A few words about Wikipediaexposed.org

Welcome to WikipediaExposed.org


 take great pleasure in bringing to public spotlight important information, facts and opinions that would be of benefit to people on planet earth to know about and openly discuss that other non independent and controlled mainstream media outlets and websites will not provide to the world. We understand that everyone has an independent expression of who they are and what is important to them. Our goal is to give an international public forum for the unique personality of every individual who feel the need to have their important information, facts and opinions publicly exposed to the world.

Wikipedia exposed!-

why no one should believe

anything on Wikipedi

Jonathan Lankford
Published on May 24, 2015 

Jonathan Lankford
This is why no one should believe anything on Wikipedia until it has been confirmed by 2 or 3 PRIMARY sources and the background/context is fully known and understood. #Wikipedia #KentHovind #FreeKentHovind #FreeKent #MargaretCRodgers

I noticed Wikipedia discredit Anything that's not Main Stream NWO SPONSORED agenda

John McTavish
Hi Jonathan. Take a look at what I wrote on her Wiki page.

John McTavish
Yo Jonathan, I clicked on your link to check out the document so that I could paste it into the BIAS ARTICLE. The document was not there. Is there another link that you could post for us? I too believe that Wikipedia is GARBAGE and want to expose it for the Satanic Shill that it is. God bless you brother!

 Censored Wiki edit: https://1drv.ms/t/s!Ak3siTFpv0yehbhFM...

Category:  People & Blogs


11 October, 2018



Today, 11 October 2018, WikiLeaks publishes a "Highly Confidential" internal document from the cloud computing provider Amazon. The document from late 2015 lists the addresses and some operational details of over one hundred data centers spread across fifteen cities in nine countries. To accompany this document, WikiLeaks also created a map showing where Amazon’s data centers are located.

Amazon, which is the largest cloud provider, is notoriously secretive about the precise locations of its data centers. While a few are publicly tied to Amazon, this is the exception rather than the norm. More often, Amazon operates out of data centers owned by other companies with little indication that Amazon itself is based there too or runs its own data centers under less-identifiable subsidiaries such as VaData, Inc. In some cases, Amazon uses pseudonyms to obscure its presence. For example, at its IAD77 data center, the document states that “Amazon is known as ‘Vandalay Industries’ on badges and all correspondence with building manager”.

Amazon is the leading cloud provider for the United States intelligence community. In 2013, Amazon entered into a $600 million contract with the CIA to build a cloud for use by intelligence agencies working with information classified as Top Secret. Then, in 2017, Amazon announced the AWS Secret Region, which allows storage of data classified up to the Secret level by a broader range of agencies and companies. Amazon also operates a special GovCloud region for US Government agencies hosting unclassified information.

Currently, Amazon is one of the leading contenders for an up to $10 billion contract to build a private cloud for the Department of Defense. Amazon is one of the only companies with the certifications required to host classified data in the cloud. The Defense Department is looking for a single provider and other companies, including Oracle and IBM, have complained that the requirements unfairly favor Amazon. Bids on this contract are due tomorrow.

While one of the benefits of the cloud is the potential to increase reliability through geographic distribution of computing resources, cloud infrastructure is remarkably centralised in terms of legal control. Just a few companies and their subsidiaries run the majority of cloud computing infrastructure around the world. Of these, Amazon is the largest by far, with recent market researchshowing that Amazon accounts for 34% of the cloud infrastructure services market.

Until now, this cloud infrastructure controlled by Amazon was largely hidden, with only the general geographic regions of the data centers publicised. While Amazon’s cloud is comprised of physical locations, indications of the existence of these places are primarily buried in government records or made visible only when cloud infrastructure fails due to natural disasters or other problems in the physical world.

In the process of dispelling the mystery around the locations of Amazon’s data centers, WikiLeaks also turned this document into a puzzle game, the Quest of Random Clues. The goal of this game was to encourage people to research these data centers in a fun and intriguing way, while highlighting related issues such as contracts with the intelligence community, Amazon’s complex corporate structures, and the physicality of the cloud.pe your paragraph here.

















View Larger Map

Wikipedia exposed 2006 By Alek Boyd



To those who like me have been reporting the evolving crisis in Venezuela the newscame as no surprise: Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is, to put it mildly, utterly unreliable. It didn't surprise us because we bear witness of how Hugo Chavez's and Venezuela's pages have been edited almost beyond recognition. In fact apologists of Hugo Chavez have expressed their pride on their 'editing work' in Wikipedia. Logically the only natural conclusion one could reach in light of it is that no Wikipedia entry can be trusted.

The revelation of the true identity of Essjay -aka Ryan Jordan- reinforces apprehensions towards the online encyclopedia. A 24 year old managed to con not only the Wikipedian community but also Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder. The fact that Wales went as far as establishing a working relationship with Jordan without even bothering to undertake the perfectly normal credential-checking processes to be expected between an employer and its employees speaks volumes about Wales duty of care towards his pet project.

Wikipedia does not check the credentials of its editors, that much is known. However knowledge about its editing processes and criteria remains scant. A request to remove links to my site -vcrisis.com- from all Chavez related pages was introduced by another anonymous Wikipedian. Flanker, as his online name goes, argued that vcrisis.com was not a reliable sources of information with regards to Venezuela. But who is this Flanker character and what reasons prompted him to make such request? What I know is that he is an avowed apologist of Hugo Chavez and frequents comments sections of sites publishing commentary on Venezuela in order to advance the premise that Chavez's Venezuela is the closest approximation to paradise on earth. I also suspect that he is not even Venezuelan, neither is Sandy, that other Wikipedian involved in the issue. So how come people characterized by their superficiality of knowledge and partisanship about our issues get to decide what constitutes reliable information sources? Furthermore how come they are allowed to rewrite history without providing credible evidence to substantiate their claims?

Recently another Wikipedian (Maracucho) created a page about me that draw the ire of Chavez's fans and so they started editing it. When I noticed it I tried to delete the whole thing, knowing full well the infantile approach that Wikipedians have for facts. I could not, but was advised to take the issue with the Wikipedia Information team [info-en@wikimedia.org] that granted my request to have my page deleted.

I guess the take away message is that orthodox encyclopedias, with responsible editing processes, will continue being the preferred choice of serious people.

www.wikipediaexposed.org comments

Without going into details it is a fact that https://www.wikipedia.org completely removed an important Wikipedia page because there was pressure from powerful people and organisations  in the city which the Wikipedia page wrote about .... which talked about a series of books that were purchased by the state government reference library ...... that exposed endemic corruption in the legal, police, court, public trustee, political, business, media, finance circles of the capital city of this particular state. This led to the reasonable belief that professional journalists are paid on a full time basis by people and organisations to write Wikipedia articles in the way  powerful want such Wikipedia articles written ...... and to also monitor all Wikipedia articles that are written about the city and state they are asked to monitor ..... and if any such Wikipedia articles have not been written in the way these powerful people and organisations are happy with ... then to gather together a few senior Wikipedia editors that will agree to completely remove such non approved Wikipedia articles .... so that the history of the city and state is written about in the way these powerful people and organisations would like ....


The triumph of truth / by Stephen Carew-Reid

Bib ID 1388995
Format [Book] Book
Carew-Reid, Stephen
Edition 2nd ed. 
Description Perth : The Weekend News, 1996 
v. <1> : ill., ports., facsims. ; 30 cm. 
Typescript (Photocopy)
Subjects Carew-Reid, Stephen.  |  Political corruption -- Western Australia.  |  Misconduct in office -- Western Australia.  |  Corporations -- Corrupt practices -- Western Australia.  |  Police corruption -- Western Australia.  |  Western Australia -- Moral conditions.  |  Australian
Also Titled
Triumph of truth : who's watching the watchers?
Triumph of the truth


[Print Material]
The triumph of truth 
Carew-Reid, Stephen.
Perth, W. A. : The Weekend News, 1996-2004. 
Retrieve from stack

 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR  Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition    NOT FOR LOAN  
 2nd Floor Heritage Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR  Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition    FOR USE IN STATE LIBRARY  REQUEST RETRIEVAL
 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR  Volume Two 2nd ed.    NOT FOR LOAN

Author Carew-Reid, Stephen.
Title The triumph of truth / by Stephen Carew-Reid.
Published/Produced Perth, W. A. : The Weekend News, 1996-2004.


 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition    NOT FOR LOAN  
 2nd Floor Heritage Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition    FOR USE IN STATE LIBRARY  REQUEST RETRIEVAL
 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two 2nd ed.    NOT FOR LOAN  
 2nd Floor Heritage Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two, Edition Two    FOR USE IN STATE LIBRARY  REQUEST RETRIEVAL
 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two, Edition Three (Part A)    NOT FOR LOAN  
 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two, Edition Three (Part B)    NOT FOR LOAN  
 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Three    NOT FOR LOAN  
 3rd Floor Stack  Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Four, Part A, Second Edition    NOT FOR LOAN


Call Number Q 364.1323 CAR
Cover title Triumph of truth : who's watching the watchers?
Description v. <1-4> : ill., ports., facsims. ; 30 cm.
Notes Typescript (Photocopy)
Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition (1996) -- Volume Two 2nd ed./Edition Two (1999) -- Volume Two, Edition Three: Part A (1999) -- Volume Two, Edition Three: Part B (1999) -- Volume Three (2001) -- Volume Four: Part A, Second Edition (2004).
Other publishing history: Vol. One, Introductory Volume, First Edition published in 1996, Volume Two, Edition One published in 1998. Volume 4, First edition published in 2002, Volume 4, Edition Two (Parts A, B, C, D & E) published in 2004.
Subjects Carew-Reid, Stephen.
Political corruption -- Western Australia.
Misconduct in office -- Western Australia.
Corporations -- Corrupt practices -- Western Australia.
Police corruption -- Western Australia.
Western Australia -- Moral conditions.


Wikipedia Exposed As Corrupt Tool of The Establishment OCTOBER 26, 2018 BY 21WIRE 


Big Business have turned Wikipedia into platform for propaganda into a platform for private propaganda for the ruling elite ..

RT America’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges, talks with investigative journalist Helen Buyniski who exposes an editing racket resembling a type of “pay to play” policy, along with a collapse in credibility of this highly-politicized organization. Despite the obvious signs, a wave of disinformation is still being allowed by Wikipedia’s aloof co-founder Jimmy Wales (pictured above) who has knowingly allowed his online portal to transition from an egalitarian knowledge base into yet another corrupt tool of the ruling elite.

“... its become more and more obvious that Wikipedia is a website that should have no credibility at all … it would be one thing if Wikipedia was considered to be just a bias source like a trash rag … the bathroom wall of the Internet I like to call such trash rage… but it’s not ,, Wikipedia is considered the holy oracle of truth ….. however Wikipedia is really anything by the holy oracle of truth …” ….  investigative journalist Helen Buyniski 


A Tool Of The Ruling Elite


Helen writes for RT

And is on Twitter @Bellocirapture23

RT America: Published on Oct 20, 2018


On the latest episode of On Contact, investigative journalist Helen Buyniski exposes Jimmy Wales' egalitarian Wikipedia as yet another tool of the ruling elite. More from Helen here: http://helenofdestroy.com/index.php/4...

Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/ 

Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/ 

Like us on Facebook //www.facebook.com/RTAmerica Follow us on Twitter //twitter.com/RT_America

Category: News & Politics

ON CONTACT: Wikipedia – A Tool Of The Ruling Elite

Two Clintons -41 years - $3 Billion


A Washington Post investigation reveals how Bill and Hillary Clinton have methodically cultivated donors over 40 years, from Little Rock to Washington and then across the globe. Their fundraising methods have created a new blueprint for politicians and their donors.

The Clintons have raised $3 billion in support of their political and philanthropic efforts over four decades. Nearly all the funds went to support six federal campaigns and their family foundation.

By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy - Published on Nov. 19, 2015

LITTLE ROCK — Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments in support of their political or philanthropic endeavors — a list that includes top patrons such as Steven Spielberg and George Soros, as well as lesser-known backers who have given smaller amounts dozens of times. Not included in the count are an untold number of small donors whose names are not identified in campaign finance reports but together have given millions to the Clintons over the years.

The majority of the money — $2 billion — has gone to the Clinton Foundation, one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe. A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra,who is among the wealthy foreign donors who have given tens of millions.
Separately, donors have given $1 billion to support the Clintons’ political races and legal defense fund, making capped contributions to their campaigns and writing six-figure checks to the Democratic National Committee and allied super PACs.
The Post investigation found that many top Clinton patrons supported them in multiple ways, helping finance their political causes, their legal needs, their philanthropy and their personal bank accounts. In some cases, companies connected to their donors hired the Clintons as paid speakers, helping them collect more than $150 million on the lecture circuit in the past 15 years.

The couple’s biggest individual political benefactors are Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who have made 39 contributions totaling $2.4 million to support the Clintons’ races since 1992. The Sabans have also donated at least $10 million to the foundation.
The Clintons kept big contributors in their orbit for decades by methodically wooing competing interest groups — toggling between their liberal base and powerful constituencies, according to donors, friends and aides who have known the couple since their Arkansas days.
They made historic inroads on Wall Street, pulling in at least $69 million in political contributions from the employees and PACs of banks, insurance companies, and securities and investment firms. Wealthy hedge fund managers S. Donald Sussman and David E. Shaware among their top campaign supporters, having given more than $1 million each.
The Clintons’ ties to the financial sector strained their bonds with the left, particularly organized labor. But unions repeatedly shook off their disappointment, giving at least $21 million to support their races. The public employees union AFSCME has been their top labor backer, giving nearly $1.7 million for their campaigns.
The Clintons’ fundraising operation — $3 billion amassed by one couple, working in tandem for more than four decades — has no equal.
By comparison, three generations of the Bush family, America’s other contemporaneous political dynasty, have raised about $2.4 billion for their state and federal campaigns and half a dozen charitable foundations, according to a Post tally of their fundraising from 1988 through 2015 — even though the family has collectively held the presidency longer than the Clintons.

Investigative journalist Helen Buyniski.."..".. Wikipedia is meant to function with unpaid volunteers who become create and edit Wikipedia web pages about different subjects and  people ...over the years the editor user base built up to a peak of around 100,000 volunteer unpaid editors in around 2007 and then gradually started to decline ... the  volunteer unpaid editors would then create a Wikipedia Web Page and all put their input into editing a Wikipedia Web Page until there was a general  consensus   reality as to what the facts of the person or subject matter was on the particular topic of the Wikipedia Web Page was ... then as these things start to calcify ... the hierarchy of Wikipedia takes place and control ... so now Wikipedia is not completely egalitarian ... there are administrators ...a sort of Wikipedia Supreme Court ... the Arbitration committee which  obviously ends up with various factions vying for power ...by 2007 Wikipedia become the Utopia of Rules ...to use a phrase...".. 

