Assange day two part 2 double criminality mishap elements may ultimately one of the isues montgomery that

matters (storysearcher hands DVD to assange from australian filmmaker who explained to me that assange had revealed the docs showing lies of UK child protection case which split up children unfairly from their father back in july 2010 b4 he ws so famed in UK) as waiting to go in, beside assange within evesdrop to his 66 north iceland bodyguards) 66north energy company? No iceland. security iceland air over (with iron maiden propaganda final frontier advert on outside and 66 north advert inside) bumpy say g4s is wackenhut which is guantanamo g4s was on iron maiden in norway norway has a lot of human trafficking if we could get g4s on it then we'd be done let joseph know john andrews the security guard was grabbing my arm and disrupted my minutes downstairs guards told I do not want to be meddled with again, I do not want my arm groped that he touched the backs of three girls get front seat in gallery on rt side MINUTES 2pm 12 july 2011 in five minutes time courts just look at conduct

bad luck commonwealth system way to achieve that requiring criminal parliament in 1989 legislative commission rejection jury accts analyzing events analyzing style simply recognizing may not that judge 2 mental ingredient no ct has addressed the proposition morris may fail formalisticcomplain of morris sherman act the only cognate of british law quiet business cts can fail what the americans say how americans can infer illustrative of the exception this is how they say the terminologyjust the issue of the court has no jurisdiction charge where no montg: point made based on swedish bjorn hurtig relied in sweden coersion not consenting the position is

so far as the framework is concerned so far as the analysis is concerned it is made explicit the position is that that has gone off for the cart for develos galaxy this meant that plan by disposed plan euro ct held on the contrary

for dual crim to diappear in their generic form in their opinion a matter only for the issue authority I cite it but also so can I just pick up whereabouts pick up this due to framework catch defenses nothing to suggest that it is criminal that the concept of rape is diff in sweden UK montGOMERYif so I ask forensically so what the reasoning of the court ireland you cannot untick a box 22

the deense there is no requirement for double criminality if applicable tic more or one to an exception you cant tick it rape and cause judge: I think this is part of your oerall solution mont: any imperfection perceived will allow access to the files satisfactory must take the first step the intention is to protect the rts of the defense

it ceases to be extradition in any true sense of the word (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) accusation and purpose of the accusation accusation and EC child rts concept consistent to facilitate free movement various language versions at least two examples each is equally valid english language does not french for suite

deliberately vague in the swedish source of crit illumination/accusation lagforing an omibus description of criminal process swed procedure process strongly militates against process judge 2 pets wig montgomer investigation criminal inquiry to look at there is a E Judge ECJ montgOMERYive looked obviously recognized framework designed to facilitate people within union (her arms behind her) firstly I submit as it is in this case EAW clearly indicated a concrete charge and contained the prescribed charge re crim prosecution det whether 23a is satisfied EAW 20 page 40 request prosecution sentence by ct courts have frequently 99%

work out what is going on normally if go down to box b is it a judgement a custodial sentence arrest warrant prosecutors are being inductive maximum sentences rather than actual sentences the introductory language will make clear prima faciae 23b it will also make clear in this case it will set out concrete offenses with reasonable sensitivity that are charged unmistakable accusation what he has said to have done in all case where the court is filled out recognizing the accused ishmael recognized by english cts thruout the genesis of the bldg what got added to the mill was b to the purpose of being prosecuted unless you find out volume 2 warrant issued EAW actual evidence persons being accused person on trial observed the correct understanding of th eaccused is going to be satisfied the purpose to prosecutedthe precondition in 23a you can be accused for any purpose when you cannot even form a charge potentially take place b4 any criminal proceeding takes place where you have a nd accusation and a purpose merely to interogate

that is the additional protection simply left what one looks at from ismael from post framework on cases the specificity of th echarge whether or not there is a charge whethter there is evidence of the allegation made wouldnt you say its difficult previous legislation know more and know less prosecution bc of the concern coupled with an underlying motive to interrogate (punitive interrogation????) so just a couple of cases if I may formal charge formal indictment ishmael 47 jut so yr lordships will see the factual bases the issue there there will be no step in other words for the trial and as the gvt makes clear because as we would see t invoke crimianl law the use of particular words danger germany b4 suspect can be an accused person no stat division via diversin question of fact the reality to catch the meaning in a transactional context

