Swedish version of FOIA reveal prosecutor in the case against Assange.
Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny seems to deliberately used false claims in European Arrest Warrant (EAW) against Assange. Documents revealed by Swedish "FOIA" laws shows that prosecuter Marianne Ny herself was in doubt that Assange ever will be prosecuted even if he arrive to Sweden. Despite that knowledge she issued an EAW on misleading claims. Marianne Ny wrote Nov 25th 2010 in a statement for Swedish court:
"The operation to decide a detention order for Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution".The word possible is very important since UK Extradition Act 2003 states that "warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition .. for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence."
Despite written doubts to Swedish court if Assange ever will be prosecuted in Sweden did Marianne Ny write one week later, Dec 2nd 2010 to the UK court:
" I request that the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order"That is written by her despite Assange acccording to Swedish law not under a criminal prosecution, not to executing a custodial sentence, but according to Swedish law and Marianne Ny under the status of a detention order in absence. The two first reasons are in this case not valid. Why even mention it if it is not valid in this case?
Marianne Ny was aware that doubtful prosecution is not a valid reason for a court in UK to approve a EAW. It is in fact against the UK law to approve a extradition if the purpose is not to prosecute according to UK Extradition Act.
Marianne Ny seems to deliberately used the exact words from UK Extradition Act needed to mislead UK courts to belive a prosecution where in pipeline and therefore approve her EAW. This despite Swedish court and herself was well informed that prosecution of Assange was very doubtful.
Of the three reasons in her sentence " I request that the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for (a) the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or
(b) executing a custodial sentence or
(c) detention order"
was only the (c) valid and that alone was not a valid reason to approve a EAW in UK.
Is that the reason why Marianne NY do not dare to visit UK and interrogate Assange? She might end up being prosecuted for misleading UK courts due to released documents. That would be an irony worthy this saga.
Link to Marianne NY "FOIA" document mostly in Swedish http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09...0903171025.pdf
Excuse my rusty English
Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39438156
All Flashbackers are translated from the original flashback post via google, these flashbacks are collected from twits, links to the original legal documents appear on the original flashbacks. Note that the broken links on my posts do not copy across neatly follow the original flashers please.
The truth comes out NOW...!