RT America’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges..." ... Wikipedia say they have around 100,000 volunteer editors ...congressmen ... business people become extremely concerned about what is on their Wikipedia page…”

RT America’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges..." A report on Wikipedia stated stated that editors found hundreds of what you call "Sock Puppets"  linked to one company... Wiki PR which explained that it employed not only of the garden variety by also professional administrative editors capable of deleting and freezing pages  .. Wiki PR claimed over 12,000 clients from household names Viocom to Priceline to minor firms .. whose pages were repeatedly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards ... "

Sock Puppets

Investigative journalist Helen Buyniski.... " Sock Puppets are basically fake accounts that are all run by one person but pretend to be multiple people ... in Wikipedia if there is a disagreement you want to have other people to come in and take your side ... because in that way there is some sort of democratic element to it... but the Wiki Pr Scandal was because they were openly advertising there services on this website and finally it emerged that they were advertising on their website but they were not advertising who they were on Wikipedia ...so ... the fact that they had corralled admin people in Wikipedia to help them edit and delete websites ... the admin people in Wikipedia are meant to be more trust worthy ... these business es are concerned because when you Google their business name and their Wikipedia entry turns up and nobody wants to look bad.. "

RT America’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges..... "you were right about the USA Government interfered  in Wikipedia ...  a tracing program called Wiki Scanner discovered that computers at CIA headquarters did edits to entries on the US invasion of Iraq and the biographies on the former CIA Head William Colby and former US Presidents Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon .. also an FBI computer was also used the edit the Wikipedia page on Guantanamo Bay  Detention Facility....  e-voting machine-vendor Diebold deleted 15 paragraphs from a Wikipedia article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines....  while the Vatican and the British Labour Party were also prolific in editing Wikipedia pages ... since the intelligence agencies have had to try and  camouflage  their edits or outsource their edits or outsource them to third parties"...
Investigative journalist Helen Buyniski.." it was pretty easy to do that ...just get some guy to front for them ... they were being so obvious about it.. well as its  anonymous   ... anyone can do it... lets just edit from our work computer .... that's like really bad upset  …”

RT America’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Chris Hedges..... "... so you have a huge network of entities outside Wikipedia ... constantly revising and editing Wikipedia and one of the things that you point out in your article is that often the prime target of these edits are those critical of capitalism, imperialism, such as George Galloway ...and there have been all sorts of fake entities as somebody presenting themselves as Philip Cross who made 14 edits to my own Wikipedia page ... but goes after figures such as George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn ... if it is a single person ... who knows... made hundreds of thousands of edits ... 130,000 edits to more than 30,000 pages and all of them ... are about defaming critics ... "

George Galloway is a British politician, broadcaster and writer. Between 1987 and 2015, with a gap in 2010–12, he represented four constituencies as a Member of Parliament, elected as a candidate for the Labour Party and later the Respect Party. 

Jeremy Bernard Corbyn is a British politician serving as Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition since 2015. Corbyn was first elected Member of Parliament for Islington North in 1983. Ideologically, he identifies himself as a democratic socialist. 

BBC Masters of Money

Karl Marx HD


Published on Jan 30, 2016

Stephanie Flanders examines one of the most revolutionary and controversial thinkers of all. Karl Marx's ideas left an indelible stamp on the lives of billions of people and the world we live in today. As the global financial crisis continues on its destructive path, some are starting to wonder if he was right. Marx argued that capitalism is inherently unfair and therefore doomed to collapse, so it should be got rid of altogether. Today as the gap between rich and poor continues to cause tension, his ideas are once again being taken seriously at the heart of global business. Stephanie travels from Marx's birthplace to a former communist regime detention centre in Berlin and separates his economic analysis from what was carried out in his name. She asks what answers does Marx provide to the mess we are all in today.



Wikileaks editor-in-chief holds presser on

 new criminal case involving Julian Assange- LIVE


Streamed live on Apr 10, 2019

LIVE: Wikileaks editor-in-chief holds presser on new criminal case involving Julian Assange.

Like what you see?

Please subscribe //youtube.com/RTUKnews 

FOLLOW ON TWITTER: //twitter.com/RTUKnews 

FOLLOW ON FACEBOOK: http://fb.com/RTUKnews 

READ MORE http://rt.com/uk/ 

WATCH LIVE: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-uk-air/


#WesternTruthTV #WTTV #TVNovosti

Edward Snowden Israel Interview -

Mossad & NSA - November 2018


Published on Nov 13, 2018

Western Truth TV Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/westerntruthtv Edward Snowden,

the American intelligence officer who broke into world awareness after being responsible for leaking the largest and most sensitive information in history,

spoke to an Israeli audience on November 6, 18, as part of an event sponsored by the media consulting firm "Oh! Orenstein Choshen". "Said former deputy head of the Mossad Ram Ben-Barak. Snoden said this through visual meetings (VC), as part of a closed event. The conversation was led by technology journalist Dror Globerman.

 The military censor was informed of the details of the incident. Sponsored by SYNC – Secure Cloud Storage – Free with an extra 1GB when you Use the Link

Below http://www.sync.com/get-started?_sync... 

Main Site: TV-Novosti.com Western Truth TV

Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/westerntruthtv 

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/westerntruthtv 

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SeanDavisWTTV #WesternTruthTV #WTTV #TVNovosti #WTR #Novosti #RT #Sputnik #WesternTruthRadio 

LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE! Western Truth TV & Western Truth Radio

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WesternTruth... (WTR)

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/westerntruthtv (WTTV)

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SeanDavisWTTV #WesternTruthTV #TVNovosti #WTTV #WTR #WesternTruthRadio 



News & Politics



  The Truth Will Always Win ...WikiLeaks

  The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching the Watchers?)
  the controversial series of books written by Stephen Carew-Reid
 that also dares to expose the truth....
  Not only will the Truth Triumph..
 but someone has to Watch the Watchers...
 people like Julian Assange is one of those people and his WikiLeaks organisation

 are some of those doing the much needed job of Watching the Watchers..
  The first four 500 page volumes of 
  The Triumph of Truth  (Who Is Watching the Watchers?)
  the controversial series of books written by Stephen Carew-Reid

   and published by the Australia Weekend News in the late 1990's
  which expose unchallenged information about endemic corruption in the Western Australian Legal, Police, Court, Political, Media, Business System in Western Australia..
  were purchased at $89 a copy by  the State Library of Western Australia ...
 ... no one sued over any of the information published in the series of volumes The Triumph of Truth  (Who Is Watching the Watchers?) ....
 because what is written in these volumes in all the truth..
 However .. because these books exposed corrupt, immoral, wrongful and illegal actions of powerful people in the Western Australian Legal, Police, Court, Political, Media, and Business System in Western Australia..
  high level powerful solicitors and barristers working for Western Australian Government Crown Law Office ... demanded that the head librarian, without any court order, ...that all to copies of 

 The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching the Watchers?)
belonging to  the State Library of Western Australia   ....  be immediately removed from  the State Library of Western Australia 
... and put through the paper shredder ... and completely removed from the book index of the State Library of Western Australia 
.... as though they had never were purchased by the State Library of Western Australia 
... and as though they had never been in  the State Library of Western Australia 
It was thought for the last 18 years that the head librarian who ordered the first four volumes of The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching the Watchers?)
had done what was demanded of him.. by high level powerful solicitors and barristers working for Western Australian Government Crown Law Office .... that is ...  without any court order, for all to copies of  

  The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching the Watchers?)
belonging to  the State Library of Western Australia ....  be immediately removed from the Western Australian State Reference Library ... 
and put through the paper shredder ... and completely removed from the book index ofthe State Library of Western Australia 
.... as though they had never were purchased by 
 the State Library of Western Australia 

... and as though they had never been in  the State Library of Western Australia ...
When Stephen Carew-Reid emailed  the State Library of Western Australia  in 2018 to ask if the State Library of Western Australia wanted a copy of Stephen Carew-Reid's new book entitled..

" A Summary of the Crimes Committed by the Western Australian Government and the Western Australian Police against Stephen Carew-Reid and his family from 1978 to 2018 and continuing..."

and  the State Library of Western Australia ... said that it was keen to have a copy of this new book written by Stephen Carew-Reid ...
Stephen Carew-Reid, then asked the librarian he was dealing with ..
"What is the point of supplying a copy of my new book to t
he State Library of Western Australia ...

.... because it will most likely that this new book would also be put through the paper shredder .... and removed from the library book index as though it was never in the State Library of Western Australia 
? ...."
The librarian replied
.... " that could never happen .. that a library book was put through the paper shredder and taken off the library's computer index as though it was never in the library .... without any court order..."
Stephen Carew-Reid replied .. ".. well this is what I was told had happened by the previous senior librarian ...after a friend who was studying law ... around the year 2000 .... who wanted to read the law in these books could not find  any of the books entitled
The Triumph of Truth  (Who Is Watching the Watchers?)  written by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australia Weekend News in the late 1990's .. on the book index of the Western Australian State Reference Library ..."
The Librarian then responded that she would order an investigation into the matter...
Around two weeks later Stephen Carew-Reid received an email from the new head librarian stating that..

"... the first four volumes of The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching the Watchers?) by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australian Weekend News had been found hidden in a box in the library's archives ... and have now been put back into the library's book index and are now available for people to read these books in the library .. however because the State Library of Western Australia is a reference library ...

 ..... these books can not for borrowed from the State Library of Western Australia ..."

Pink Floyd's Roger Waters:

WHOLE WORLD Must Focus on Julian Assange Arrest!


Published on Apr 17, 2019 

 We speak to Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters on the arrest of Julian Assange.

He calls on the UK to rise up to oppose Assange’s extradition, labels the UK a satellite state of US empire for arresting Assange

and attacks the government of Lenin Moreno for revoking his asylum LIKE Going Underground http://fb.me/GoingUndergroundRT 

FOLLOW Going Underground //twitter.com/Underground_RT 

FOLLOW Afshin Rattansi //twitter.com/AfshinRattansi 

FOLLOW on Instagram http://instagram.com/officialgoingund...  

State Library of Western Australia
State Library of Western Australia


The triumph of truth / by Stephen Carew-Reid

Carew-Reid, Stephen.

 Print Material | 1996-2004.

Available at 2nd Floor Heritage Stack (Call number:Q 364.1323 CAR Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition) plus 1 moresee all


Call No.



3rd Floor Stack

Q 364.1323 CAR Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition



2nd Floor Heritage Stack

Q 364.1323 CAR Volume 1: Introductory Volume, 2nd edition



3rd Floor Stack

Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two 2nd ed.



2nd Floor Heritage Stack

Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two, Edition Two



3rd Floor Stack

Q 364.1323 CAR Volume Two, Edition Three (Part A)


 Of course the main stream media  in Western Australia  ....  such as the West Australian Newspaper ....  controlled by powerful Freemason Businessman Kerry Stokes....  and the Sunday Times .... owned by Rupert Murdoch's multi billion Media Group known as News Corporation .... and the Western Australia government, police, judiciary, legal and court system all like to pretend that these volumes of The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) are not in the State Library of Western Australia and pretend that they do not exist .. no one named in these volumes of The Triumph of Truth have in the last  20 plus years since they have been published have ever sued for slander or defamation relating to anything written in the volumes of The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) .. because everything written in these volumes is all the truth...

Volume One of The Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) is also in the National Library of Australia 


The triumph of truth / by Stephen Carew-Reid

Bib ID





Carew-Reid, Stephen



2nd ed. 


Perth : The Weekend News, 1996 
v. <1> : ill., ports., facsims. ; 30 cm. 


Typescript (Photocopy)


Carew-Reid, Stephen.  |  Political corruption -- Western Australia.  |  Misconduct in office -- Western Australia.  |  Corporations -- Corrupt practices -- Western Australia.  |  Police corruption -- Western Australia.  |  Western Australia -- Moral conditions.  |  Australian

Also Titled

Triumph of truth : who's watching the watchers?

Triumph of the truth



    EP.737: John Pilger- Julian Assange’s Arrest an ASSAULT ON JOURNALISM!


Justice for Embassy Cat

WikiLeaksVerified account @wikileaks

FollowFollow @wikileaks

We can confirm that Assange's cat is safe.

 Assange asked his lawyers to rescue him from embassy threats in mid-October.

They will be reunited in freedom.

  #FreeAssange #NoExtradition

Justice for Embassy Cat

свобода 4all

Published on Jan 28, 2017


-Julian Assange is the Chief editor of a journalism organization named Wikileaks. -Wikileaks plays a critical role in revealing Truth to the masses about government corruption -Because of the the United States has an active national security investigation into Julian Assange. -He has been illegally imprisoned for over 2,200 days -His children gave him a cat in an effort to help their father cope. -The kitten is affectionately known as "embassy cat" Please visit Justice4assange.com to find out how you can help Julian and his cat be free! **as of 12/2017 iamwikileaks.org may be a more up to date resource for information Song ("Angel") belongs to Sarah McLachlan (original artist)



John Pilger, Legendary journalist and film-maker discusses the arrest of Julian Assange

John Pilger describes the meaning of Julian Assange's brutal arrest at the Ecuadorean embassy in London and says it is not only the extraordinary story of one man's struggle but an echo of a past that carries a lesson for us all.



Published on Apr 13, 2019

On this episode of Going Undeground, we speak to legendary journalist and film-maker John Pilger who discusses the arrest of Julian Assange after his asylum status was revoked by Lenin Moreno of Ecuador and subsequent removal from the Ecuadorian Embassy. He discusses the importance of Wikileaks’ work, why it is a threat to the United States, the danger the arrest poses to journalists everywhere and the possibility of extradition to the US. Next we speak to Geoffrey Robertson QC of Doughty Street Chambers on the arrest of Assange, the legality of the revocation of his asylum status, the legality of the UK complying with the US extradition request and what this episode tells journalists around the world. LIKE Going Underground http://fb.me/GoingUndergroundRT FOLLOW Going Underground //twitter.com/Underground_RT FOLLOW Afshin Rattansi //twitter.com/AfshinRattansi FOLLOW on Instagram http://instagram.com/officialgoingund...

John Pilger, legendary journalist and film-maker who discusses the arrest of Julian Assange
 Julian Assange's brutal arrest

John Richard Pilger (/ˈpɪldʒər/; born 9 October 1939) is an Australian journalist and BAFTA award-winning documentary film maker. He has been mainly based in the United Kingdom since 1962.

Pilger is a strong critic of AmericanAustralian and British foreign policy, which he considers to be driven by an imperialist agenda. Pilger has also criticised his native country's treatment of Indigenous Australians. He first drew international attention for his reports on the Cambodian genocide.

His career as a documentary film maker began with The Quiet Mutiny (1970), made during one of his visits to Vietnam, and has continued with over fifty documentaries since then. Other works in this form include Year Zero (1979), about the aftermath of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, and Death of a Nation: The Timor Conspiracy (1993). Pilger's many documentary films on indigenous Australians include The Secret Country (1985) and Utopia (2013). In the British print media, Pilger worked at the Daily Mirror from 1963 to 1986, and wrote a regular column for the New Statesman magazine from 1991 to 2014.

Pilger has won Britain's Journalist of the Year Award in 1967 and 1979.[9] His documentaries have gained awards in Britain and worldwide, including multiple BAFTA honors. The practices of the mainstream media are a regular subject in Pilger's writing.




John Pilger describes the meaning of Julian Assange's brutal arrest at the Ecuadorean embassy in London and says it is not only the extraordinary story of one man's struggle but an echo of a past that carries a lesson for us all.

13 April 2019

The glimpse of Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London is an emblem of the times. Might against right. Muscle against the law. Indecency against courage. Six policemen manhandled a sick journalist, his eyes wincing against his first natural light in  almost seven years.

That this outrage happened in the heart of London, in the land of Magna Carta, ought to shame and anger all who fear for "democratic" societies. Assange is a political refugee protected by international law, the recipient of asylum under a strict covenant to which Britain is a signatory. The United Nations made this clear in the legal ruling of its Working Party on Arbitrary Detention.

But to hell with that. Let the thugs go in. Directed by the quasi fascists in Trump's Washington, in league with Ecuador's Lenin Moreno, a Latin American Judas and liar seeking to disguise his rancid regime, the British elite abandoned its last imperial myth: that of fairness and justice.