the words indeed not involved believe a prosecution there must be an acceptance might be a skeptic in sweden0stockholm all one can say just look the point at which see what he regarded as firstly there was evidence secondly secondly satisfy applied for a warrant mont: similrly ishmael the necessity to interrogate the defendant is irrelevant thirdly you get the language which is suspect again it is irrelevant not merely the language used but the substance of what happened in UK person suspected on probable cause prima facie evidence would lead to a charge whether there is charge of language and suspicion mode can be used without regard refers to being used to preamble in paragraph 5 says this framework is there to permit surrender of suspect persons assange is talking to jennifer robinson montgomeryichanged the language make good these propositions firstly I take you to bartlett 23ab prove accusation

introduce self to montgomery clerks who are now smiling at me and pointing among selves bc I nkneel t the rail to have my laptop on the block railing as a desk she had sent security on me make the observation dealing with what is in the warrant 53 talks as is surrender conduct the prosecution of a custodial sentence appellate is guilty that word charged could be under suspicion charges committed and then 54 if wrong it could be ambiguous but not INVALID stmt of investigating judge the author of th eEAW to transpose criminal procedures and will be arrested in front extradition being prosecuted continuing invest irrelevant assange talks to jen rob note rather judge: smirking mont: beyond illustration something always slightly differentlythe reason why sense with lordship summarize or encapsulate terminology contains the summary contains the semiquarters finality of the EAW form what is contained in it the EAW form and what is in you have to look at ishmael and recognized and interp (the way I say so)

(great tactic????) to give accusation a requirement demanding a criminal charge would be contrary if clear from ishmael is clear it just need ed a warraant on basis of evidence cts prosecution when it appears it cannot then be transported process indictment judge 2 some advantages indeed and and the cts have consistently required the info to be meted by the tests what the offense is italian newsman who said it is 17th century stle sits behind montGOMERY look at the warrant pre-standing hurdle only if left in doubt look outside the acceptance that it doesnt matter havent struck out the alternative accurate arrest in ruins the advce commision can give aproach EAW mis-state at 45 no basis of EAW extrinsic evidence for express purpose of EAW if indeed accused he is in the popular and generic swedish sense depite the fact that there may still necessarily be cause for interrogation

the legal principles assange does not get withing measurable distance raise objection on charges identified to say I am not accused that is thepurpose on which EAW is sought effectively concludes the issue of that be very clear an additional step proportionality I havent quite grasped that obviously encapsulates nohing to make a framework threat why go thru all this if the EU the actual fact is proportional not to be assessed of this offer is it proportional to invite him to be interrogated or then trial telephone JUDGE: spent some time about whether accused you make the process more simple

montgom; magistrate tried to head off points being raised does not appear to make accused not a problem of lack of judicial comity judge why cant we get the interview (of julian assange) tomorrow on video why are we sense eu community isnt cooperation a two way street previously said it is disproportionate the supreme ct denied a remote interviewed (supreme court of sweden is extremely closed system)

hurtig accepts it because the swedish wants DNA emmerson judge well I just dont understanding judge two way street cooperation is a two way street---judge again montgomery why doesnt judicial communication involvle coperation he refused DNA test judge cant he get DNA be taken here

thats nonsense---judge montgomery ny to take case relies on 96 97 review the material unknown audio is low hard to hear in the gallery mont: your interest in consideration of the victim tried after evidence access be truncated by television interviewedthat assange will not be returned to voluntarily olaf palme anna lindh egypt jeppessen acluu swedens role in detainee transfer to torture montgomeryimy assange was not given info by lawyer that the prosecutor wants to see district judge the failure to make contact his decision to make contact

judge: if he were to go and then come back ???? what is judicial cooperation the courth thinks you can cut through it in theory explored in case what the framework is designed to do---judge pilger actually stay here MontgOMERY my assange will turn up for trial and then wont in sweden0stockholmthe solution lies in the emerging european instruments they emmerson speaks reason why cant achieve bc of divergence of view 70 % custody coming at it the instrument will emerge it will survive this problem UK in hijab asks if we have internet up here I say no I told her I put my coat on like hijab when the guard kept grabbing my arm montgomery just glanced at me and bit lip montgomery I know your lord emmerson stand remind what are the interlocking principles 64 section which provides section sixty four sixty four conditions conduct conditions satisfied a certificate from one teritory to another basis four alternative subsection three there can be no doubt but that the statuatory inquirycharges 1,3 would the conduct constitute an offense under the relevant

