FLASHBACKERS... 21 Sep'12 part 1

Flashback:
Black on white that Marianne Ny was lying to the UK justice system https://www.flashback.org/sp39430279 #Assange

FB/longbow4y

UK extraditon act says extradition from the UK shall be according to at least one of the conditions a or b are met:



"Extradition Act 2003

--- (a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, and

(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence."

JA is not formally accused so condition

(a) falls entirely.

For condition

(b):

Compare with what MN says to Svea Court of Appeal November 25, 2010:  
"The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution"

Och i EAW den 2 dec 2010 skriver MN att "This warrant has been issued by a competent authority. 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”

The purpose of the request as MN confided to the Svea Court of Appeal is therefore, according to the written decision specifically designed to interrogate YES and after that make a decision on prosecution. The UK says she EAW that the aim is to prosecute YES or enforce custody or request. But the latter two reasons are not in themselves adequate reasons extradition under UK law, if not the first reason "Purposes of Conducting a criminal prosecution" is fulfilled. That is, the decision to prosecute is taken. And it's not as MNs own submission to the Court of Appeal.

Here she lurks British court by insidious use of the phrase "Purposes of Conducting a criminal prosecution" and a small "s" in the EAW. She has not decided on the prosecution, the only thing she leans against the warrant under Swedish law, "executing a custodial sentence". In accordance with Swedish law requires only one warrant to issue an EAW. However, it is not in itself no adequate reasons in the UK to grant an EAW if the prosecution's purpose.

"purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order" provides light perception sentence that the aim is that proceedings must be. But it is not given in the pleading of MNs own to the Svea Court of Appeal. It is therefore impossible for the MN to argue that the purpose is to prosecute YES without being lied to either the Court of Appeal or the Court in the UK.

Reasons to downplay the possible prosecution to the Court of Appeal was that there is no case that holds. Should the Court of Appeal sitting in and actually read hapm nobody would arrest granted. Now it was hidden in another recital and both dishes endeavored not even read hapm. Absolutely pitiful. I believe that the district court and court of appeal has a heavy responsibility in this soup.

The reason to run with "the purpose is to prosecute" in the text of the UK was that it required the EAW in the UK. They were simply forced to write that way for issuing an EAW to be treated in the UK.

Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39430279

~~~~~***~~~~~

Submitted by FB/: trenterx

Citat:

Originally Posted by FB/ longbow4y
Sid 3 från http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09...0903171025.pdf
Marrianne New writes to the Svea Court of Appeal:

"The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution"

British court has been told that YES (JA) is sought with the help of EAW to be prosecuted.

Small but very important difference.

This suggests that New lied to not just one but several British courts. Wonder if she not venture to UK. She may be afraid to face the railing there?

Edit: Thanks for the carpet!



Marianne Ny in emails to Bjorn Hurtig den 8 March 2011. In response to Hurtigs request to get all the documents in the case, she writes:

"The right to a transcript of the preliminary investigation arises when the prosecution decided (see RB 21: .23)."

By refusing to interview in London requires the prosecutor never decide whether she will prosecute or not to prosecute. Therefore, she needs to never show his cards, that investigation protocol. Meanwhile, the Swedish prosecutor pushed in British courts to EAW can be issued, therefore, that a clear intention that the hearing will be followed by prosecution.

Prosecutor talking with double tongues. She runs an elaborate tactics around the prosecution issue for simultaneous call for Assange international and deny the defense the information they rightfully should have, that the preliminary investigation.

Marianne Ny is manifestly unfit to continue as prosecutor in this case. High time to replace her. And what is it really for the new that is in the preliminary investigation as Hurtig not get to see?

Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39430267

~~~~~***~~~~~

Submitted by FB/: Theron

Citat:

Originally Posted by O.s.a.

That's "only" asking CRUDE about Marianne Ny's statement can be considered in line with the ECHR and Swedish law, and if not, what steps Prosecutor intends to take. If RAW responds that it is ok, so splashing the crap even on RAW if there is a complaint and conviction. If RAW answer no, you must CRUDE act against New.