Imagine Tony Blair dragged from his multi-million pound Georgian home in Connaught Square, London, in handcuffs, for onward dispatch to the dock in The Hague. By the standard of Nuremberg, Blair's "paramount crime" is the deaths of a million Iraqis. Assange's crime is journalism: holding the rapacious to account, exposing their lies and empowering people all over the world with truth.

The shocking arrest of Assange carries a warning for all who, as Oscar Wilde wrote, "sew the seeds of discontent [without which] there would be no advance towards civilisation". The warning is explicit towards journalists. What happened to the founder and editor of WikiLeaks can happen to you on a newspaper, you in a TV studio, you on radio, you running a podcast.

Assange's principal media tormentor, the Guardian, a collaborator with the secret state, displayed its nervousness this week with an editorial that scaled new weasel heights. The Guardian has exploited the work of Assange and WikiLeaks in what its previous editor called "the greatest scoop of the last 30 years". The paper creamed off WikiLeaks' revelations and claimed the accolades and riches that came with them.

With not a penny going to Julian Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, turned on their source, abused him and disclosed the secret password Assange had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing leaked US embassy cables.

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding joined the police outside and gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh". The Guardian has since published a series of falsehoods about Assange, not least a discredited claim that a group of Russians and Trump's man, Paul Manafort, had visited Assange in the embassy. The meetings never happened; it was fake.

But the tone has now changed. "The Assange case is a morally tangled web," the paper opined. "He (Assange) believes in publishing things that should not be published.... But he has always shone a light on things that should never have been hidden."

These "things" are the truth about the homicidal way America conducts its colonial wars, the lies of the British Foreign Office in its denial of rights to vulnerable people, such as the Chagos Islanders, the expose of Hillary Clinton as a backer and beneficiary of jihadism in the Middle East, the detailed description of American ambassadors of how the governments in Syria and Venezuela might be overthrown, and much more. It all available on the WikiLeaks site.

The Guardian is understandably nervous. Secret policemen have already visited the newspaper and demanded and got the ritual destruction of a hard drive.  On this, the paper has form. In 1983, a Foreign Office clerk, Sarah Tisdall, leaked British Government documents showing when American cruise nuclear weapons would arrive in Europe. The Guardian was showered with praise.

When a court order demanded to know the source, instead of the editor going to prison on a fundamental principle of protecting a source, Tisdall was betrayed, prosecuted and served six months.

If Assange is extradited to America for publishing what the Guardian calls truthful "things", what is to stop the current editor, Katherine Viner, following him, or the previous editor, Alan Rusbridger, or the prolific propagandist Luke Harding?

What is to stop the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post, who also published morsels of the truth that originated with WikiLeaks, and the editor of El Pais in Spain, and Der Spiegel in Germany and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia. The list is long.

David McCraw, lead lawyer of the New York Times, wrote: "I think the prosecution [of Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers... from everything I know, he's sort of in a classic publisher's position and the law would have a very hard time distinguishing between the New York Times and WilLeaks."

Even if journalists who published WikiLeaks' leaks are not summoned by an American grand jury, the intimidation of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning will be enough. Real journalism is being criminalised by thugs in plain sight. Dissent has become an indulgence.

In Australia, the current America-besotted government is prosecuting two whistle-blowers who revealed that Canberra's spooks bugged the cabinet meetings of the new government of East Timor for the express purpose of cheating the tiny, impoverished nation out of its proper share of the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea. Their trial will be held in secret. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, is infamous for his part in setting up concentration camps for refugees on the Pacific islands of Nauru and Manus, where children self harm and suicide. In 2014, Morrison proposed mass detention camps for 30,000 people.

Real journalism is the enemy of these disgraces. A decade ago, the Ministry of Defence in London produced a secret document which described the "principal threats" to public order as threefold: terrorists, Russian spies and investigative journalists. The latter was designated the major threat.

The document was duly leaked to WikiLeaks, which published it. "We had no choice," Assange told me. "It's very simple. People have a right to know and a right to question and challenge power. That's true democracy."

What if Assange and Manning and others in their wake - if there are others - are silenced and "the right to know and question and challenge" is taken away?

In the 1970s, I met Leni Reifenstahl, close friend of Adolf Hitler, whose films helped cast the Nazi spell over Germany.

She told me that the message in her films, the propaganda, was dependent not on "orders from above" but on what she called the "submissive void" of the public.

"Did this submissive void include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked her.

"Of course," she said, "especially the intelligentsia.... When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen."

And did.

The rest, she might have added, is history.

Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces U.S. hacking charges

 Julian Assange was indicted on hacking charges in the United States, after his arrest on Thursday in the U.K., for his alleged part in the theft of U.S. government secrets a decade ago. Joy and her panel discuss whether he could possibly face charges linked to WikiLeaks’ role in Russia’s attack on the 2016 election.

April 13, 2019


The Heat: The arrest of Julian Assange Pt 1

CGTN America

Published on Apr 11, 2019

After taking political asylum for seven years at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Julian Assange was removed by British police. Assange was shackled and taken into custody. There was a warrant in the U.K. for skipping bail in 2012, but the United States had also charged the Wikileaks founder with conspiring to hack a classified government computer, back in 2010. He faces extradition, and if convicted, could be sentenced to five years in prison. Anand Naidoo interviewed former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency William Benny about Assange's arrest.


News & Politics

The Heat: The arrest of Julian Assange Pt 2

CGTN America

Published on Apr 11, 2019

Our panel discusses the latest: Jefferson Morley, a former reporter at the Washington Post and the author of three books

 on the CIA. Lester Munson, a principal at BGR Group, a leading government relations firm in

Washington.Michael Daugherty, CEO of The Cyber Education Foundation and author of “The Devil Inside the Beltway”.


News & Politics

775.8 KB


 Alexandria Division

United States of America


Julian Paul Assange


Under Seal

Criminal No. 1:18cr///

Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion (18 U.S.C. ** 371, 1030(a)(1), 1030(a), 1030(2)(B)(ii)

Filed in Open Court March 6th 2018


 Alexandria Division

United States of America


Julian Paul Assange


Under Seal

Criminal No. 1:18cr///

Count 1: Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion (18 U.S.C. ** 371, 1030(a)(1), 1030(a), 1030(2)(B)(ii)

Filed in Open Court March 6th 2018

March 2018 Term - at Alexandria, Virginia




At times to this Indictment:

1, Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, was an intelligence analyst in the United States Army, who was deployed to Forward Operating base Hammer in Iraq.

2. Manning held a “Top Secret” security clearance, and signed a classified information nondisclosure, acknowledging that the unauthorized disclosure or retention or negligent handling of classified information could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to the advantage of a foreign nation.

3. Executive Order No. 13526 and its predecessor order define the classification levels assigned to classified information. Under the Executive Order, information may be classified as “Secret” if its unauthorized disclosure reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security. Further, under the Executive Order, classified information can generally only be disclosed to persons who have been granted an appropriate level of United States government security clearance and posses a need to know the classified information in connection to their official duties.

4. Julian Assange was the funder and leader of the WikiLeaks website. The WikiLeaks website publicly solicited submissions of classified, censored, and other restricted information.

5. Assange, who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, was not authorized to receive classified information of the United States.

6. Between in or around January 2010 and May 2010, Manning downloaded four, nearly complete databases from departments and agencies of the United States. These databases contained approximately 900,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay Detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables. Many of these records were classified pursuant to Executive Order No. 13526 or its predecessor orders. Manning provided the records to agents of WikiLeaks so that WikiLeaks could publicly disclose them on its website. WikiLeaks publicly released the vast majority of the classified records on its website in 2010 and 2011.

7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defence computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network, a United States Government Network used for classified documents and communications, as designated according to Executive Order No. 13526 or its predecessor.

8. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as am intelligence analyst, was also using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. ARmy regulations prohibited Manning from attempting to bypass or circumvent security mechanisms on Government-provided information systems and from sharing personal accounts and authenticators, such as passwords.

9. The portion of the password manning gave to Assange to crack was stored as a “hash value” in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange.

10. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosure of classified information.

11. Prior to the formation of the password-cracking agreement, manning had already provided WikiLeaks with hubndreds of thousands of classified records that she downloaded from departments and agencies of the United States, including the Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports and Iraq war-related significant activities reports.

12. At the time he entered into this agreement, Assange knew that Manning was providing WikiLeaks with classified records containing national defense information of the United States, Assange was knowingly receiving such classified records from Manning for the purpose of publicly disclosing them on the WikiLeaks website.

13. For example, on March 7, 2010, manning and Assange discussed the value of the Guantanamo Bay detainee briefs, and on March 8, 2010, before entering the password cracking-agreement, Manning told Assange that share was “throwing everything (she had) on JTF GTMO at (Assange) now.” Manning also said “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left”. To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.” Following this, between march 28, 2019, and April 9, 2010, manning used a United States Department of Defense computer to download the U.S. Department of State cabled that WikiLeaks later released publicly.

14. The general allegations set forth in paragraph 1 through 13 are re-alleged and incorporated into this Count as though fully set forth therein.

15. Beginning on or about March 2, 2010, and continuing thereafter until on or aboutr March 10, 2010, that exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in an offense begun and committed outside of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States, the defendant, JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE< who will be first brought to the Eastern District of Virginia, did knowingly and internationally combine, conspire, an offense against the United States, to wit:

(A) to knowingly access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order and statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defence and foreign relations, namely, documents relating to the national defense classified up to the “Secret” level, reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation, and to willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, and cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same, to any person not entitled to receive it, and willfully retain the same and fail to delivery it to the officer or employee entitled to receive it; and

(B) To internationally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(2), 10330(c) (2) (B) (ii).


16. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to facilitate Manning’s acquisition and transmission of classified information related to the national defense of the United States so that WikiLeaks could publicly disseminate the information on its website.#


17. Assange and his co-conspirators used the following ways, manner and means, among others, to carry out this purpose:

18. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the “Jabber” online chat service to collaborate on acquisition and dissemination of the classified records, and to enter into the agreement to crack the password stored on United State Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network.

19.  It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning.

20. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States.

21. It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.


22. In order to further the goals and purposes of the conspiracy, Assange and his co-conspirators committed overt acts, including, but not limited to, the following:

23. On or about March2, 2010, manning copied a Linux operating system to a CD, to allow Manning to access a United State Department of Defense computer file that was accessible only to users with administrative-level privileges.

24. On or about March 8, 2010, manning provided Assange with part of a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network.

25.  Pm or about march 10, 2010, Assange requested more information from Manning related to the password. Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had “no luck so far.”





Tracy Doherty-McCormick

Acting United States Attorney


WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief: criticisms of Assange and organization ‘absurd’



WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief: criticisms of Assange and organization ‘absurd’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be back in court on May 2nd for the first of two extradition hearings after being charged by the U.S. with one count of 'conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.’ Assange's legal team is claiming this is a violation of the free press. WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, joins Andrea Mitchell to discuss.April 12, 2019



Assange should be brought to Australia, says father of WikiLeaks founder



Julian assange the founder of wikileaks at arrested on 11th April, 2019

A Photo from the Collateral Murder Video exposed by

wiki leaks that showed the USA military shooting innocent citizens

The father of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has called on the Australian government to help his son and suggested he could be brought back to his home country.

John Shipton, who lives in Melbourne, urged prime minister Scott Morrison to step in following Assange’s arrest in London last week.

He told News Corp Australia that Mr Morrison and the country’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) “should in a nuanced way do something”.

He added: “It can be resolved simply to the satisfaction of all. There has been some talk in a meeting between a senator and a senior DFAT official to extradite Julian to Australia.”

John Shipton urged Australian PM Scott Morrison to help his son 

Mr Morrison has previously said Assange, an Australian citizen, will have consular assistance available to him but will not get “special treatment”.

Mr Shipton also expressed shock at the appearance of his son in footage of his removal from London’s Ecuadorian embassy on Thursday.

I'm 74 and I look better than him and he's 47

“I saw him, the way they dragged him down the steps, the coppers – he didn’t look good,” he added.

“I’m 74 and I look better than him and he’s 47. It’s such a shock.”

In Britain, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said Assange should answer questions about sexual assault allegations in Sweden.

The comments came after more than 70 Parliamentarians signed a letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid urging the Government to ensure Assange faces Swedish authorities if they request his extradition.

Mr Corbyn told Sky News: “If there are allegations which Julian Assange needs to answer of sexual issues, sexual attacks that may or may not have taken place in Sweden, then it’s a matter for the courts to decide.

“But, I do think he should answer those questions.

“My objection was to his extradition to the United States because I do believe that WikiLeaks told us the truth about what was actually happening in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Assange should be brought to Australia, says father of WikiLeaks founder

70parliamentarians stand with victims of sexual violence, and are calling on both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Sec to urge them both to be champions of action to ensure Julian Assange faces Swedish authorities and is extradited there if they so request


Tonight over 70 parliamentarians stand with victims of sexual violence, and are calling on both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Sec to urge them both to be champions of action to ensure Julian Assange faces Swedish authorities and is extradited there if they so request: From: House of Commons, London SW1A 00AA


Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP

Home Secretary

Home Office,

2 Marsham Street,

London, SW1P 4DF

 12th April 2019

Dear Sajid

We are writing to request that you do everything you can to champion action that will ensure that Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden in the event Sweden makes an extradition request. This would be so the formal investigation into an allegation of rape can be concluded and, if appropriate, a charge can be made and any trial can take place. We do not presume guilt, if course, but we believe due process should be followed and the complainant should see justice be done.

The allegation of rape has a limitation period which expires in August 2020. Other allegations are already time bound because of the unavailability of Assange. Justice has already been denied in respect of those allegations. There is a serious risk that if the UK does not give every cooperation to any renewed request from Sweden there could be an injustice.  This would be unacceptable. We note that the rape allegation was held by the UK courts to be an allegation which would also constitute also constitute an allegation of rape under domestic law.

The current investigation in Sweden has been discontinued only because of Assange’s unavailability. The lawyer for the rape complainant has formerly asked for the investigation to be resumed. The Swedish prosecution Authority has announced it is considering whether the case can be resumed. The UK should tell Sweden that it will have our full cooperation if they chose to do so.

The decision to rescind the political asylum by the Ecuadorian Authorities seems to have been something of which both the UK and US Authorities were made aware in advance. It is therefore of grace concern to us that it appears that the Swedish Authorities were not were not aware of the plans made to arrest Mr Assange yesterday in London, and we would welcome clarity as to what action the UK Authorities took to ensure that Swedish Prosecutions were informed in advance of the decision.

At present the media attention has been on the decision of the US Authorities to seek extradition. It is for the courts to determine whether it is an appropriate course of action and we are making no assessment as to the outcome of this case.

However, we urge you both that you will give every assistance to Sweden should they was to revive and pursue the investigation. We must send a strong message of the priority the UK has in tackling sexual violence and the seriousness with which such allegations are viewed.

We urge you to stand with the victims of sexual violence and seek to ensure that the case against Mr Assange can be properly investigated.

Yours sincerely

Stella Creasy MP on behalf of

Adrian Bailey MP

Alison McGovern MP

Alison Thewliss MP

Angela Smith MP

Ann Coffey MP

Ann McMorrin MP

Anna Soubry MP

Baroness Andrews MP

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke MP

Baroness Lister of Burtersett MP

Baroness Meta Ramsay MP

Baroness Taylor of Bolton MP

Baroness Prosser MP

Ben Bradshaw MP

Ben Lake MP

Catherine McKinnell MP

Catherine West MP

Chris Leslie MP

Christine Jardine MP

Chuka Umunna MP

Dan Jarvis MP

Darren Jones MP

Dianna Johnson MP

Emma Reynolds MP

Gavin Shucker MP

Ged Killen MP

Heidi Allen MP

Ian Murray MP

Janet Daby MP

Jess Phillips MP

Jim Fitzpatrick MP

Jo Swinson MP

Joan Ryan MP

John Woodcock MP

Karen Buck MP

Kevin Barron MP

Layla Moran MP

Lillian Greenwood MP

Liz Kendall MP

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe MP

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock MP

Lord Harris of Haringey

Lotrd Kennedy of Southwark MP

Lord Knight of Weymouth MP

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen MP

Luciana Berger MP

Lucy Powell MP

Martin Whitfield MP

Mike Gapes MP

Nic Dakin MP

Nick Boles MP

Pat McFadden MP

Peter Kyle MP

Phil Wilson MP

Roerta Blackman Woods MP

Rosie Duffield MP

Ruth Cadbury MP

Ruth George MP

Sam Gymiach MP

Sarah Wollaston MP

Seema Malhotra MP

Sharon Hodgson MP

Stephanie Peacock MP

Stephen Doughty MP

Stephen Kinnock MP

Steve Mccabe MP

Teresa Pearce MP

Thangam Debbonaire MP

Tonia Antoniazzi MP

Wera Hobhouse MP

Wes Streeting MP



Tonight over 70 parliamentarians stand with victims of sexual violence, and are calling on both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Sec to urge them both to be champions of action to ensure Julian Assange faces Swedish authorities and is extradited there if they so request:


8:51 PM - Apr 12, 2019

The letter to the Home Secretary was organised by Labour MP Stella Creasy and stated: “We are writing to request that you do everything you can to champion action that will ensure Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden in the event Sweden make an extradition request.

“This would be so the formal investigation into an allegation of rape can be concluded and, if appropriate, a charge can be made and any trial can take place.

“We do not presume guilt, of course, but we believe due process should be followed and the complainant should see justice be done.

“We urge you to stand with the victims of sexual violence and seek to ensure the case against Mr Assange can now be properly investigated.”

The rape allegation has a limitation period which expires in August 2020, it added.

Assange had been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for nearly seven years 

Assange spent almost seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought political asylum in 2012.

This followed defeat in his legal battle against extradition to Sweden, where he was wanted over two separate allegations, one of rape and one of molestation.

In May 2017, Sweden’s top prosecutor dropped the long-running inquiry into a rape claim against Assange, which he has always denied.

But his arrest prompted the lawyer for a Swedish woman who alleged she was raped by Assange during a visit to Stockholm in 2010 to say they wanted the case reopened.

Prosecutors in Sweden have since confirmed that, while the investigation has not been resumed, they are looking into the case.

Labour MP Stephen Kinnock told the BBC: “Mr Assange is accused of rape and sexual violence in Sweden and it’s vital that that doesn’t get airbrushed out of the conversation because of all the other issues to do with WikiLeaks.

“I think the top priority, as we say in our letter, is to ensure that if the Swedish authorities wish to have him extradited there to face those charges, they must take priority above all else.”

Writing in The Observer, Labour MP Jess Phillips said the allegations against Assange in Sweden were “the first and most pressing case he should answer”.

“The UK government should support his extradition to Sweden before they even begin to consider any pressure from the US,” she wrote.

- Press Association

Assange on the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency

Fox News

Published on Sep 6, 2016

On 'Hannity,' WikiLeaks founder discusses the email scandal, 2016 election

Julian Assange has information that could 'destroy Russian hoax':

Jerome Corsi

Fox Business

Published on Apr 12, 2019

Conservative author Jerome Corsi reacts to the arrest of Julian Assange saying the Wikileaks founder is being unjustly prosecuted.

Julian Assange says he could be killed in US jail

Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen

* Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here. Note that Ardin was deported from Cuba for subversive activities. In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”

However we do not have to accept the single-bullet theory. Life is more complicated than that. In addition to her anti-Castro, pro-CIA streak, Anna Ardin apparently indulges in her favorite sport of male-bashing. A Swedish forum reports that she is an expert on sexual harassment and the male “master suppression techniques”. Once, as she was lecturing, a male student in the audience looked at his notes instead of staring at her. Anna Ardin reported him for sexual harassment because he discriminated against her for being a woman and because she claimed he made use of the male “master suppression technique” in trying to make her feel invisible. As soon as the student learned about her complaint, he contacted her to apologize and explain himself. Anna Ardin’s response was to once again report him for sexual harassment, again because he was using the “master suppression technique”, this time to belittle her feelings.

Ardin is apparently involved with a “Christian” Social-Democrat group. The Swedish church has a precious few male priests: what was once the struggle for female equality has ended up with men being effectively removed from service. Nowadays very few Swedish male-female couples marry in the church, or get married at all; most Swedish gay couples, however, are proud to become “man and wife” in the church. This is all good news for wealthy Swedes: deserted churches sell their properties (once enjoyed by the community) to be fenced off by the nouveau riche created by the latest privatization wave. So much for Swedish social democracy!

The second accuser, Sofia Wilen, 26, is Anna’ friend. Here is a video of an Assange press conference where one can see the girls together. Those present at the conference marveled at her groupie-like behavior. Though rock stars are used to girls dying to have sex with them, it is much less common in the harsh field of political journalism. Sofia worked hard to bed Assange, according to her own confession; she was also the first to complain to police. She is little known and her motives are vague. Why might a young woman (who shares her life with American artist Seth Benson) pursue such a sordid political adventure?//

//Santa is a bad example to the children... so fat
he can't get down chimneys any more
he is a reindeer abuser
and won't allow the elves to unionize // sb11

Note to self: If you go after a fly, sooner or later, you will land on a pile of shit


Rape accuser took "trophy photo", says Assange

 December 27th 2010


WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange

Of Course .....

Australia won’t intervene in Julian Assange's extradition
Julian Assange Arrest At Ecuador Embassy- 

"Australia won’t intervene in Julian Assange's extradition... because since the MI6 controlled CIA has effectively been controlling state and federal politics and the Australian Main Stream Media since the 1970's ....."... Simon Walters ... a senior AWN.bz, NYT.bz and INLNews.com political investigator ...
".... I was told in the 1970's by one for the people that helped start the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Commonwealth Police of Australia (now known as the Australian Federal Police - AFP) after the Second World War ended ... that he was asked by the MI6 controlled CIA and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to come out of retirement and help plot to have Gouth Whitlam, the then Labour Prime Minister of Australia in 1975 sacked as the Prime Minister of Australia, through the power of the the Queen and England's appointed 18th Governor General of Australia Sir John  Robert Kerr ....." Simon Walters .. a senior AWN.bz, NYT.bz and INL News.com political investigator...

The British-American coup that ended Australian independence John Pilger ….  Latin Americans will recognise the audacity and danger of this “breaking free” in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided “black teams” to be run by the CIA. US diplomatic cables published last year by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington’s informants during the Whitlam years.

Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should not be “vetted or harassed” by the Australian security organisation, Asio – then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence. When his ministers publicly condemned the US bombing of Vietnam as “corrupt and barbaric”, a CIA station officer in Saigon said: “We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators.”…”… John Pilger …

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO /ˈeɪzioʊ/) is Australia's national security agency responsible for the protection of the country and its citizens from espionagesabotage, acts of foreign interference, politically motivated violence, attacks on the Australian defence system, and terrorism.

ASIO is comparable with the British Security Service (MI5) and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

ASIO is part of the Australian Intelligence Community.

ASIO has a wide range of surveillance powers to collect human and signals intelligence. Generally, ASIO operations requiring police powers of arrest and detention under warrant are co-ordinated with the Australian Federal Police and/or with state and territory police forces.

ASIO Central Office is in Canberra, with a local office being located in each mainland state and territory capital.

A new A$630 million Central Office, Ben Chifley Building, named after Ben Chifley, prime minister when ASIO was created, was officially opened by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 23 July 2013

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history.

 It culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the OppositionMalcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as caretaker Prime Minister.

Whitlam's Labor government had been elected in 1972 with a small majority in the House of Representatives, but with the Opposition controlling the Senate. Another election in 1974 resulted in little change. While the Whitlam Government introduced many new policies and programs, it was also rocked by scandals and political miscalculations.

 In October 1975, the Opposition used its control of the Senate to defer passage of appropriation bills (needed to finance government expenditure), that had been passed by the House of Representatives. The Opposition stated that they would continue their stance unless Whitlam called an election for the House of Representatives, and urged Kerr to dismiss Whitlam unless he agreed to their demand. Whitlam believed that Kerr would not dismiss him, and Kerr did nothing to disabuse Whitlam of this notion.

On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he went to seek Kerr's approval of the election, Kerr instead dismissed him as Prime Minister and shortly thereafter installed Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all ALP parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies were able to secure passage of the appropriation bills, and Kerr dissolved Parliament for a double dissolutionelection. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority in the election held the following month.

The events of the Dismissal led to only minor constitutional change. The Senate retained its power to block supply, and the Governor-General the power to dismiss government ministers. However, these powers have not since been used to force a government from office. Kerr was widely criticised by ALP supporters for his actions, resigned early as Governor-General, and lived much of his remaining life abroad.




Former President of Ecuador Rafael Correa speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in Brussels, Thursday, April 11, 2019. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was forcibly bundled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and into a waiting British police van on Thursday, setting up a potential court battle over attempts to extradite him to the U.S. to face charges related to the publication of tens of thousands of secret government documents. 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with Former President of Ecuador Rafael Correa


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was forcibly bundled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and into a waiting British police van on Thursday the 11th April, 2019.

"... at our new look and run MI6 and CIA Run Corporation of Australia and 

Australian Main Stream Media ..

we offer the same service as large firms, but our overheads are lower..."

A cartoonist description and and vision of  the way the Corporation of Australian and the Australian main Street media is  now run since the 1970's by the MI6 controlled CIA and ASIO plotted to have Gouth Whitlam the Australian Labour Prime Minister in 1975, sacked by the 18th Governor General of Australia, Sir John Robert Kerr who is appointed by the Queen of England, with the power at anytime to sack the Prime Minister of the Corporation of Australia.... 

"... similar to the Corporation of the USA run from Washington, ...Australia is not run as an independent free government and country ..

 but a Corporation .. and .. as with any corporation the major shareholders of Australia ... being the trillionaires  ...

who own and control the MI6 controlled CIA and ASIO .. have the right to sack the president/prime minister/managing director/ and any of the directors running a corporation ..

 if the major shareholders are not happy as to how they are running the corporation ..."....  Simon Walters .. a senior AWN.bz, NYT.bz and INL News.com political investigator...

".. In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. 

The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price "  John Pilger …




Halcyon Daze popular Irish Happy Funk Bank in 2011 with their manager and film producer the late Thomas Graham Allwood and film directors David Granato and Cloudye Carew-Reid at the Edinburgh Castle, where they were involved in filming the pilot of the Fringe Shows Have Talent TV show which will showcase talented fringe performers who are discovered by the Fringe Shows Have Talent Team, performing at one the over 300 fringe performance festivals and/or busking on the on the streets around around the world  .. such as Edinburgh Fringe Festival, the Dublin Fringe Festival, the New York Fringe Festival, the Adelaide Fringe Festival, the Melbourne Fringe Festival, the Camden Fringe Festival, the Brighton Fringe Festival, the Hollywood Fringe Festival, the Praque Fringe Festival, the Bangkok Fringe Festival ....
The Late Thomas Graham Allwood

The Late Thomas Graham Allwood was murdered in Broxburn, Scotland on the 21st June, 2012,

by a clandestine MI5/MI6/Freemason Operation because he was dared to be involved with  exposing and suing in the High Court of the UK  ....

David Cameron, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,  George Osborne the then Chancellor of the United Kingdom, UK Border Agency Officers, the UK Home Office,

the Home Office Treasury Solicitors, powerful solicitors and other members of the Haywicks Farm Fraud and Murder Gang for:

(a)  criminal contempt by creating and lodging a

 false fraudulent UK Border Agency Document to Master Price of the High Court in London attached to a letter prepared and signed by the UK Home Office Treasury Solicitors
demanding that the High Court Damages Claim for £500 million pounds sterling be struck out by Master Price of the High Court in London without any court hearing .. 
which was issued by Thomas Graham Allwood, his INL/AWN News media company and his partners for 

wrongfully and illegally detaining the extremely talented and funny Ronney Prouty, their USA Character Comedian, at London's Heathrow International Airport for 24 hours,

then putting Ronney Prouty in hand cuffs and flying Ronney Prouty back to Los Angelos on his own return American Airlines air ticket... this help sabotage the filming of the 

Ronnie Prouty .... who is the grand son of the late Leroy Flecture Prouty, who wrote the controversial book called "The Secret Team" which exposed the wrongful way the CIA

 is run, and openly accused the CIA as being involved with the assassination of JFK, the then President of the USA .. had agreed without payment, to fly from Los Angeles to London, 
then to Edinburgh for five days to help host the pilot of the Fringe Shows Have Talent TV Show....


 (b) for fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice .....

for producing a false and fraudulent will of the late Henry Herbert Bulter, so the conspirators could fraudulently end up with the title deed of the valuable Haywicks Farm...

through corrupt  and illegal ways to help Freemason brothers Peter Urquhart and is Freemason legal and investment partners end up with the title of Haywicks Farm
into the name of Peter Leslie and Jacqeline Ann Urquhart by fraudulent, wrongful, illegal, immoral and corrupt means....
It is also interesting to note that Thomas Graham Allwood overheard a conversation between two MI5/MI6/CIA people talking about a clandestine operation to murder Thomas Graham Allwood's business partner,
who was involve in the INL/News Group in exposing corrupt activities of the CIA,  MI5/MI6, ASIO, Mossad, politicians, magistrates, judges, police, bankers, solicitors, barristers, business people, main stream media journalists and networks ..
Thomas Graham Allwood rang his business partner who was in London attending court hearings, from a the house in Broxburn, Scotland, where he and his business partner had been staying .. to warn his business partner  what he had overheard ... 
a conversation between two MI5/MI6/CIA people talking about a clandestine operation to murder Thomas Graham Allwood's business partner ...
What Thomas Graham Allwood did not know is that the phone he rang his business partner was tapped by MI5/MI6/CIA .. and that they became extremely worried about the telephone message Thomas Graham Allwood had left on his business partner's mobile phone..
warning his business partner of a conversation between two MI5/MI6/CIA people talking about a clandestine operation to murder Thomas Graham Allwood's business partner ...
So MI5/MI6/CIA quickly arranged of their operatives the next day to steal the mobile phone belonging to Mr Allwood's business partner ... so they could destroy the telephone message..
unfortunately for MI5/MI6/CIA Mr Allwood's business partner had already down loaded the message of the MI5/MI6/CIA people talking about a clandestine operation to murder Thomas Graham Allwood's business partner ...
and saved the message on a hard drive and emailed a copy of the message to a trusted group of friends.
So this was another reason why MI5/MI6/CIA  to organise some of their operatives to murder Thomas Graham Allwood on the 21st June, 2012 in Broxburn, Scotland,
by a professional six inch knife wound to the heart, after drugging Thomas Graham Allwood  and knocking him out at John Montgomery's home in Broxburn Scotland...
The late Thomas Graham Allwood was the only witness to the conversation of MI5/MI6/CIA people talking about a clandestine operation to murder Thomas Graham Allwood's business partner ...
Kyle Montgomery,. John Montgomery's son ..was charged with the murder of the late Thomas Graham Allwood ... however .. the INL/AWN News Investigation team provided a 300 page investigative report that took six months to investigate and prepare ..
to the legal team of Kyle Montgomery and the head Scotland's Prosecution called the procurator fiscal and the Scottish Police .. that proves conclusively that Kyle Montgomery could not have murdered or killed the Late Thomas Allwood,
and requested that the 300 page investigation report be carefully read and analysed by the head  procurator fiscal, and that an appointment with the head procurator fiscal be given with the INL/AWN News Investigation Team do discuss the report..
a month later the INL/AWN News Investigation Team received a two line letter back from  the head  Procurator Fiscal of Scotland, based in Edinburgh .. stating that  the procurator fiscal of Scotland are not interested in reading the INL/AWN News Investigation Report 
into the murder of the Late Thomas Graham Allwood, and would not grant an interview to discuss what was in the INL/AWN News Investigation Report into the murder of the Late Thomas Graham Allwood, 

would not order that the body of the late Thomas Graham Allwood to be re examined before being cremated .. and that the Scottish Police and the Scottish Procurator Fiscal

 had done and excellent job in solving the crime of the murder of the Late Thomas Graham Allwood ... and that the case and file was completely closed and sealed and will never be reopened again..
What the INL/AWN News investigation team did not know and understand before this .. was that there is is right for an independent Coroner's Inquest in Scotland... so is was impossible to force and independent coroner to re-investigate the death of #
the late Thomas Graham Allwood ..

The INL/AWN News Investigation Team in their research ... found out that Kyle Montgomery at the time of the murder of Thomas Graham Allwood, on the 121st June, 2012, already had an official diagnosis of schizophrenia, being a person has to show at least two of the following symptoms most of the time for a month: The INL/AWN News Investigation Team in their research ... found out that Kyle Montgomery was already had an official diagnosis of schizophrenia, being a person has to show at least two of the following symptoms most of the time for a month, For a diagnosis of schizophrenia, some of the following symptoms are present in the context of reduced functioning for a least 6 months: Hallucinations. These include a person hearing voices, seeing things, or smelling things others can't perceive.
Thus Kyle Montgomery would not have spent a day or night in prison of his 9 year prison sentence .. Kyle Montgomery would have been taken straight to a Scottish Mental Hospital and then be released at a convenient time..
Except for many limited articles in the Scottish Press, which appeared only because an independent freelance reporter based in Edinburgh, Scotland took it upon to take himself to the murder trial of Kyle Montgomery held in the Livingston Courts,
and reported on the trial... because the late Thomas Graham Allwood was the first Australian to be murdered in Scotland .. and was also an undercover reporter for an non main stream alternative media group .. the INL/AWN News Group which tries to compete with the multi-billion dollar Rupert Murdoch News Corporation Limited, which is financially backed by the powerful Zionists .. the Rothschilds .. etc ... all there was not one main stream journalist that worked for a main stream media group that attended Kyle Montgomery's murder trial ... 
this was because the security agencies  such as MI5/MI6/CIA who were involved in arranging the murder of the late Thomas Allwood .. for reason set out above... had issued what is called "A D Notice" to all the main stream media to go out of their way not to cover or  attend Kyle Montgomery's murder trial in Livingstone, Scotland .. if it was not for a lone freelance journalist operating in Edinburgh Scotland attending Kyle Montgomery's murder trial ...  and the INL/AWN News Group putting up stories on their hundreds of sponsored news and information websites ... the world would know very little about the murder of the INL/AWN News undercover journalist, poet, bank manager and film producer ...

The evidence produced at Kyle Montgorey's murder trial states that they found blood on a knife in the draw at the home of John Montgomery .... that appeared to match the DNA of the late Thomas Allwood ... this does no in any way prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kyle Montgomery stabbed and murdered the later Thomas Graham Allwood ... the questions remain:

Who actually stabbed the late Thomas Graham Allwood with a clean six inch stab wound to exactly the right place in the heart to cause the most damage?
When and were was this stab would made?
Was Thomas Graham Allwood slipped a seditive drug at the home of John Montgomery .. at around 12 pm to 1 pm?
Was Thomas Graham Allwood knocked out with a massive king hit punch in the lounge room of John Montgomery at around 3.15 am  ... as evidenced by the next door neighbours .....
with the then dead weight body of the late Thomas Graham Allwood being quietly carried out of the back door of the home of John Montgomery ... by around 4 or more people ...
then ..
Was the late Thomas Allwood's dead weight body them laid down in the side of the street .. where he was stabbed with a clean six inch stab wound in the right place in the heart to cause the maximum damage..
and being already unconscious was left on the side of the street at about 3.30 am to bead to death..
One thins that is for sure and certain ... Kyle Montgomery for many different reasons could not have and was not capable of stabbing the late Thomas Graham Allwood with one only clean six inch stab wound to the heart..
Kyle Montgomery has been drinking heavily as since around 12 am at his father's home, the home of John Montgomery .. as evidenced by the local liquor shop staff and others... 
and would have been  absolutely 'paraletic' drunk ... can't walk, can't talk properly and in the case of my experience being utterly unable to carry out normal actions... after drink heavily for around 14 to 15 hours
from 12 am to 2-3 am the next morning .... while the evidence was that the late Thomas Graham Allwood had not been drinking at all that evening and early morning....
the late Thomas Graham Allwood, who was a well built and strong  man who was also a trained and licensed security guard.. 
not having been drinking ...  could have knocked the absolutely 'paraletic' drunk  Kyle Montgomery over with his  index finger./.

also Kyle Montgomery gave evidence at his murder trial that the late Thomas Graham Allwood was armed in the street with an iron bar .... and claims that he already had a fight with the late Thomas Allwood in the home of John Montgomery..  ..
and so the late Thomas Graham Allwood would have been ready to defend himself against Kyle Montgomery if things happened the way the prosecution claim at Kyle Montgomery's murder trial ... 
so how is the Kyle Montgomery .. singled handed ... going to get one clean six inch stab wound to the heart of the Late Thomas Graham Allwood ....?

DNA of Australian journalist murder victim ‘found on dad’s knife’

Saturday 24 November 2012


THE DNA of a murder victim and the man accused of killing him was found on a kitchen knife in the accused’s father’s kitchen, a court has heard.

THE DNA of a murder victim and the man accused of killing him was found on a kitchen knife in the accused’s father’s kitchen, a court has heard.

A jury was told that the odds of DNA taken from the sharp edge of the 152mm blade matching anyone other than the deceased, Australian journalist Thomas Graham Allwood, were 28.6 million to one, and that blood samples lifted from the handle and side of the blade were a billion-to-one match for 24-year-old Kyle Montgomery.

Montgomery, from Winchburgh, West Lothian, denies murdering Mr Allwood by stabbing him in the chest in Broxburn on June 21 this year.

Forensic scientist Kirsty McTurk, 33, yesterday told the High Court in Livingston that she had analysed blood spots taken from the murder scene and from the knife, which was in a drawer in Robert Montgomery’s home.

Ms McTurk said: “In our opinion, this is consistent with Kyle Montgomery having handled the knife, Thomas Allwood having been injured with the knife and the knife belonging to Robert Montgomery.”

The trial was adjourned until Monday.


Man charged over Broxburn murder


Tuesday 26 June 2012

A 24-YEAR-OLD man has appeared at Livingston Sheriff Court charged with the murder of a man who was found dead in a street.

Thomas Graham Allwood, 55, was discovered lying in Pyothall Road in Broxburn, West Lothian, at around 4.45am on Thursday. Kyle Montgomery, from Winchburgh in Edinburgh, made no plea or declaration when he appeared at the hearing yesterday and was remanded in custody.

Mr Montgomery is due to make his next appearance at the West Lothian court on Tuesday, July 3.




At the High Court in Edinburgh Lord Doherty sentenced Kyle Montgomery to nine years imprisonment after he was found guilty of the culpable homicide of Thomas Graham Allwood in Broxburn on 21 June 2012.

On sentencing Lord Doherty made the following statement in court:

“You have been convicted of culpable homicide. The jury determined that you assaulted Mr Allwood, pursued him whilst in possession of a knife, struck him on the body with a knife, and killed him.

You were involved in an altercation with the deceased on the evening of the killing. The deceased initiated that altercation. I take full account of that fact, the fact that the first person to use physical violence that night was the deceased, and that he had to be ejected twice from your father’s home. I also take account of the fact that the cause of death was a single blow with the knife. These were doubtless factors which weighed with the jury in deciding to return a verdict of culpable homicide rather than murder. I have regard to your previous good record.

I do not regard the fact that you were intoxicated at the time as being a mitigatory factor. I do not attach much weight to the fact that only mild force would have been required to inflict the injury which was inflicted. Sharp weapons of the sort you used are capable of inflicting grievous injury using only mild force. That is part of the reason they are so deadly. The message must go out loud and clear that those who arm themselves with such weapons, and even more so, those who go on to use them, must expect the courts to deal with them severely.

The inescapable facts are that after the deceased was ejected from your father’s home you decided to go out too. You returned a short time later. You armed yourself with a lethal weapon.You resisted your father’s attempts to disarm you. You went back outside. You stabbed the deceased in the left side of his chest with the knife, cutting through his lung and making two slits in the left side of his ascending thoracic aorta. The jury rejected your account of accidental stabbing. The stabbing was deliberate. You were not acting in self defence. The stabbing was not done under provocation. After you had stabbed him you made no attempt to obtain assistance for your victim. He bled to death from his injuries within a very short time.

I would be failing in my duty if I did not treat this as a grave case of culpable homicide. I regard your culpability for the killing as being high. The sentence which I impose is one of 9 years imprisonment. That sentence will run from 25 June 2012.”


Important Google Searches




in English Police Inquiry into a double murder and fraud associated with the theft ... 

Haywicks FarmHaywicks Lane, Harwicke, Gloucester, England, .....

A prolific burglary gang have linked up with well-known figure to profit form their operation.


WhoMurderedThomasAllwood - AWN.bz


Thomas Graham Allwood Murdered in Boxburn, Scotland on the 21st June, 2012 after .....

financed and control MI5 and MI6 involved in the murder of three INL News ...

 NYT.bz from Mr Wjat's secrethideout says he will fearlessly fight on exposing .....

most Openly Corrupt Master in operating in London's High Court of Justice.

TriumphOfTruth-TheBookP1 - INLNews.com


MI5 and MI6 issued what is called a “D Notice” to all major news groups around ...

them from publicizing the murder of the Late Thomas Graham Allwood in Broxburn ...

Who really organized the murder of Thomas Graham Allwood and why?; 3. .....

when he sold the operation to the paper's former compositor Edmund Stirling.

Haywicks Farm was to be used as a film set for a new film 
that is being written by the INL News Screen Play writer called

 "Fraud and Murder in Haywicks Lane"


against Owen Rhys Actions as Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, High Court Master Teverson, High Court Judge Mann, High Court Judge David Richards, Master Price,HM Land Registry, Treasury Solicitors, Attorney Marie Clair Bleasdale, HM Land Registry lawyer Katharine Brothers, Gloucester Land Registrar Julie Jenkins, HM Land Registrar clerk Sarah Canipel, HM Land Registrar clerk Claire Francis, HM Land Registrar clerk David Hodges, Peter Leslie Urquhart, Jaqueline Ann Urquhart, Attorneys Madge Lloyd Gibson, Attorneys Langley Wellington, Julie Williams, and others for being involved with a conspiracy to defraud the property known as Haywicks Farm, Haywicks Lane, Hardwicke, Gloucester, GL2 3QE and well as being involved with a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, malfeasance, collusion and dereliction of duty of public officers and Attorney Marie Clair Bleasdale breaching her sworn duties and obligations as an attorney and for serious criminal contempts of court for knowingly presenting false and misleading facts, information and law to the High Court of Justice.

The concept of the names used in the film is based on the way the series of books the Triumph of Truth (Who is watching The Watchers?) written by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australian Weekend News a subsidiary of the INL News Group, have been written in that the real name of those mentioned in the books are used to expose the guilty. So the real names of those involved of the fraud and murder of the Late Herbert Henry Butler and the conspiracy to defraud his only child Valerie Ann Butler of her lawful rights to Haywicks Farm will be used in the film to expose the guilty. The film as the books are based on the truth so any attempt to sue for civil or criminal defamation will be vigorously defended by the INL News Group based on the fact the information is the truth and it is in the public interest to show the world of the wrongful actions of those involved in the fraud and murder of the Late Herbert Henry Butler and the conspiracy to defraud his only child Valerie Ann Butler of her lawful rights to Haywicks Far, which includes the wrongful way the High Court of Justice and the office of the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry and the masters, clerks, adjudicators, judges  and the staff at Treasury Solicitors and HM Land Registry involved have operated in a wrongful, illegal, immoral and corrupt way to help their Freemason brothers Peter Urquhart and is Freemason legal and investment partners end up with the title of Haywicks Farm
into the name of Peter Leslie and Jacqeline Ann Urquhart by fraudulent, wrongful, illegal, immoral and corrupt means.

Assistant to Gloucester HM Land Registrar, Katharine Brothers, HM Land Regsitrar Julie Jenkins and top property dispute London Barrister Marie Clair Bleasdale join Haywicks Farm Fraud Gang .........................................
that started in 1983 with the Murder of the Late Henry Herbert Butler and the forging of his will by well known Freemason solicitor Simon James Fisher at the time working for Freemason Eggleton Solicitors who were struck off from being solicitors by the Legal Complaints Tribunal, who then handed their legal files to Madge Lloyd Gibson, who knowing the will was a forgery presented the false will to the Probate Office for as fraudulent Grant of Probate to be issued, all with the long term aim of defrauding the Later Herbert Henry Butler and his only child, Valerie Ann Butler of their legal right to ownership of their 25 acres and farm house known as Haywicks Farm, Haywicks Lane, Gloucester, GL2 3QE and have Haywicks farm fraudulently transferred into two of the fraud conspirators names Peter Leslie Urquhart and his wife Jacqueline Ann Urquhart, who had been legal clients of Eggletons solicitors and Madge Lloyd Gibson for over 30 years, who planned to hold the property as a front for all the other Freemason solicitors and ex-solicitors who are based in the Gloucester area including the Eccleton Family and their family development company Egdon Estates and Madge Lloyd Gibson and Langley Wellington solicitors who are commonly known as Gloucestershire's Legal Mafia (GLM). 

The World Fringe Alliance



The World Fringe Alliance combines the resources of some of the world's largest festivals to create a conduit for communication, visibility opportunities and cross-festival participation. The members meet annually to reflect on the status of the modern festival and take actions to better the enjoyment of participants and patrons on a global scale

WFA is around the world and year-round. One of our festivals is happening most months of the year.

Between us we have 200 years of experience of making fringe happen.

Last year we sold almost 3 million tickets in over a thousand venues

You can see our shows in a 1000 different venues.

Halcyon Daze extremely popular Irish Happy Funk Band performing in Meadows Park, Edinburgh in 2011

Halcyon Daze, Grafton Street, Dublin, Ireland. Filmed by Pervege Free Films.


Published on Jun 10, 2011

Halcyon Daze playing on Grafton Street, Dublin, Ireland, 1st June 2011. Filmed by Pervege Free Films.


HALCYON DAZE Halloween in Dublin Oct 31, 2010

Danishout MusicLive

Published on Dec 11, 2010

https://danishout.wordpress.com/2016/... Halcyon Daze, HallowFest in Temple Bar - Dublin November 31, 2010 "Nice place, great Sound"

"....See you all soon in my favourite Australian Newspaper ...