common ground any three offenses the actus reas proof there were no reasonable grounds to understand consentingobj test follows that accusatin of mens reasonableall relevant circumstances the absence of reasonable those proposition are unfollowable the circumsatnces that whether or not mr assange sexual material as both charges it is possible to isolate a consensual moment within a series of consensual acts take out a moment and say that moment is not reasonable statuatory grounds assange is a ot of what has been said is a waste of time an obfuscation arbitrary and isolated moment time new interp of consent as aw will develop over time good irrelevant to whether an individual believes they are consenting irrelevant considerations for a fair accurate do I need to go further I dont need to but im going to LAUGHTER judge laughs it is CRAZY the third proposition that castilla says not really facts castillo and arrba to go behind the accusation behind accusation pleaded inmemo then we are cntent when that is gone aclear and obvious mistatement in arruba prosecutor is going to be charged leave that aside so she says a cler and obvious statement it is not the prosecutorsnot the complaints

the case had decided the common law principle that a man can never rape his wife there had been a series of cases which eroded the sexist notion that marital rape was legally protected (GOOOOOOOOD) the history of marita rape in UK their lordship said the common law had to move with thetimes curiously enough counsel never raised the argument not taken until strasbourg looked at it unfair accusation but having the regard to protect women from sexual violence counterchecking incremental and gradual changes we really researched so if you go and rape your wife imagine if we put the EAW on this montgomery comes along EAW warrant from sweden0stockholm and did not say B was X wife violation against wife could it be sensibly be fair whether that moment in time to a point where a man could be raping his wife deciding their were criminality that was the very issue judge need an additional fact to deal with dual criminality emmerson we are in dual criminality swedish prosecutor might issue this without knowing what is required judge look a t the person and realize dual criminality it has to be expanded emmerson it does make a difference

I am not claiming that b and c were man and wife but there was consent before and after being as it were there is an objective test the reasonabe grounds need to be considered consent before and after however short and ill defined that consent is irrelevant which montgomERY couldnt even say that consent is irrelevant judge state doesnt montgomeryipolish evidence supplementary judge when an EAW does not contain sufficient for this ct to examine dual criminality apparently it is a frankly absur propositions judge not sure ms montgomery did not take stand re EAW emmerson material dmitted egt prosecutorsthen the issue then I am simply saying that the duty re: transposition exercise there can be no material averrence judicial college about changed notions to sex indeed the words are difficult person specifically consenting to act of sex as they did re: montgOMERY sex in general argument there is no property is not about consenting judge is it about consent emmerson

nono fairness and accuracy must be determined as the touchstone of the only sensible logical dispositon but what you said judge what of mens reasonable emmerson with effects three improperly described in bed together after a material understanding there were reasonable grounds to believe she was consenting satisfy series of steps s sufficiently creates mens reasonable language designed to---judge emmerson the reason it is positively misleading must ask yrself whether he might have believed that she was consenting to what would she be consenting in charge 3 having an erection pressed against her bodyguardscircumstances as actually aware his penis became erect thats thequestion (LAUGHTER) not trying to be funny this is serious stuff we can take judicial notice that men will get erections involuntarily and in a single bed sleeping together there is an irrevocable risk that she will come in contact with an erect penis (laughter) the prosecutor had the prosecutor put omitted effect in

due to mens reasonablereasonable that his penis would become erect and then seek to consider frustrates the double crim exercise take this as our high water mark look at the other two silenced btw two moments of expressed conent is it possible to isolate a moment and say there was no consenting when there was no expresion of non-consent the vocab of sexual communication is not merely words but also movement could it be sensibly suggested whether he had reasonable grounds what would be the two most immediate considerations consent b4 and after same propositions montgomery wrongly brought forward statements from non-witness its statement two making the accusation what AA said to petra page five its not quite right to say she was consenting that is another issue for another court the statementswhat that shows is that AA had said that what had been done had gone well beyond what had been consented montgom mischaracter petras interp actually petra said was not quite botom of paragraph anna says that she voluntarily agreed to have sex but that she would not have let it happen if he was not wearing a condom a consensual sexual event double criminality mens reasonable that brings me to the position in charge 4 the suggestion is that

if yr lordship looks at 64 the double criminality not castillio be believed deprived of straightforward double criminality exercise there remains a jurisdiction to determine whether the facts properly affect the charge in circumstances when cts looked at pleading to see if it is a proper framing framework ticks rape pleading says rape mr assange had a consensual encounter struck out not a valid even tho double judge did you apply swedish law??? no my lord we have to see english law double criminality framework of these events re drug trafficking eg drugs possession not extradited framework drug offense say terrorism in tickbox the court has the jurisdiction to look combined with the full force of the castillio arguent wake up and consents then it is consensual it might be right castillio behind a framework the offenses

