Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephens regarding Rape allegations - Polidicks

[img]http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1128694316/4cd7a702-1b01-4f1f-beee-09d7db0cd6fa.png[/img] [url=http://www.twitlonger.com/show/71l2t1]Source[/url] [release]On Thursday 18th November 2010, @wikileaks said: Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephens Finers Stephens Innocent [url]http://www.fsilaw.com[/url] LONDON, 1pm Thursday November 18, 2010 On the morning of 21 August 2010, my client, Julian Assange, read in the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen that there was a warrant out for his arrest relating to allegations of “rape” involving two Swedish women. However, even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape; as various media outlets have reported “the basis for the rape charge” purely seems to constitute a post-facto dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex days after the event. Both women have declared that they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other’s relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him. The warrant for his arrest was rightly withdrawn within 24 hours by Chief prosecutor Eva Finne, who found that there was no “reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Yet his name had already been deliberately and unlawfully disclosed to the press by Swedish authorities. The “rape” story was carried around the world and has caused Mr. Assange and his organization irreparable harm. Eva Finne’s decision to drop the “rape" investigation was reversed after the intervention of a political figure, Claes Borgstrom, who is now acting for the women. The case was given to a specific prosecutor, Marianne Ny. The only way the accused and his lawyers have been able to discover any substantive information regarding the investigation against him has been through the media Over the last three months, despite numerous demands, neither Mr. Assange, nor his legal counsel has received a single word in writing from the Swedish authorities relating to the allegations; a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must “be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”. The actions by the Swedish authorities constitute a blatant and deliberate disregard for his rights under the Convention. We are now concerned that prosecutor Marianne Ny intends to apply for an arrest warrant in an effort to have Mr. Assange forcibly taken to Sweden for preliminary questioning. Despite his right to silence, my client has repeatedly offered to be interviewed, first in Sweden, and then in the UK (including at the Swedish Embassy), either in person or by telephone, videoconferencing or email and he has also offered to make a sworn statement on affidavit. All of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate. Pursuing a warrant in this circumstance is entirely unnecessary and disproportionate. This action is in contravention both of European Conventions and makes a mockery of arrangements between Sweden and the United Kingdom designed to deal with just such situations. This behavior is not a prosecution, but a persecution. Before leaving Sweden Mr. Assange asked to be interviewed by the prosecution on several occasions in relation to the allegations, staying over a month in Stockholm, at considerable expense and despite many engagements elsewhere, in order to clear his name. Eventually the prosecution told his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig that he was free to leave the country, without interview, which he did. Our client has always maintained his innocence. The allegations against him are false and without basis. As a result of these false allegations and bizarre legal interpretations our client now has his name and reputation besmirched. Thousands of news articles and 3.6million web pages now contain his name and the word “rape”. Indeed, three out of four webpages that mention Mr. Assange’s name also now mention the word “rape”—a direct result of incompetent and malicious behavior by Swedish government prosecutors. My client is now in the extraordinary position that, despite his innocence, and despite never having been charged, and despite never receiving a single piece of paper about the allegations against him, one in ten Internet references to the word “rape” also include his name. Every day that this flawed investigation continues the damages to his reputation are compounded. Mark Stephens [/release] [editline]18th November 2010[/editline] Poor Assange :frown: :love:

Those assholes.

Everyone is out to get this guy.

I don't get why they are doing this. It's just making them seem worse.

Hooray for FBI agents posing as rape victims!

[QUOTE=geel9;26136399]Hooray for FBI agents posing as rape victims![/QUOTE] No one ever said federal agents were honest people...

Wasn't this rape allegation started by a tabloid in order to draw attention to the wrong place? Either way, it's all a lie.

It's kinda funny to think that one day, kids will be learning about Julian Assange in history books. I just hope it's a good, honest story. Not something making him out to be an unlawful tyrant or anything.

[QUOTE=rapperkid04;26136488]It's kinda funny to think that one day, kids will be learning about Julian Assange in history books. I just hope it's a good, honest story. Not something making him out to be an unlawful tyrant or anything.[/QUOTE] Sadly, he probably won't even be mentioned. And if he is, it will be two sentences claiming he is less than dirt. The government won't allow him to have credit, we know this. We have the carry his name on, we are the future of the truth.

[QUOTE=Bryanrocks0;26137358]Sadly, he probably won't even be mentioned. And if he is, it will be two sentences claiming he is less than dirt. The government won't allow him to have credit, we know this. We have the carry his name on, we are the future of the truth.[/QUOTE] Why? We remember Daniel Ellsberg as a good guy.

[QUOTE=smurfy;26137601]Why? We remember Daniel Ellsberg as a good guy.[/QUOTE] Only because the Nixon administration failed in killing/jailing him, and in turn made themselfs look like the bad guys.

[QUOTE=smurfy;26137601]Why? We remember Daniel Ellsberg as a good guy.[/QUOTE] He was not even mentioned during any of my History lessons, 'nor I doubt he will in the future. [I live in Finland] [editline]18th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26138003]Only because the Nixon administration failed in killing/jailing him, and in turn made themselfs look like the bad guys.[/QUOTE] They were.

Although I suppose if he had been killed he might've become a martyr and could still have been remembered as a good guy. [editline]18th November 2010[/editline] Broke my automerge :( And yes, they were

[QUOTE=faze;26136408]No one ever said federal agents were honest people...[/QUOTE] No one was implying that, dipshit.

[quote]Statement by Julian Assange's counsel Mark Stephens regarding Rape allegations[/quote] I read Rape Alligators. I was really confused for a second.

Why isn't this all being contained to one thread? Why make a new thread every time there is an update to the story?

Slander. How mature.

Incoming countersuit.

But Assange is a rapist he raped our freedoms and our liberties and our fliberties which are freedoms and liberties together and are very hard to rape but this MONSTER did it somehow