 " The Australian Weekend News".... Mr WIJAT



Old Daily News building now turned into Community News Group

Community News Group 50% owned by Murdoch's Sunday Times and 50% West Australian Newspapers (WAN) 

to keep their joint stranglehold on WA lucrative advertising dollars.

Weekend News is set to be relaunched as 
an Australia-wide weekly newspaper

The Australian Weekend News

Mr WIJAT the Aussie Battler standing up for Truth Justice and the Australian Way
with Mr Wijat's Team ...

Anyone seen my little mate.. Earth The Worm"

ERF The Worm ... Mr Wijat's Little Greenie Mate

Al Wijat .. MT WIJAT's upstart Son .. who even though supports his Dad .. Mr Wijat in standing up for Truth Justice and the Australian Way .. and will always support his Dad .. Mr WIJAT when needed .... Al Wijat likes to spend most of his time surfing and hanging out with col Aussie Chicks . and is always saying to his Dad ... Mr Wijat .... "Dad... you really should be a real job..."

Marvin The Marvellous ... Mr WIJAT's Bright Ideas Man... who come up with 100 new bright ideas for Mr WIJAT everyday ... and every now and again Mr WIJAT says.... " Marvellous Marvid my dear bright idea friend .. you have finally come up with a great idea that should work and I will run with this one..."

The British-American coup that ended Australian independence

John Pilger


Gough Whitlam


In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price

Thu 23 Oct 2014 -  Last modified on Fri 14 Jul 2017


 Prime minister Gough Whitlam watches ACTU president Bob Hawke drink beer from a yard glass Melbourne, Australia, 1972. Photograph: News Ltd/Newspix/REX

Across the media and political establishment in Australia, a silence has descended on the memory of the great, reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam. His achievements are recognised, if grudgingly, his mistakes noted in false sorrow. But a critical reason for his extraordinary political demise will, they hope, be buried with him.

Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”. Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

Although not regarded as on the left of the Labor party, Whitlam was a maverick social democrat of principle, pride and propriety. He believed that a foreign power should not control his country’s resources and dictate its economic and foreign policies. He proposed to “buy back the farm”. In drafting the first Aboriginal lands rights legislation, his government raised the ghost of the greatest land grab in human history, Britain’s colonisation of Australia, and the question of who owned the island-continent’s vast natural wealth.

Latin Americans will recognise the audacity and danger of this “breaking free” in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided “black teams” to be run by the CIA. US diplomatic cables published last year by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington’s informants during the Whitlam years.

Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should not be “vetted or harassed” by the Australian security organisation, Asio – then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence. When his ministers publicly condemned the US bombing of Vietnam as “corrupt and barbaric”, a CIA station officer in Saigon said: “We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators.”

Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, a giant vacuum cleaner which, as Edward Snowden revealed recently, allows the US to spy on everyone. “Try to screw us or bounce us,” the prime minister warned the US ambassador, “[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention”.

Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, “This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House … a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion.”

Pine Gap’s top-secret messages were decoded by a CIA contractor, TRW. One of the decoders was Christopher Boyce, a young man troubled by the “deception and betrayal of an ally”. Boyce revealed that the CIA had infiltrated the Australian political and trade union elite and referred to the governor-general of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as “our man Kerr”.

Kerr was not only the Queen’s man, he had longstanding ties to Anglo-American intelligence. He was an enthusiastic member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, described by Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal in his book, The Crimes of Patriots, as “an elite, invitation-only group … exposed in Congress as being founded, funded and generally run by the CIA”. The CIA “paid for Kerr’s travel, built his prestige … Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money”.

When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term, in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador. Green was an imperious, sinister figure who worked in the shadows of America’s “deep state”. Known as “the coupmaster”, he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia – which cost up to a million lives. One of his first speeches in Australia, to the Australian Institute of Directors, was described by an alarmed member of the audience as “an incitement to the country’s business leaders to rise against the government”.

The Americans and British worked together. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain’s MI6 was operating against his government. “The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office,” he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, “We knew MI6 was bugging cabinet meetings for the Americans.” In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the “Whitlam problem” had been discussed “with urgency” by the CIA’s director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: “Kerr did what he was told to do.”

On 10 November 1975, Whitlam was shown a top-secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA’s East Asia division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier.

Shackley’s message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. The day before, Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia’s NSA, where he was briefed on the “security crisis”.

On 11 November – the day Whitlam was to inform parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia – he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers”, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The “Whitlam problem” was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.

John Pilger’s investigation into the coup against Whitlam is described in full in his book, A Secret Country (Vintage), and in his documentary film, Other People’s Wars, which can be viewed on http://www.johnpilger.com/


#Trump #WikiLeaks #VidaLoca

Trump in 2016: 'I love WikiLeaks,' Trump now: 'I know nothing about WikiLeaks' - 2019

Vida Loca

Published on Apr 11, 2019

President Donald Trump, when asked if he still "loves" WikiLeaks as he said in 2016, told reporters in the Oval Office that he knows "nothing about WikiLeaks." "I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing and I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange. I've been seeing what's happened with Assange," Trump told reporters while meeting with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, referring to the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Assange was arrested Thursday morning in London after Ecuador revoked his diplomatic asylum claim. He has been charged with helping the former Army intelligence specialist Chelsea Manning access Defense Department computers in 2010 in an effort to disclose secret government documents, the US Justice Department announced Thursday morning, hours after Assange was forcibly removed by authorities from the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Trump on Thursday repeatedly denied knowledge about WikiLeaks and Assange. But, in fact, Trump has a history of supporting WikiLeaks, saying at one rally in 2016: "WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks." During the campaign, Trump routinely applauded WikiLeaks for its role in disseminating the contents of internal communications stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign. He even publicly encouraged the Russians "to find the 30,000 emails (from Hillary Clinton's server) that are missing." Still, Trump said Thursday he knows "nothing" about Assange or WikiLeaks. "I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing and I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange," he said. "I've been seeing what's happened with Assange, and that will be a determination. I would imagine mostly by the attorney general, who is doing an excellent job. So he'll be making a determination. I know nothing really about him. That's not my deal in life." "I don't really have an opinion," Trump asked when reporters continued to ask questions. If You Like What We Do And You Should Be Sure To LIKE & Subscribe. Follow Us On Twitter : https://twitter.com/VidaLocaYT #Trump #WikiLeaks 

President Trump:

"I know nothing about WikiLeaks.

It’s not my thing." (C-SPAN)



Published on Apr 11, 2019


Q: "Do you still love Wikileaks?" President Trump: "I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing."

 Full video here:

Assange shouted “this is unlawful” as police officers struggled to drag him from

the Ecuadorian embassy this morning, the court heard. “This is unlawful, I’m not leaving,” he said.

The USA and the MI6 controlled CIA  have used the Economic Hitmen as described by John Perkins in his books, 'The Confessions on an Economic Hitman' and 'The New Confessions of an Economic Hitman',to remove the previous President of Ecuador, and replace him with a head of Ecuador  that is more friendly with the CIA and the USA, who will do what he is told by the USA and the CIA,so that the new President of Ecuador would allow the London Police to come into the Ecuador Embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange, who around seven years ago was given political asylum by Ecuador. Also in 2018 Julian Assange was made a Ecuador citizen.

In a tweet, Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, said: 

“We strongly condemn the detention oJulian Assange and the violation of freedom of speech.

 Our solidarity with this brother who is persecuted by the US government for 

revealing its human rights violations, murders of civilians and diplomatic espionage.”

Rafael Correa

Former President of Ecuador condems the arrest of Julian Assange at the Ecuador Embassy in London. 

Former President of Ecuador was removed as the President of Ecuador by Economic hit men working for the USA,

 and the MI6 controlled CIA  and replaced by the current President of Ecuador is Lenín Moreno

since 24 May 2017 who is has is obviously showing he will do what he is told by the USA, and the MI6 controlled CIA

Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado is an Ecuadorian politician and economist who served as President of Ecuador from 2007 to 2017. 

The leader of the PAIS Alliance political movement, Correa 

is a democratic socialist and his administration focused on the implementation of left-wing policies

The current President of Ecuador is Lenín Moreno

since 24 May 2017. He was elected in 2017.

The President of Ecuador (SpanishPresidente del Ecuador) officially called the President of the Republic of Ecuador (SpanishPresidente de la República del Ecuador) serves as both the head of state and head of government of Ecuador, is the highest political office in the country as the head of the executive branch of government. As per the current Constitution, the President can serve two four-year terms. Prior to that, the president could only serve one four-year term.

The current President of Ecuador is Lenín Moreno, since 24 May 2017. He was elected in 2017.

Assange shouted “this is unlawful” as police officers struggled to drag him from the Ecuadorian embassy this morning, the court heard. “This is unlawful, I’m not leaving,” he said.

Note that Gabriel Gregorio Fernando José María García Moreno y Morán de Butrón (December 24, 1821 – August 6, 1875) was an Ecuadorian politician who twice served as President of Ecuador (1861–65 and 1869–75) and was assassinated during his second term, after being elected to a third.

The relationship between Assange and his hosts deteriorated further after Lenín Moreno was elected to the Ecuadorian presidency in 2017.

Moreno had described Assange as a “stone in the shoe”, but said before his election that he could remain in the embassy if he agreed to abide by certain conditions.

This is from journalist David Crouch in Sweden:

One of the Swedish women who made the 2010 allegations against Assange, whose rape case was closed by Swedish prosecutors in 2017, told the Guardian she was opposed to his extradition to the US.

“I would be very surprised and sad if Julian is handed over to the US,” she said via email, asking for her name not to be used.

Speaking outside Westminster magistrates court after this afternoon’s hearing, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, said:

Anyone who wants the press to be free should consider the implications of this case. If they will extradite a journalist to the US then no journalist will be safe. This must stop. This must end.

"This sets a dangerous precedent... any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the US for having published truthful information about the US"

Julian Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson confirms Wikileaks co-founder will fight extradition

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has been commenting on today’s events in the House of Commons. “Ecuador’s actions recognise that the UK criminal justice system is one in which rights are protected and in which, contrary to what Mr Assange and his supporters claim, he and his legitimate interests will be protected,” he said.

He said that proceedings would now begin according to the court timetable. Full extradition papers would need to be received by a judge within 65 days,

said Javid, and a full extradition request certified by the Home Office. Said he would not discuss the accusations against Assange.

Diane Abbott responded to Javid’s statement by saying she was pleased to hear that Assange would now have access to medical care “because there have been worrying reports about his ill health”

On this side of the house, we want to make the point that the reason we are debating Julian Assange this afternoon – even though the only charge he may face in this country is in relation to his bail hearings – ... is entirely to do with the whistleblowing activities of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

It is this whistleblowing activity into illegal wars, mass murder, murder of civilians and corruption on a grand scale that has put Julian Assange in the crosshairs of the US administration. It is for this reason that they have one more issued an extradition warrant against Julian Assange.

She added: “Julian Assange is not being pursued to protect US national security, he is being pursued because he has exposed wrongdoing by US administrations and their military forces.”


Ed   Edward Snowden has tweeted again, describing the “weakness of the US charge” as shocking.

  Edward Snowden@Snowden

The weakness of the US charge against Assange is shocking. 

The allegation he tried (and failed?) to help crack a password during their world-famous reporting has been public for nearly a decade: 

it is the count Obama's DOJ refused to charge, saying it endangered journalism.


Confessions Of An Economic Hitman Author John Perkins 

On Russia/Syria, The EU & Venezuela Struggles.


Richie Allen

Published on Jun 8, 2018

Support The Richie Allen Show by donating at www.richieallen.co.uk Richie has been producing and presenting television and radio programs for the best part of twenty years. The Richie Allen Show airs Monday - Thursday at 7 PM GMT and at 11 AM UK Time each Sunday. Listen live here: http://www.richieallen.co.uk http://www.fabradiointernational.com (Channel 2) http://www.triggerwarning.tv/live 

Gabriel Gregorio Fernando José María García Moreno y Morán de Butrón (December 24, 1821 – August 6, 1875) was an Ecuadorian politician who twice served as President of Ecuador (1861–65 and 1869–75) and was assassinated during his second term, after being elected to a third.

Did the U.S. CIA kill Ecuadorian President Jaime Roldos in 1981? The investigation continues


Oct 14, 2018 | CuencaHighLife 

By Liam Higgins

Did the U.S. government play a role in the death of former Ecuadorian President Jaime Roldós? More than four years after Ecuador’s former attorney general Galo Chiriboga opened an investigation, there is no definitive answer.

A CIA document released in 2014 reveals that Ecuador, like other South American countries, was part in the U.S.-backed Operation Condor plan from the 1970s to the mid-1980s. The U.S. State Department document said the plan was intended to maintain Latin America as the “backyard for the U.S.”

President Jaime Roldós and his wife (center) just before the fatal crash.

The document states that Ecuador, then under a military dictatorship, became part of Operation Condor in 1978, joining the dictatorships of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay in endorsing state-sponsored terror to control what was perceived to be the threat of communism and to “eliminate subversive sectors of society.”

Ecuador’s office of the attorney general continues to investigate the 1981 plane crash that killed Roldós and his wife, based on U.S. and other evidence, that leftist or suspected leftist leaders were targeted throughout Latin America. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, writer John Perkins says that the CIA was responsible for Roldós’ death.

Roldós had been elected, following years of dictatorship, on promises of social reform and reducing U.S. influence in Ecuador.

Although national police initially reported that Roldós’ plane was brought down by a bomb shortly after takeoff from the Loja airport, the national government at the time immediately sealed all information about the crash and labelled it an “accident.” Another investigation, in 1997, conceded that Roldós was assassinated but did not pursue the case further.

Panama’s Omar Torrijos

Panama PresidentOmar Torrijos died two months later in another plane crash in which witnesses reported an explosion immediately before the plane touched down at a rural Panamanian airport. Like Roldós, Torrijos had criticized the U.S. role in Latin America and was working on programs of wealth distribution. He had successfully negotiated a treaty with U.S. President Jimmy Carter to return to the Panama Canal to local control, a treaty that President Ronald Reagan pledged to overturn.

Operation Condor activities increased dramatically after Reagan succeeded Carter as U.S. president. 

In 2014, Chiriboga told the press, “We asked for documents in the United States to be declassified, in particular a CIA document, which establishes that Ecuador was one of the countries where Plan Condor operated. With this information, we are going to examine information of whether the accident which killed President Roldos was in fact an accident or was not an accident.”

The three-page CIA document stipulates that Ecuador’s intelligence services, along with its army, navy and air force, agreed to gather and share information with other states, monitor telecommunications and engage in psychological warfare as part of the plan. It also outlines Ecuador’s relationship with Argentine and Chilean officials who installed telecommunications systems in the country and offered scholarships and training to the Ecuadorian military. The activities were continued by the Ecuadorian military after Roldós was elected without his knowledge.

“The CIA financed an entire network of people to work in their interests,” said Cuenca journalist Francisco Herrera Arauz, who recently co-authored the book The CIA Against Latin America, Special Case of Ecuador, which examines CIA interventions during the period. “They wanted to destroy communism, and affect the position of sovereignty of Ecuador to break its relations with Cuba. This was not good in the eyes of the CIA and caused us a lot of damage. It is the period in which the left experienced the greatest repression.”

The countries involved with Operation Condor agreed to share information, and work to eliminate leftist groups within their borders, as well as persecute those seeking refuge abroad,” according to Arauz. Operation Condor knew no borders, as U.S.-funded death squads and extra-judicial killings were common throughout the region, he said.

A former member of the revolutionary guerrilla group Alfaro Vive ¡Carajo!, Mireya Cardenas, described the work Operation Condor: “In our case, the CIA destroyed a building one night in Cuenca. And they assassinated our friends. There were infiltrators also, who were paid over a period of two years, three years, they were paid with dollars, when the Ecuadorian currency was the sucre.”

Former CIA agent Philip Agee confirmed that he delivered money for bomb-making in Cuenca. The bombs, set off in public areas such as Parque Calderon, were intended to scare the public, he said. “We would blame them on left-wing political groups and fed this false information to the media.”

Agee added that he infiltrated suspected leftist groups in Cuenca, attending meetings at the Raymipampa restaurant, next the cathedral.

An estimated 60,000 people were killed as a result of Operation Condor by its conclusion in the mid-1980s. Through investigations of the death of President Jaime Roldos, the cases of the Alfaro Vive ¡Carajo! and other affected individuals and groups, Ecuador and the other countries making up this plan are working to uncover the truth of this period and provide justice for those victims of crimes against humanity.


Lawyer Susan Hennessey says the US charges present the UK authorities with an interesting dilemma.

Susan Hennessey@Susan_Hennessey

The fact that Assange is only being charged with CFAA violations will make it an interesting question whether the UK will distinguish this from Lauri Love, who successfully fought extradition to the US on hacking charges: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/05/hacking-suspect-lauri-love-wins-appeal-against-extradition-to-us …

Richie Allen

23K subscribers

Richie Allen

23K subscribers

Richie Allen

23K subscribers

Richie Allen

23K subscribers

Richie Allen

23K subscribers

An Economic Hit Man Confesses and Calls to Action | John Perkins | TEDxTraverseCity


TEDx Talks

Published on Jun 24, 2016

John Perkins describes the methods he used to bribe and threaten the heads of state of countries on four continents in order to create a global empire and he reveals how the leaders who did not “play the game" were assassinated or overthrown. He brings us up to date about the way the economic hit man system has spread from developing countries to the US, Europe, and the rest of the world and offers a strategy for turning this around. “Each of us," he says, “can participate in this exciting revolution. We can transform a system that is consuming itself into extinction into one that is sustainable and regenerative." John's books, including The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, have sold over a million copies, spent more than 70 weeks on the New York Times bestseller lists, and are published in more than 30 languages. As Chief Economist at a major consulting firm, his experiences advising the World Bank, UN, IMF, U.S. government, Fortune 500 corporations, and heads of state convinced him to devote his life to facilitating changes in social, political, and economic systems, as well as in general consciousness. He was founder and CEO of a highly successful alternative energy company and is a founder and board member of Dream Change and The Pachamama Alliance, nonprofits dedicated to creating a sustainable, just, peaceful, and thriving world. John's courage in writing his books and speaking out against his former bosses exemplifies the courage shown by our Founding Fathers and Mothers when they stood up to the British Empire. Like them, John defied threats and bribes and took action. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx


Nonprofits & Activism

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. 

They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development ( USAID), 

and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. 

Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, pay() s, extortion, sex, and murder. 

They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM

I wrote that in 1982, as the beginning of a book with the working title, Conscience of an Economic Hit Man . 

The book was dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been my clients ,

 whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits -- Jaime Roldos , president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama . 

Both had just died in fiery crashes. 

Their deaths were not accidental . 

They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate , government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire . 

We EHMs failed to bring Roldos and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. 

On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events : the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, the first Gulf War, Somalia, 

the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop . In 2003, the president of a major publishing house

 that is owned by a powerful international corporation read a draft of what had now become Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. 

He described it viii Confessions of an Economic Hit Man as "a riveting story that needs to be told."

Then he smiled sadly, shook his head, and told me that since the executives at world head - quarters might object, he could not afford to risk publishing it . 

He advised me to fictionalize it. "We could market you in the mold of a novelist like John Le Carre or Graham Greene ." But this is not fiction . It is the true story of my life . 

A more coura - geous publisher, one not owned by an international corporation, ha s agreed to help me tell it .

John Perkins is an American author. His best known book is Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in which Perkins claims to have played a role in an 

alleged process of economic colonization of Third World countries on behalf of what he portrays as a cabal of corporations, banks, and the United States government. Wikipedia

BornJanuary 28, 1945 (age 74 years), Hanover, New Hampshire, United States

BornJanuary 28, 1945 (age 74 years), Hanover, New Hampshire, United States

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a partly autobiographical book written by John Perkins published in 2004. 

It provides Perkins' account of his career with engineering consulting firm Chas. T. Main in Boston. 

According to Perkins, his role at Main was to convince leaders of underdeveloped countries to accept substantial development loans for large construction and engineering projects that

 would primarily help the richest families and local elites, rather than the poor, while making sure that these projects were contracted to U.S. companies. 

Later these loans would give the U.S. political influence and access to natural resources for U.S. companies.[1]

He refers to this as an "economic hit man." Although he states that throughout his career he has always worked for private companies, and suggests a system of corporatocracy and greed, 

rather than a single conspiracy, he claims the involvement of the National Security Agency (NSA), with whom he had interviewed for a job before joining Main. According to the author, 

this interview effectively constituted an independent screening which led to his subsequent hiring as an economic hit man by Einar Greve,[2] a vice president of the firm (and alleged NSA liaison).

The book heavily criticizes U.S. foreign policy and the widely accepted idea that "all economic growth benefits humankind, and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits.",[3]

suggesting that in many cases only a small portion of the population benefits at the expense of the rest, with the example including increasing income inequality 

where large U.S. companies exploit cheap labor and oil companies destroy local environment.[3]Perkins describes what he calls a system of corporatocracy and 

greed as the driving force behind establishing the United States as a global empire, in which he took a role as an "economic hit man" to expand its influence.

According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID.

 Saddled with debts they could not hope to pay, those countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations 

were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity, Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an economic hit man as follows:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. 

They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

According to Perkins, he began writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man in the 1980s, but "threats or bribes always convinced [him] to stop."

In the book, Perkins repeatedly denies the existence of a "conspiracy".[4]

I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation’s largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. 

The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, 

a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time‘s magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed—well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran

At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn’t have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way.

 The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.
— November 4, 2004 interview

After publishing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Perkins continued with writing three other books on the topic, focusing on other aspects.

 A Game as Old as Empire: the Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption (2007), The Secret History of the American Empire (2007) and 

Hoodwinked: An Economic Hit Man Reveals Why the World Financial Markets Imploded – and What We Need to Do to Remake Them (2009).

The epilogue to the 2006 edition provides a rebuttal to the current move by the G8 nations to forgive Third World debt. Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to privatise their health, education, electric, water and other public services.

 Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

In 2009, the documentary film Confessions of an Economic Hit Man featuring interviews with Perkins, was shown at film festivals around the U.S. 

The film is a Greek–U.S. co-production directed by Stelios Kouloglou, and was filmed in 2007 and 2008. Numerous interview-style statements by John Perkins also appear in the 2008 Internet-based documentary, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and in the 2012 documentary, Four Horsemen

Julian Assange Arrested In London

Today 12:11pm


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested Thursday for charges related to his role leaking U.S. secrets in 2010. What do you think?

“That’ll teach him a lesson about leaking secrets without the president publicly asking.”


“It’s easy to forget now, but in 2010, this country wasn’t the transparent force for good that it is today.”


“This just goes to show that there are some things man was legally never meant to know.”


Experts Warn Prosecuting Assange Creates Slippery Slope To Where We Already Are


Media Condemns Julian Assange For Reckless Exposure Of How They Could Be Spending Their Time

12th April, 2019

WASHINGTON—In the wake of the WikiLeaks founder’s arrest by British authorities on behalf of the U.S. for charges stemming from the publication of classified military documents in 2010, members of the American media condemned Julian Assange Friday for the reckless exposure of how they could be spending their time. “We denounce Julian Assange in the strongest possible terms for his negligence in publicly demonstrating the kinds of work journalists could actually be doing to investigate government malfeasance and hold the powerful accountable,” said Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, speaking on behalf of many of the leading members of the media who castigated Assange for never once considering the harm that bringing rampant government criminality to light no matter the consequences could do to other news publications’ reputations. “It’s abundantly clear that Mr. Assange was focused on exposing documented evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan without so much as a thought for the journalists who faithfully parroted the U.S. military’s talking points when we could have been investigating information that ran contrary to that narrative—does he realize how that makes us look? The fact that he’d just publish information vital to the public interest from primary sources exactly as it was written instead of working with government officials to omit the most damaging parts in exchange for keeping access channels open is simply beyond the pale. The fact that the American public now knows what we’re actually doing day to day is incredibly harmful to this nation.” Media industry leaders did, however, admit that they could probably stand to go easier on Assange where the sexual assault allegations made against him were concerned.

The debate over what Julian Assange’s arrest means for freedom of the press, explained

“This case raises a number of really thorny questions about what it means to be a journalist.”

By Emily Stewart  Apr 12, 2019


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gestures to the media upon arriving at a London court in April 2019 following his arrest.

Is the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange justice against a man who broke the law, or is it a warning shot that journalism is under threat in the United States?

It’s a difficult question to answer, in part because it brings up a host of other related questions: Do you consider WikiLeaks a journalistic organization or not? Did Assange actively participate in criminal activity to obtain classified intel, as the US government alleges, or did he just disseminate information passed on to him and is therefore protected by the First Amendment? Does it matter that Assange and his organization seem to have developed at the very least an affinity to Russia? And is the single charge he faces in the United States the total of the government’s push for justice — or is it just the opening salvo in what will become a larger war to punish Assange (and anyone else who publishes classified information)?

These questions all came to a head on Thursday when, after months of speculation, Assangewas arrested in London by British police after being expelled from the Ecuadorian Embassy there. He now faces likely extradition to the US. After his arrest, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment alleging that Assange conspired with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password on a Defense Department computer network in order to download classified records and transmit them to WikiLeaks in 2010.

That, however, isn’t all the US government is upset about. Starting in 2010, WikiLeaks published a video of an airstrike in Iraq that killed civilians, military documents about the Iraqand Afghanistan wars, and State Department cables in which diplomats gave candid assessments of foreign governments, all provided by Manning. The unprecedented leaks gained enormous attention and made Assange a sort of celebrity — and a target, as top US officials like Attorney General Eric Holder publicly mused about how they could charge him. Perhaps freshest in mind, however, is the “hacktivist” organization’s decision to publish Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta’s emails in the months before the 2016 election.

There has long been a debate about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. Some view Assange and WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency and an ultimate example of forcing government accountability. Others see the work as dangerous and treacherous.

With Assange’s arrest and the unsealing of the Justice Department’s indictment, the dust around WikiLeaks has been kicked up again. Some groups dedicated to free speech and press have decried the incident as a foreshadowing of dark times to come for American journalism, while many observers have celebrated it as justice served.

“This case raises a number of really thorny questions about what it means to be a journalist, and who is entitled to the constitutional protections that do exist to ensure that the public gets the information it needs,” David Schulz, senior counsel at Ballard Spahr LLP and director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, told me.

A lot of people are celebrating Assange’s arrest — but not everyone

At WikiLeaks, Assange has made a lot of enemies, and by many accounts, he’s a jerk. He’s also been hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid an investigation into a sexual assault allegation against him in Sweden.

Many in the national security space hold animosity toward him for compromising sensitive confidential information, including about US military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and communications from State Department officials. Many Democrats also blame him, at least partially, for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election after WikiLeaks published Podesta’s emails and hacked information from the Democratic National Committee.

“Julian Assange got what he deserved,” author Michael Weiss wrote in the Atlantic.

“He’s our property, and we can get the facts and truth from him,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told CNN.

Groups dedicated to free speech and press have had a different read.

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s speech, privacy, and technology project, said in a statement that any prosecution of Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operation would be “unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.”

“The potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are deeply troubling,” said Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, in a statement. He added that the US government could “set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.”

Barry Pollack, an attorney for Assange, echoed the sentiment in an email to Yahoo News. “Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges,” he said.

This is a little like getting Al Capone on tax evasion

When reports surfaced last year that the US government had indicted Assange, there was a lot of speculation about what, specifically, he was being charged with.

As Vox’s Andrew Prokop laid out at the time, the US government had already charged people they’d accused of leaking classified information, including Manning, but going after the publisher of that information was highly unusual. It’s one of the reasons President Barack Obama’s Justice Department hadn’t charged Assange years ago.

But after Assange’s arrest on Thursday, the Department of Justice unsealed the indictment, which is dated to March 2018. The charge: “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” related to Assange’s alleged attempt in 2010 to help Manning figure out a password she needed to access more classified documents and information. Per the indictment, it appears the attempt was unsuccessful.

Compared to what some observers thought the indictment might be — including much more serious charges under the Espionage Act — the charge against Assange is, frankly, a pretty small one.

If he’s convicted, he could face up to five years in prison — less time than he spent hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK.

It’s a bit like gangster Al Capone being arrested on tax evasion charges: It’s probably not what the US government wanted to get him on, but it’s the way they could do it.

“This is not the thing they care about,” Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told me. “It’s the thing that they can win a court case over.”

For those who view Assange as a criminal as contemptible as Capone, that’s a win — take what you can get. But for civil liberties defenders, it’s a reprehensible overreach.

That the US government would go to such extreme lengths to go after Assange has caused some alarm, especially in light of how small the charge is against him, at least for now. “It would be pretty unusual for the government to go to this amount of effort to extradite someone if that was the only issue,” Sanchez said. “If their only contribution to the crime has been that they ran some software against a password hash and then failed to actually help, then that probably wouldn’t result in someone’s extradition.”

Journalists aren’t given a free pass to commit crimes in the pursuit of a story — but they also haven’t been punished for publishing info that came from one

That’s not to say that what the indictment alleges Assange did, if convicted, isn’t a crime.

And reporters don’t get to just commit any crime they want in the name of journalism. If I punch someone to get them to talk to me for a story or break into their house to steal documents, I can still be charged with assault or robbery.

“Journalists are not scot-free to do whatever they think they need to do in order to pursue an act of journalism,” said Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin.

Whether Assange committed a crime in his work with Manning is something that will ultimately be decided if he is indeed extradited and brought to trial. That’s when courts will determine whether he knowingly violated the law to gain access to information. What it could all hinge on:Did he just advise Manning on how to avoid detection, or was he conspiring with her to get information in an illegal way?

There are some prior cases that illustrate how this could play out, and where the line is. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Bartnicki v. Vopper. In that case, a person intercepted and recorded a phone call between a union negotiator and union president and sent it to a radio station, which played a tape of the conversation. The court ruled that the First Amendment protected the broadcaster because it hadn’t participated in the illegal interception.

Other cases, however, have gone the other way. A Texas television station was implicatedwhen a man made recordings of his neighbor’s cordless phone conversations discussing plans to interfere in the local school district’s insurance contract. (The station ultimately settled the related lawsuit.) A journalist was arrested for allegations that he aided and abetted a TWA pilot who stole evidence from the TWA Flight 800 crash in the 1990s.

“There is established in the law a pretty bright line,” Schulz said. “You cross it when you become a participant in illegal activity.”

This is a lot bigger than a password

The debate about Assange and WikiLeaks stretches far beyond helping Manning crack a password. It has reopened the ongoing discussion about whether what WikiLeaks does counts as journalism. It has also raised questions about the government’s intentions and whether this opens the door to prosecuting more journalists or not.

On the former point, people have different opinions of whether what WikiLeaks does — dumping troves of data indiscriminately — is really journalism.

“Is a data dump journalism? That’s an interesting question,” Gitlin said. “In the case of war crimes footage, I feel comfortable saying that by working with Manning on that, Assange was performing an act of journalism. But when you release terabytes of data indiscriminately, I don’t know what to call that, but it’s not self-evidently journalism.”

