even a real person – there’s only two photos of him as far as I can tell and the feeling of reality about his is not strong – as the Japan Times says, “What we know of Perepilichnyy is slight.” Could he have just conveniently been invented and disappeared somehow? The story of him spending his last night with his 22 year-old mistress (the good old 22) in Paris, complaining about his dinner, vomiting and then having his wife the next day in London prepare his favourite food, sorrel soup, for lunch then going out jogging somehow doesn’t ring true and we see a typical anomaly of faked stories, different versions:
The Guardian: “was found outside his Surrey home”
The Atlantic: “He collapsed on Granville Road, within 100 meters of the house he was renting”
Japan Times: “Then, 50 meters from his home, he staggered into the road and died.”
Wikipedia: “[he] was found dead on the road by a neighbour” with a reference to a BBC story makes no mention of neighbour
BBC story: “[he] has been found dead near his home in Weybridge. … had collapsed on a road early on the evening”
Collapsed on a road? Wouldn’t you give the name of the road in a suburban area?
Same story in UK sports reporting…corrupt industries raking in cash for unprincipled wordsmithery…
Testing testing: if I say nothing, can my comment be posted?
Internet blockers are censoring me speaking truth unto power…
Don’t be so paranoid, or arrogant, you are not significant enough to be targeted for blocking.
I am though!
Not significant enough, you mean: finally we agree, crispy.
The defence team around Julian seems to be unfathomable at many levels.
My main concern has been over the unproved allegations of chemical torture made during his incarceration in Bellmarsh Prison.
Why has his defence team not asked for an independent medical assessment? Why have concerns not been raised with prison visitors who are allowed to investigate independently? https://www.imb.org.uk/independent-monitoring-boards/
Craig Murray who saw Julian on his last court appearance wrote of his condition….
……is it as a result of drugs used during interrogations, or is it down to mental trauma after what he has been through. Either way, his defence team and close friends need to up their game.
This article is not the first time that concerns have been raised in a worrying manner about the defence team around Julian…_
It is a standard Uk tactic to have someone try to beat you up then publicly say what a friend of yours they are.
Happened to me four times: I called the lot of them out on it, something which gets them on their faux high horses very quickly…
Amazing isn’t it, the way the legal system goes into hyperdrive pursuing those who expose war crimes while nonchantly turning a blind eye to those who commit them (no matter how high the body count).
Harder to find a more glaring example of the way hypocrisy defines the elite’s relationship with things like morality, fairness or decency, not least because no western politician has ever been held to account for the havoc they have unleashed (in any court prosecuting war crimes).
Ellen DeGeneres hi-fiving with George Bush.
British MPs pretending a courageous whistle blower is not being tortured to death just a few miles from parliament.
The one MP who did stand up for Assange has just been kicked out of Labour by the NEC.
They should at least have the courage to make public the names of those who voted for Chris Williamson’s expulsion.
Needless to say the MSM has fully sided with the criminals: first denigrating Julian Assange, then mocking his plight – this gave way to lies, and now silence.
The importance of Craig Murray’s analysis of the way the law has been used to destroy a journalist cannot be overtstated.
Put simply can anyone expect justice in Britain if their actions conflict with the ethos of the gangsters who control Britain’s economic, media and military interests?
We are actually approaching apartheid South Africa in that regard, namely contempt for legal due process. Not quite had the Met coppers beating Assange over the head like SA cops did to Steve Biko, but we are slowly getting there…
As climate change is to massive environmental destruction well beyond the single parameter of temperature (for only one example: essential-adjuvant-added glyphosate is one of a multitude of other examples with other parameters) so–in the case of Julian Assange and many overlooked others persecuted for tilling the same soil—war crimes are to massive, apparently unrelated depredations of the social fabric far beyond the physical destruction wrought by bombs and mortars.
Climate change and war crimes are easily identifiable rallying points of outrage that can externally fracture dissent as part of rendering that dissent powerless. Julian’s trials are not even primarily about the Iraq War Logs but about Wikileaks’ systematic, unrepentant, ongoing exposure of the icebergs of organised criminality of which war crimes represent one socially manipulable tip. Dissent which falls to rage over symptomatic headlines is futile even before the cause-explaining articles below them are perceived as substantive.
Human beings, I have been told, are an engineer’s most maleable element and there is no doubt that global warming is finally, as wars have been for aeons, clear and present dangers to humanity, either in part or as a whole, but to give the predatory propagandists promoting both in the cause of a wider oppression (in part by exploiting the soundbite instability of their targets’ rationality) a free pass for their well-prepared diversions and redirections by compliantly attributing a greater relevance to the tips of metaphorical icebergs than they over-all deserve, is to commit Collateral Murder of the communal mind and, thus, to vitiate the very basis of effective resistance.