MN's behavior in the case of Assange is not unique in Sweden in any way, to methodically put the ECHR rules of the game.


right of everyone to

life

personal freedom

justice and legal

respect for private and domestic life, home and correspondence

freedom of thought, conscience and religion

assembly and freedom of association

to marry and found a family

remedy for any breach of the rights and freedoms

prohibition on any exposed

Torture and inhuman treatment

slavery or forced labor

them to punishment unlawfully and against retroactive criminal convictions discrimination


One need not devote much time to using the internet to find numerous examples of clear foul. It is enough just minutes. But, who has the energy and financial resources enough to be able to accuse Sweden for breach of the European Convention when Julian Assange has barely there?

To consistently remove protection for the weakest in society are completely in Reinfeldt's line. Consequently, I wonder in what consists the system error?

Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39428900

 ~~~~~***~~~~~

Submitted by FB/ bengtlisa

Originally Posted by O.s.a. Does that mean that the prosecutor under the European Convention would put Assange material at the address she knows he's on, or to his legal representative in Sweden, whether she got him in for questioning or not? (Just because she confirms the charges against him)

European Convention gives no details of how the legal process will be implemented, but it is quite clear that the information must reach the accused in any way.

But what is the purpose of the writing of the ECHR? I understand that it is a protection to entrap the suspect by surprise and shock with various accusations at the "right time" in order to get him to say too much or react in any way that undermines his credibility before the court. The accused must simply have the right to defend themselves in a rational way.

But we will of course remember this quote (from http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/ass...ut-silbersky):

Citat:

– When to hear someone must know exactly and have a clear strategy of what to ask about and what will happen after the hearing. To call someone in for questioning on suspicion of crimes that just possibly might lead to the arrest or detention is rarely the right strategy, says Marianne Ny.

What can New imply that a strategy is "right"? It is easy to interpret her attitude as she believes it is her main task is to bring about a conviction and that she consciously counteract precisely right under Article 6 3 a). It is in such cases not just a formality, but a deliberate violation of the spirit of the Convention.

Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39427592

 ~~~~~***~~~~~

Submitted by FB/: longbow4y

Page 3 from http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09...0903171025.pdf Marrianne New writes to the Svea Court of Appeal: "The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution"

British court has been told that YES(JA) is sought with the help of EAW to be prosecuted.

Small but very important difference.

This suggests that New lied to not just one but several British courts. Wonder if she not venture to UK. She may be afraid to face the railing there?

Edit: Thanks for the carpet!

Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39426658

~~~~~***~~~~~

FB/Medlem

Page 3 from http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09...0903171025.pdf
Marrianne New writes to the Svea Court of Appeal:
"The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution"

British court has been told that YES (JA) is sought with the help of EAW to be prosecuted.

Small but very important difference.

This suggests that New lied to not just one but several British courts. Wonder if she not venture to UK. She may be afraid to face the railing there?
__________
Edit: Thanks for the carpet!
Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39426658

~~~~~***~~~~~

Page 3 from http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09...0903171025.pdf
Marrianne New writes to the Svea Court of Appeal:
"The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution"

British court has been told that YES is sought with the help of EAW to be prosecuted.

Small but very important difference.

This suggests that New lied to not just one but several British courts. Wonder if she not venture to UK. She may be afraid to face the railing there?



Edit: Tack undermattan!
Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39426658

~~~~~***~~~~~

Rixstep News ‏@rixstepnews

Flashback:
A read of yesterday's new FOIA releases, looks like Marianne Ny def had a hidden agenda: https://www.flashback.org/sp39425408 #Assange

FB/Theron

Citat:

Originally Posted by alamos

... Citat: As regards the nature 6 p 3 will Assange, in a language he understands, to get some of the meaning and cause of the accusation as soon interrogation can be with him, he will be given time to prepare his defense and public defender is appointed.

Is not this a bit weird? Should not get that material before a date for the hearing is yet confirmed. Granted the words EAW before Assange had to take part of the accusation, and he still has not got to do that?

Feel as if an arrest is nailed no matter what transpires during interrogation with Assange. Mrs. chief prosecutor Ny is a hidden agenda.

Original flash: https://www.flashback.org/sp39425408

 

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...!