About | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Products | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Home » Industry WatchThe Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)

Shaking the Tree

A matter of ethics.


Buy 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.

I'm so sick of it all. Will it never end? At any rate I want to say the other girl's just as much to blame.
 - Anna Ardin

Apparently Swedish laws are unique. If you have a penis you're half a rapist before you even get through customs.
 - Scott Adams

If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade. If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.
 - Björn Hurtig

I can tell you that the Swedish prosecution still hasn't provided copies of those SMS texts that have been referred to. Those texts are some of the most powerful exculpatory evidence. In Australia prosecutors have a very grave duty to disclose such evidence to courts when seeking the grave exercise of a court's power against an individual. Yet in Sweden in this case, in the first hearings to obtain an arrest warrant, those texts were not submitted to the Swedish court, which is highly improper.
 - James Catlin

The prosecutor could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange's trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn't exist at the time he allegedly committed it. She would need to. There is no precedent for this. The Swedes are making it up as they go along.
 - James Catlin

Julian Assange will surely learn that considering what WikiLeaks has published, he's got a few enemies in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House. Sweden began an investigation into rape which was later dismissed. Assange was even denied residence in Sweden. One can only speculate to what extent the security agencies of the US were involved. And considering the obvious interest of the US to silence WikiLeaks, is it likely Assange will have an accident of the 'Boston brakes' kind in the coming years? Or will he be snared with compromising information of the 'honey trap' kind?
 - 'Drozd' at Flashback 23 October 2010

The truth will out, the truth wins out. Let no journalist ever again speculate into what the protocols say. Six months of digging and the people at Flashback have the actual documents. The sleaze printed by rags such as the Daily Mail, Sweden's Aftonbladet and Expressen, and perhaps above all the toxic Nick Davies of the Guardian, can stand no more. Yet more: these documents are an indictment of the 'news organisations' who've printed deliberate inaccuracies all along or even worse: refused to print anything at all. Nick Davies' account of the protocols was maliciously skewed; both Aftonbladet and Expressen had copies early on and printed nothing. Bloggers had copies but arrogantly kept the information to their Smeagol selves.
 - The Assange Police Protocol: Translator's Note

About | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Products | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Copyright © Rixstep. All rights reserved.