The evidence shows that Collateral Murder was faked. These are phenomena to bear in mind:
— In order to infiltrate, intelligence agencies will push out things to show the power elite in a bad light. Does this make sense to you? Doesn’t sound too far out? After all, no one suffered any repercussions except Julian and allegedly Chelsea but the evidence for her shows otherwise. Obviously, if Chelsea feeds Wikileaks this very damning video with the little extra touch of it being encrypted it’s easy for her to have CREDIBILITY. Geddit? Also, they luuurve fooling us – you must never underestimate the satisfaction they get from that. This article shows that they’ve infiltrated legally so why not with the video?
— We are profiled according to our values and our tendencies to believe and they FEED us accordingly. Does this make sense to you? They feed us both lies that go against our values and beliefs which are easy to spot but they also feed us lies that accord with them – and we fall for those lies like lemmings. Make sense? They understand us better than we understand ourselves – after all they’ve been ruling us for millennia.
Just to add: they may well have real footage of soldiers killing civilians but they would never show that on MSM as they showed Collateral Murder on ABC’s Nightline. No way because when it’s real it looks different. It really is truly awful. When they fake while it might seem real in the way a Hollywood movie seems real there’s a “sanitised” effect.
I cannot find a single image of a real victim of a bombing any more. A couple of years ago I could: the difference between a real and fake victim are utterly worlds apart. To see a real victim is beyond distressing.
Interview by Juju Chang with Chelsea Manning which shows snippets of Collateral Murder
Q: What do you call 100 Lawyers, chained together, fixed firmly to a 10 ton block of concrete,
at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean ?
A: A good start .. .
How do you stop a lawyer from drowning?
Take your foot of his/her/it/?? head.
A waste off resources. Keep the chains and concrete for something useful, add another 10,000 laywers (total 10,100) to deep, inescapable pits in large clear cut areas of former rzinforest to rot down and fertilize regeneration. Q: What do you call that? A: Not yet half done.
Work in progress.
Coming soon ? Dependent on Bolsonaro’s Justice Minister getting a fair trial . . .
Can’t wait to read Glen GreenWald’s (forest) update 😉
3 weeks ago, Assange made a court appearance where he appeared tortured mentally and physically.
At the precise moment, Australian newspapers blacked out their front pages in protest against secrecy laws.
Are these two events related? Did the government(s) impose a blackout on Assange’s court appearance news? If yes, couldn’t news agencies break this blackout because it is clearly illegitimate to disregard the basic human rights of an individual suffer from extreme deprivation of basic rights such as communicating with others, as well as having space to move outside?
Wouldn’t be in the least surprised.
We don’t have any ‘Australian newspapers’ Uni.
What we have are advertising pamphlets for real estate, cars, investment services, trinkets and wine, with the occasional gossip column or political kiss arse piece.
Murdoch’s maggots have been feeding on the carcass of journalism for at least forty years.
… plus lots of fake stories, the latest one I noticed on Wednesday being a knife attack in St Peters. And who are its co-authors? Lucy Cormack and Josh Dye – whenever you see their names chances are, fake. Apart from the general implausibility, the generous signs of fakery they always provide us are capitalised below.
Did we also really need to know about the matriculation results of one of the victims and to know that the dead man’s neighbours came out in his defence, saying what a good fellow he’d been? On top of that, SMH readers are urged to reply directly to Josh Dye if they have information, rather than contact the police.
Why does the suspect’s Russian nationality need to be known?
That article is a very poor cut-n-paste job indeed.
Jen, there are issues wherever you look.
In the Channel 9 video, the reporter says Albert’s name as “Albert Mertledge” but then correctly says the “Metledge family”. Not hard to get it right both times, is it?
In the SMH, a witness says there is blood everywhere but we see no obvious blood on Antony when he is wheeled off in the Channel 9 video.
While the SMH says he “quickly fled the site by hitching a ride to Brighton-Le-Sands,” Channel 9 misspells the suburb and says:
“It’s believed he managed to organise a lift to Brighton Le Sands following the attack. Police have spoken with the driver, who is cooperating with the investigation.”
If they’ve already spoken to the driver why are they saying “believed”?
But the story will come and go in a trice cos guess what? The alleged guilty person, Vladimir Kondakov, was found dead in a park in Taren Point, no suspicious circumstances (second Channel 9 video).
Jen, is there anything you can defend the reality of this story with other than the media have presented it to us?
Thanks Fair dinkum for the excellent description of the Australian press. Advertising panphlets indeed!
Advertising pamphlets: understatement of the year. Australian newspapers are wall-2-wall sales catalogues. Take out the advertising and all you have left are traffic accident reports, Neighbourhood Watch stats and sports results.
Thanks for fine-tuning the definition of today’s press.
We need more like Fair dinkum and yourself!
Good on you for bringing this up.
As Willmers says below, nobody is allowed to question the wonderful superiority of the Home of the Brave, Land of the Free; hence its persecution of Truthers like Assange. Meanwhile, in the real world:
“Chinese President Xi Jinping six years ago launched New Silk Roads, now better known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the largest, most ambitious, pan-Eurasian infrastructure project of the 21st century.
Under the Trump administration, Belt and Road has been utterly demonized 24/7: a toxic cocktail of fear and doubt, with Beijing blamed for everything from plunging poor nations into a “debt trap” to evil designs of world domination.
Now finally comes … a joint project of the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation, in partnership with Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.
But compare it [Blue Dot] with what just happened this same week at the inauguration of the China International Import Expo in Shanghai. Xi : “To date, China has signed 197 documents on Belt and Road cooperation with 137 countries and 30 international organizations.” This is what Blue Dot is up against.
Blue Dot is merely a business extension of Uncle Scam’s wobbly Indo-Pacific-Imperial military alliance: the US, Japan, Australia and (hopefully) India. It’s a mirror image of the Obama regime’s defunct strategic “pivot to Asia.”
PS And a gossamer report from UN likewise drifts in a direction that shows which way the big winds are blowing round the world. UNGA routinely condemns Uncle $cam’s economic blockade of brave little Cuba, but this time by 187 to 3 — only U$A, I$rael and Brazil opposed. It seems the U$A has been abandoned by former super power allies: Marshal Islands, Virgin islands and Madagascar.
All the natives dancing around in grass skirts must have had a change of mind.
Maybe Uncle Sam was late with the glass beads to keep them happy.
US government = the Swamp, not Trump. Funded by the 1%, which Trump could do without because of his own billions. Swamp’s old candidate HRC has 100x more financial links to Russia than Trump never had.
Cleaner Dem. candidate Bloomberg has China’s blessings; might get Andre Vltchek’s soon too here….
I have read Browder’s book where he touches on the several ways the auctions were rigged and even makes a little mention of Khodorkovsky. Through various conversations with Russian emigrants I found out Khodorkovsky fed his bank with the IMF/BT/Enron money. People say he had his money from the Red Army but they only ‘guarded’ that money which was sent to Russia to take her over. Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Libanon, and even Chile – realities refuse to obey planning.
America cannot live without an enemy because the weapons industry would dry up. As Paul Warnke is quoted in a Gorbachev biography (Doder & Branson) now 25 years old. (Paul Warnke had been President Carter’s arms control chief):
“they cannot live without the Soviet threat. It’s been the dominant ruling element of their lives. If Gorbachev deprives them of an enemy, what can they do?”
Soviets gone, now Russia has inherited the enemy status and nobody is allowed to question the wonderful superiority of the US – for another little while. But the messenger Assange will, unfortunately, not fare well. He was early. We owe him.
The US-1% doesn’t want to switch to China as an enemy because half of them make too much profit of it: prime example is Micheal Bloomberg, new canidate for… the Democrats who recently publicly defended President… Xi Jinping.
Actual American freedom fighters could start blowing up US arms factories. That might break the logjam if they blew up a critical number of them…
Less inhumane than blowing up Californian dams, you know…..
No blowing up. That will only harden the other side – it’s below the belt and will harm the cause.
Don’t let them use you – don’t enlist.
It is prime season in Australia to rope in your youngsters. They talk of an F-35 as a Ferrari; arrange to blind the kids with dazzling tech on open days. They will at some stage understand that people do not want all that war kit when currently we have 600 submariners and nobody knows how to rope in 900 more for new boats. We want housing, and health, and …… bread and butter issues.
Germany and Britain also have recruitment problems – let’s exacerbate these. It’s slow, painful, and even expensive to let them make all these superfluous killing tools – but this must be our way.
Mischon de Reya along with quite a few London law firms have been exposed in the past for trampling over the law and the rights of parties on the receiving end of their litigation.
I will never forget this case. Sadly rather typical in its day – poor judgement and quite possibly blinded by greed in pursuing cases that had absolutely merit.
It would be no surprise to see them on the wrong side over this.
Thank you, Lucy!
I said Mark Summers was controlled opposition myself knowing nothing of the connections above but it only took a look at his CV showing he worked on the transnational hoaxes, 9/11 and the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, to know that he was.