page thirteen the following they require some swedish norwegian pallar tab seven open the page stanislas adopts palar manifest discrepancy ramework on these events tick-box in circumstances taking place was possession in respect was in a sense we dont give those we dont need to as casrtillio get sserved challenged change the testimony possible to make an examination in maruna emmerson if maruna had meant to confine the facts castillio does not there is a far narrower principle two voices in two jurisdictions whether it goes to the full extent of castillio and then to maruna how relevant that these claimants were consenting to a charge of rape whether there is an intelligible investigation can we keep very clear tick box castillio box certainly not unrelated judge say we assume we come thru the facts and they are clear

what law would you apply among civilized english emmerson consensual with no coersion exercise dutch law thru rubric of castilio 3 answer montgomeryian illustration of how far she pushes when accuses me of 19th century perceptions re condom implied deceptions emmerson when women trap men into pregnancy would that be sexual assault telling her she is nonfertile when she's not ((((is this rape?????))) ((((good point)) touched on various aspects of witness stements give some references impt in context charges one or two takes place on nite of 24? at that time AA informs donald bodstrom she did not say she had been abused she kept him in the abuse johan wahlstrom testimony he was told by AA she had taken to police station to force to do a blood test thirdly 20 august brought to police it was recorded and released to press in breech of secrecy prosecutor reviews it an dcancels it

the police officer and prosecutor taken off case marianne ny put on describingSW to her when SW went to the hospital it didnt go as wanted she felt police railroaded her this goes on thru these proceedings for a proper averment left district choice misdescribed conduct montgomery took you to irih high court technical point the irish EAW act transposes the framework decision section 2.10 a judge magistrate parliament rejected it and in any event finally in the round emmerson another dimension the term judicial authority pertains to the same authority in directive and in domestic legislation any efinition yr judicial gives to if ms nye is an appropos executing authority then also is executing authentication so when we make requirementby judge not judge 2 Q emmerson the point re EAW judicial authority

police executive wide enough to permit someone a party to proceedings to be considerred a prosecuting authority lordships particualars accompanying mens rea---judge 2 comes from norris that is why she used it

assange atty 2 prosecution formalistic trial as will note during what of know that to my knowledge equally at the other endo f the spectrum that entire criminal process re case within point in process has turned into a reasonable process or an accusation after sufficientlywho to prosecutednot just continue to investigate the point at which issue for the EURO system judge one may prosecute or not prosecuted that decision comes from no- one re prosecuted state to statements power which UK has designated not prosecute

judge one decision to prosecuted atty 2 for assange parliament a challenge has been lead there has to be an application of conscious decision it doesnt matter substance and formalistic made basic operating in that manner judge there must be a time (statute of limitations running?????:) does it matter the process the point is there has to be an application of thought that decision has been pag 245 ishmael charged paragraph 53 then haddox in germany cases on the other side of the line as a fact they dont help a great deal murder CCCTV french boat prosecutor had assessed evidence there is a charge that will be det. In due course the height of case is the dist ct and svea ct apppeals have been reasonable run of the mill case in balance of the standard formalistic decision it may be the breadth of the language

framework lagforing the entire legal process (swedish makeover british law???? with norway and sweden rep discuss yesterday) does nothing to assist the ct may I simply say this it may be though that those position might recall that previous extradition cases pertained to when a trial is conducted now they are issued far before replace existing scheme sense before how that carries over into this part of the case mutual recognition of cts when a judicial auth requests bc being prosecuted what we have here stick to extant prosecutions that the basis from which we are are operating pausing ref to the chart prosecutor has never explained why she has not engaged all the mechanisms the DNA point is ared herring never taken at any stage in sweden0stockholm going straight for the nuclear option the prosecutors

it could have been taken by mutual collab as this treaty is meant in the spirit if you reject submisission one it does matter this is not at all academic in the sense that has been suggested JUDGE issues btw parties even with interviewedproblem re issue one

ATTY 2 for assange my lrd took me too comission report page ten council recommended judicial authorities european judicial culture article fifteen downstairs clerk talks to bald fellow defendant to be heard problem was never been represented b4 executed only in common law cypress island what one has instead direct abil of ct what a waste of time we judicial authority judge 2 procedurespart of which the reality is that barring this suspect will have to give a similar answer the legal part is

then let them come at that stage this EAW is not valid and insofar as there is an impasse issuing authority to back downstairsthey refuse answer declare EAW invalid sec 2 subsec 3 as gen principles charter criminal law review of german law what the german cts would do commentary 480 judge inaudible thnks the sides