Shaking the Tree

A matter of ethics.

Get It Try It

OutoftheBlue

Marianne Ny could of course do something unethical - the question should instead be whether she is capable of being ethical. If Hurtig didn't know about the warrant, then he wasn't doing anything unethical. Perhaps Marianne didn't hesitate to fool Hurtig and then blame him. She is evil. No surprise that the current attorneys have been instructed to communicate only in black on white with the manipulative Marianne.

Groink!

I'd say the entire case is about a lack of ethics. My point is that Marianne knows that if she decides to issue that warrant, and Hurtig finds out, then she can't keep on negotiating with him. This means that if she issued that warrant 27 September, then this must have been kept from him, so she could keep on dealing with him the way she did until mid-October.

This is deeply unethical, but I don't see this proves anything, especially not in this case. (*)

If one analyses the situation, in particular Marianne Ny's situation, as well as the released FOIA correspondence, to see if this fits together with a warrant issued 27 September, then one sees that the pieces of the puzzle don't fit.

The first reason is obvious. A warrant will normally enter the national register, meaning it will be known by anyone who does a search. Specifically, it'd be impossible to keep one's colleagues in the investigation from knowing what happened. And if she didn't register the warrant, then she could have kept Gehlin in the dark for over two weeks, because we know, based on other communications, that the warrant wasn't discussed before 12 October. See Marianne Ny's SMS message from 18:53 12 October.

Then too, a warrant must be entered into the office journal.

So is it reasonable that Marianne Ny would conduct a shadow game with her own investigation group? Not reasonable, I'd say. There's an obvious risk someone would be upset with her, and there's nothing to gain by holding the others in the dark. If one wanted to keep the warrant secret from Hurtig, there's no good reason to keep it secret from Gehlin as well - particularly if she's been planning an ambush on Assange on 6 October, when one in all likelihood waited at the airport. And the matter about the warrant would have been discussed, as Gehlin absolutely would demand clear directives on how his people were to handle the situation. I don't believe Marianne Ny would have risked violating protocol in such as situation. See below under (*).

The conclusion is that, based on this material, the warrant has to have been backdated. Marianne Ny's ethics [or lack thereof] don't have to play a part.

(*) A more uncomfortable matter for Marianne Ny is if she's found to have deliberately lied, as this would have consequences for her, as both a jurist and a civil servant, something every jurist is aware of. So it's natural, for a jurist who lies, to see that it can't be proven (§ 2 criminal code). That's to say that one didn't know it was a lie. We've seen this pattern on a number of occasions in this case, where she has avoided answering questions so as to not reveal the truth.

Therefore I believe that the claim, that Marianne Ny informed Hurtig when she issued the warrant, is correct or close to correct. The warrant wasn't issued on 27 September.

Jostice

This theory is supported by her armourers in the forum who have devoted several pages to a fictional account of how one cannot be lying if it cannot be proven that one knew one was lying. I'm sure those who follow this forum know to whom I refer.

Using an anagram in one's account name is silly way to hide one's agenda. Send me a PM if you wonder who I'm talking about.

Shaking the Tree

I am convinced that there are many people working in many agencies who are involved. And I look forward to the day a real journalist (it'll almost have to be a foreign journalist) starts shaking the tree. Then we'll see what falls out.

There'll be lower echelon and middle echelon civil servants who'll be the scapegoats. So that Carl Bildt, Marianne Ny, and their friends sitting atop the dung heap don't get compromised.

But when these individuals, slated to be sacrificed, understand what's going on, then information will start leaking out. And who knows what else we'll find out about further abuses of the citizenry. Just wait.

Postscript: The FOIA Docs 19 October

Stefania Maurizi of l'Espresso pulled off the impossible, as shown in her publication 19 October. Sending FOIA requests to Great Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, she got precisely 'zip' back. But there seems to have been an 'angel for Assange' on duty in Marianne Ny's office the day the same request arrived.

http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it/pdf/ja-foia-files.pdf

Already on page 2 one sees what the fuss is all about. From Paul Close of the CPS to Marianne Ny 25 January 2011:

'My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview [Assange] in the UK... [The defence] would inevitably allege it was conclusive proof that the Swedish authorities had no case whatsoever against him...'

The 26-page (1.4 MB) document contains many more revealing tidbits, so much so that there's a growing consensus that Sweden's case against Assange has all but collapsed.

Naturally this news spread across the globe like wildfire, with hundreds of links in a few hours.

Yet in Sweden's walled duckpond, where the informational barriers to entry are so high, there's not one single mention found in almost three weeks.

Queries have been sent to leading news site and leading jurists, and not a one of them dared respond.

There are roughly 150 news websites in Sweden.

See Also
Justice4Assange.com
Assange Defence Fund
WikiLeaks: Support WikiLeaks
The Police Protocol (Translated)
Rixstep: JA/WL (Assange/WikiLeaks)
Rixstep: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed
Radsoft: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed