|Home » Industry Watch » The Technological
5½ Years of Marianne Ny
How does Tord manage it?
GOTHENBURG (Rixstep) — The following was sent by Marianne Ny to the Stockholm District Court on 17 May.
Åklagarmyndigheten ./. Julian Assange B 12885-10 (http://archive.is/MNIvz)
This is such a magnificent document that it needs more than a mere translation.
Note that Marianne Ny submits in a specific context.
- The UNWGAD ruling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, after 16 months of study, ruled on 5 February 2016 that Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained (and that's a very bad thing) by Marianne Ny (with support from the UK, Phillip Hammond et al) and the warrant involved should be immediately quashed; further: Julian Assange is entitled to compensation for years of illegal harassment at the hands of Marianne Ny and the UK.
Note this has nothing to do technically with Marianne Ny's 'case' - it simply says that Marianne Ny's way of going about things is in gross violation (of any number of things) which has been generally agreed by the public at large for some time. Most legal experts, including Sweden's new head of the Supreme Court, agree that Marianne Ny's 'case' - what there is of it anyway - is a right 'mess', but Marianne Ny is free to go about her 'business' as long as the warrant is first quashed.
- Weeks of waiting. As Sweden (and the UK) are expected to respect the rulings of the United Nations, time was given for Marianne Ny to get back, from her tropical holidays and shopping sprees, before getting down to the task at hand. As no response seemed forthcoming, Assange lawyers Per E Samuelson and Thomas Olsson ('PESTO') finally submitted a petition to the Stockholm District Court to help her 'get the lead out'. But there was potentially a contention there, as Marianne Ny previously said that the UNWGAD ruling 'changed nothing' - which is patently false. It changes everything. The implication that she feels that the UNWGAD's severe condemnation of her behaviour has no bearing - that's just mind-boggling.
- The PESTO submission. 23 March. This motion of course calls for the warrant to be quashed in accordance with the United Nations ruling, mentions Julian's deteriorating health, and argues as well that there was no 'probable cause' for the warrant in the first place. PESTO also call for the umpteenth time for Marianne Ny to fully disclose the contents of the SMS traffic which previous attorney Hurtig claimed makes the whole case 'moot'.
- Marianne Ny's response. Finally submitted a month later. It's cosigned by Ingrid Isgren, but understood to be Marianne Ny's work. A month is a long time when all Marianne Ny's doing is repeating her earlier blanket denials, totally ignoring the recent developments, and totally ignoring the world outside her window.
Marianne Ny of course challenges the submission of Assange's attorneys. And although she doesn't object to an actual court hearing, she says she cannot understand why on earth one would need one. But see below - for she again tosses a shed load of spanners in the works for due process in this regard.
Here's where Marianne Ny really gets into it.
The defence have, in their submission 23 March, stated that there have been recent developments which bring the exercise of proportionality in this case into a new light. They refer to Julian's deteriorating health, and to a 'report' from the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. In their most recent correspondence with the court on 9 May, they now add that the case has never had probable cause for a warrant.
We refer to earlier submissions of ours, foremost that of 13 April 2016, but also to our even earlier submissions from 23 September 2014 and 27 October 2014 in the Svea Court of Appeal, and to the submission of the Prosecutor-General 24 March 2015 to the Supreme Court.
As regards the claim that there not be probable cause, we add the following.
She's on a roll; why stop her?
The question, of whether there is probable cause that Julian Assange is guilty of lesser rape, has been tested on several occasions. The defence have had access, during the hearings, to the SMS traffic...
But not all of them, and absolutely not to study thoroughly, Marianne Ny. The only reason Per E Samuelson and Thomas Olsson have anything at all today is because they underwent memory coaching. As with Hurtig before them, they weren't allowed to make copies or take notes. Perhaps you remember you threatened Björn Hurtig with disbarment if he revealed anything at all? And you know why PESTO want the SMS traffic introduced in court - so it becomes a part of public record. They suspect you'll just destroy those messages otherwise, as they collapse your 'case'.
There are no new developments.
Probable cause, in our opinion, remains undiminished.
The ruling now requested must be therefore seen in the previous context.
You read it here, folks. What's the United Nations anyway?
Petition for Hearing
A detention hearing is supposed to give the district court sufficient information to arrive at a judgment on probable cause and proportionality. The ruling of the Supreme Court 11 May 2015, together with the written opinions of the parties, is sufficient to arrive at such a judgment.
But last year's supreme court ruling, Marianne Ny, was predicated on your finally agreeing to move your bureaucratic backside to London, as well as assurances from your boss, the Prosecutor-General, that you would in fact do so. That the Supreme Court overlooked the fact that you've ignored over thirty previous requests, and even repeatedly lied about your reasons, seems to have escaped those absent-minded justices, this despite the fact that the court's representative who collated the case wanted to stomp all over you.
Probable cause? Of what? When the country's most respected prosecutor already threw out the case? Are you stating she's incompetent, Marianne Ny? For there's no new evidence in the case, as your press rep Karin claimed. It's the same case, Marianne Ny, the same case for the past 5½ years.
But in the event the District Court should require a hearing, we propose the following dates: 19 May 2016, 26 May 2016, 30 May 2016, or 2 June 2016.
Note that the first generous suggestion is only two days after this response was sent to the court registrar...
Unfortunately we can't appear on the day suggested by the defence.
Somebody anticipates a tummy-ache again.