Indiscriminate data dumps such as those WikiLeaks engages in can have dangerous consequences. For example, human rights advocates have complained that WikiLeaks’ activities have endangered activists in China, and the platform has released information on government sources that the US has gone to great lengths to protect.

Making the matter even more complicated is the evolution of WikiLeaks itself. Back in 2010, it gave the New York Times, Der Spiegel, and the Guardian troves of information. In 2016, it was clearly rooting for Trump and trying to undermine Clinton. And as Foreign Policy points out, Assange was at the same time declining to publish damaging information on the Russian government. Members of Trump’s administration have even gone so far as to denounce WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service.” (To be sure, a lot of journalism is far from unbiased.)

More specifically to Assange and the charge against him right now, there are concerns that there could be more charges brought against him in the future. That’s one of the concerns Wizner, from the ACLU, raised in his statement. “We have no assurance that these are the only charges the government plans to bring against Mr. Assange,” he said.

The New York Times noted that if the Justice Department does intend to charge Assange with additional offenses, it would likely need to do it before the UK decides whether to send him to the US. The extradition process could take months or even years, so there’s a non-zero chance more charges could be added — and press advocates worry that any broader charges related to WikiLeaks’ work could have a chilling effect on more traditional media outlets that are considering publishing leaked information.

“Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public,” Wizner told CNN in 2017. “Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations.”

Adding another layer of anxiety is the Trump administration and its contentious relationship with the press. The president has openly discussed an interest in loosening up libel laws and frequently derides the media.

The controversy over WikiLeaks’ place in the journalistic sphere and what Assange’s arrest means for reporting isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. It may very well be that Assange did commit a crime — but his arrest might not be something we should cheer, at least not without some reflection

Julian Assange: Sweden considers reviving rape inquiry

12 April 2019


Assange was found guilty of a British charge, but he could be extradited to the US to face a separate charge  

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange could face a renewed investigation into an allegation of rape in Sweden.

Assange, 47, who had been granted asylum in Ecuador's London embassy for seven years, was arrested on Thursday.

Swedish prosecutors said they were examining the case at the request of the alleged victim's lawyer.

The US also wants to extradite him from the UK over his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets in 2010.

Australian-born Assange faces a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the US for his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets in 2010, which could result in a prison term of up to five years.

Lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz said she would do "everything we possibly can" to get the investigation reopened in Sweden.

Wikileaks' document dumps that shook world

Why Julian Assange is a wanted man

Assange sought refuge in the Knightsbridge embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault. But Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum and invited the police to arrest him on Thursday.

After his dramatic arrest, he was taken to Westminster Magistrates' Court and found guilty of a British charge of breaching bail. He spent Thursday night in custody and is facing up to 12 months in prison for that conviction.

The United Nations has called for his right to a fair trial to be respected during any extradition process.

What is the Swedish investigation about?

Assange was accused of rape and other sexual offences, against two women, following a Wikileaks conference in Stockholm in 2010. He has always denied the allegations, saying the sex was consensual.

Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to proceed while he remained in the Ecuadorean embassy.

Assange also faced investigation for molestation and unlawful coercion, but these cases were dropped in 2015 because time had run out.

Prosecutors will now re-examine the rape case to decide whether to resume it before the statute of limitations runs out in August 2020.

Ms Massi Fritz, lawyer for the alleged victim, said the arrest came as a shockbut "what we have been waiting and hoping for since 2012 has now finally happened".

She said: "No rape victim should have to wait nine years to see justice be served."

  • Why Ecuador ended Assange's stay in embassy
  • Who is Julian Assange?
  • Timeline of the Assange saga

What does the US want with Assange?

Assange is due to face a hearing over his possible extradition to the US on 2 May.

The US Department of Justice has accused him of conspiring with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to commit "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States".

Manning was arrested in 2010 for disclosing more than 700,000 confidential documents, including a video of US soldiers killing civilians from a helicopter in Iraq. She was recently jailed for a second time for refusing to testify in an investigation into Wikileaks.

Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson said they would be fighting the extradition request. She said it set a "dangerous precedent" for journalists publishing information about the US.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said the charges had been crafted to avoid free speech concerns by accusing Assange of participating in the theft of information. But he said the indictment was "thin on evidence".

During a briefing at the White House following Assange's arrest, US President Donald Trump was asked by reporters if he stood by his election campaign remark that he loved Wikileaks, which released damaging information on his opponent Hillary Clinton.

"I know nothing about Wikileaks," said Mr Trump. "It's not my thing."

How has the UK reacted?

With Assange facing extradition proceedings and up to five years in federal prison on the US computer hacking charge, shadow home secretary Diane Abbott told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the UK should resist handing him over.

She said: "This is all about Wikileaks and all of that embarrassing information about the activities of the American military and security services that was made public."

  • Ecuador arrest man 'close' to Assange
  • How likely is an Assange conviction in US?

Initially Ms Abbott dismissed the Swedish allegations, saying three times that Assange was never charged, but she later said he should face the criminal justice system if the Swedish government does charge him.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also said the UK should oppose Assange's extradition, "for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan".

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but it means "the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal".

Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed the arrest, saying it showed that "in the UK, no one is above the law".

How does the extradition process work?

Lawyer Rebecca Niblock said the extradition decision lies primarily with the courts and that only a judge can decide whether an extradition breaches an individual's human rights.

The home secretary can consider a limited number of issues when deciding whether or not to order an extradition, including whether the person is at risk of the death penalty.

However, if Sweden also made an extradition request, Ms Niblock said it would be for the home secretary to decide which request would take precedence, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence and which request was made first.

Nick Vamos, former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service, said the UK proceedings should not take more than 18 months.

Considering Assange's potential objections to extradition, Mr Vamos said that he did not think courts would accept the US case was politically motivated.

But he said Assange may be able to argue that his likely treatment in the US prison system would breach his human rights and that could not receive a fair trial due to his notoriety and links to political scandals.

Donald Trump, who praised WikiLeaks 141 times, now has 'no opinion' on Julian Assange

By Washington bureau chief Zoe Daniel with Emily Olson


Print  Email  Facebook  Twitter  More


Donald Trump, who praised WikiLeaks 141 times, now has 'no opinion' on Julian Assange

By Washington bureau chief Zoe Daniel with Emily Olson

Updated Fri at 9:03am

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

VIDEO: "I know nothing about WikiLeaks": Trump appears to have changed his tune on Julian Assange. (ABC News)

It is emblematic of the upside-down times we live in that US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly embraced WikiLeaks with giddy joy, may head the administration that finally brings Julian Assange to the US to face the music.

"WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks," Mr Trump, then a presidential candidate, said on October 10, 2016.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!


2:46 PM - Oct 12, 2016 · United States

"This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove," he commented three weeks later on October 31, and "Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks", on November 4.

In fact, Mr Trump mentioned WikiLeaks 141 times in the month before the 2016 election, according to MSNBC.


WATCH: Pres. Trump mentioned Wikileaks 141 times in the month before the election.


4:03 PM - Nov 15, 2017

Questions over Trump campaign's ties to WikiLeaks

His excitement was linked to the fact that WikiLeaks was dumping thousands of embarrassing emails (hacked by an arm of Russian intelligence) from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

The emails dropped at the perfect time for the Trump campaign, starting on the very day that the infamous Access Hollywood video surfaced, exposing the candidate's derogatory comments about grabbing women "by the pussy".

That coincidental timing was examined by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

While that allegation has been dismissed, questions remain about the campaign's interactions with WikiLeaks, referenced in the Mueller probe as "Organisation 1".

After he became President, Mr Trump said WikiLeaks had "absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election".

 The role of WikiLeaks in the 2016 US election has come under scrutiny. (AP: Victoria Jones)

Assange has outright denied the claim that he was in talks with Mr Trump's assoc

Assange has outright denied the claim that he was in talks with Mr Trump's associate, Roger Stone, about timing the email drops for maximum advantage.

However, Mr Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, alleged that Mr Trump knew about Mr Stone's conversations.

Mr Trump "was a presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails", Cohen said in a prepared statement when he appeared before Congress in February.

And yet, in spite of all of the above, it's the Trump administration that's shifted away from the Obama-era position that Assange is a journalist and WikiLeaks a media organisation.

Some time ago it unleashed an aggressive investigation into Assange and, particularly, the organisation's links with Russia.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo kicked off the push when he was the director of the CIA, backed by former attorney-general Jeff Sessions.

"WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service," Mr Pompeo said in 2017, after WikiLeaks published details of CIA hacking tools.

As an aside, obscure outlet Ruptly, which is a subsidiary of Russia's state-backed RT, was the only media organisation to capture video of Assange emerging from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, so make of that what you will.

What we know about Mueller's report

US Attorney-General William Barr has released a summary of the "principal conclusions" reached in special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Here are the five main takeaways.

Washington torn on First Amendment protections

Ever since WikiLeaks burst onto the world stage in 2010 with the release of a cache of classified US data about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington has been divided on one big question.

Is WikiLeaks a publisher with protection under the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press, or is it a conspirator in anti-government activities?

In the first instance, it is the 2010 release of classified information by former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning that the US is using to drive its conspiracy charge to get Assange extradited from the UK.

The newly unsealed indictment re-ups old allegations that Assange conspired with Manning to crack a password stored on US Defence Department computers.

 The charges against Julian Assange relate to Chelsea Manning's release of classified data. (AP: Alastair Grant)

"During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning's transmission of classified records to Assange," the Department of Justice wrote in a press release accompanying the indictment.

"The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that 'after this upload, that's all I really have got left'. To which Assange replied, 'curious eyes never run dry in my experience'."

Assange was charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, which comes with a maximum penalty of five years in prison if he's proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

More charges have already been foreshadowed by Justice Department sources.

Manning looks unlikely to help.

Her 35-year sentence was commuted by the Obama administration after she'd spent almost seven years in prison, but she was jailed again last month, for contempt, after refusing to testify against Assange before a Grand Jury in Virginia.

Obama chose not to bring charges against Assange

A director of the American Civil Liberties Union has urged the US and Europe to tread carefully in bringing charges against Assange.

"Any prosecution by the United States of Mr Assange for WikiLeaks' publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organisations," Ben Wizner wrote in a statement.

"Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating US secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for US journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public's interest."

Edward Snowden@Snowden

The weakness of the US charge against Assange is shocking. The allegation he tried (and failed?) to help crack a password during their world-famous reporting has been public for nearly a decade: it is the count Obama's DOJ refused to charge, saying it endangered journalism.

Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald

Replying to @ggreenwald

The DOJ says part of what Assange did to justify his prosecution - beyond allegedly helping Manning get the documents - is he encouraged Manning to get more docs for him to publish. Journalists do this with sources constantly: it's the criminalization of journalism


2:45 PM - Apr 11, 2019

Under Barack Obama, the Justice Department reportedly hesitated to bring charges against Assange,fearing it would cascade into charges against US journalists.

Justice department officials called it the "New York Times problem" — if they charged Assange, they'd have to charge The New York Times.

However, under the Trump administration, US prosecutors allegedly held hush-hush discussions about several types of charges that could have been brought against Assange, including using the Espionage Act.


URGENT: Ecuador has illigally terminated Assange political asylum in violation of international law. He was arrested by the British police inside the Ecuadorian embassy minutes ago.https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/03/18/the-assange-precedent-the-threat-to-the-media-posed-by-trumps-prosecution-of-julian-assange/ …


10:36 AM - Apr 11, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The "Assange Precedent": The threat to the media posed by Trump's prosecution of Julian Assange -...



When a court filing error led prosecutors to inadvertently reveal they had secretly charged Assange, reporters pressed for information but were blocked by the court.

WikiLeaks has tweeted that the decision to terminate Assange's asylum violates international law.

When asked on Thursday whether he still loved WikiLeaks, Mr Trump said: "I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing."

When asked what he would like to see happen next, he said that would be up to the Attorney-General, adding: "I don't really have an opinion."

March 2019
Read the PDF version here.

A precedent with profound implications for press freedom

New York Times:

“An indictment centering on the publication of information of public interest… would create a precedent with profound implications for press freedoms.”[1]  “Mr. Assange is not a traditional journalist, but what he does at WikiLeaks has also been difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations, 

like The New York Times, do every day: seek out and publish information that officials would prefer to be kept secret, including classified national security matters.” (2)

David McCraw, lead lawyer for The New York Times:

“I think the prosecution of him [Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers. From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.” (3) 

The Atlantic:

“If the U.S. government can prosecute the WikiLeaks editor for publishing classified material, then every media outlet is at risk” (4) 

“Journalists – whatever they think of Julian Assange – should defend his First Amendment rights”. (11)

James Goodale, the lawyer representing the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, put it succinctly:

Alan Rusbridger, former editor of The Guardian:


The Trump Administration has confirmed that it has charged WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange and that it seeks his extradition from the United Kingdom.[5]  The charges relate to WikiLeaks’ 2010-2011 joint publications on war, diplomacy and rendition with a range of media organizations; these were published in Europe while Julian Assange was in Europe.[6] In the US, Assange faces life in prison.

The alleged source, Chelsea Manning, who was granted a commutation by President Obama, was re-jailed on 8 March 2019 by the Trump Administration to coerce her to testify in secret against WikiLeaks over the 2010 publications. On her jailing, she stated that “I stand by my previous public testimony”.[7] In her 2013 trial, Manning stated that “the decisions that I made to send documents and information” to WikiLeaks “were my own”.[8]

The Trump Administration’s actions are a serious threat to freedom of expression and freedom of the media.

1. The Trump Administration is seeking to use its case against WikiLeaks as an “icebreaker” to crush the rest of the press.

The administration is seeking to end the rash of leaks about it by using the case against WikiLeaks as an “icebreaker” against the rest of the media. The administration has been plagued by hundreds of government leaks, on everything from Trump’s conversations with the leaders of Australia and Mexico to Jared Kushner’s security clearance to an upcoming meeting with Kim Jong Un to his personal diary etc. In fact, the Trump Administration has already threatened to prosecute journalists publishing classified leaks.[9] The Trump Administration is hostile to the press and will not stop at WikiLeaks; WikiLeaks is the desired precedent-setter to hobble the rest of the press.

2. Prosecuting WikiLeaks is a severe precedent-setting threat to press freedoms.

If the US succeeds in prosecuting the publisher and editor of WikiLeaks, for revealing information the US says is “secret”, it will open the flood gates to an extremely dangerous precedent. Not only will the US government immediately seize on the precedent to initiate further prosecutions, states the world over will follow suit and claim that their secrecy laws must apply globally too. Assange’s co-publishers at Der Spiegel, Le Monde, New York Times, Espresso and The Guardian, among others, will also risk immediate prosecution in (and extradition to) the US. The prosecution of Assange will have a profound chilling effect on the press and national security reporting. Publishers should not be prosecuted, in the US or elsewhere, for the “crime” of publishing truthful information.

3. The Trump Administration should not be able to prosecute a journalist in the UK, operating from the UK and the rest of Europe, over claims under US laws.

The extradition and prosecution of Julian Assange would post an invitation to other states to follow suit, severely threatening the ability of journalists, publishers and human rights organizations to safely reveal information about serious international issues. If the Trump Administration can prosecute an Australian journalist in Europe for publishing material on the US, why can’t Russia prosecute an American journalist in Washington revealing secrets about Moscow? Why can’t Saudi Arabia prosecute a Turkish journalist for revealing secrets about the Khashoggi murder?

With the Assange precedent established, foreign states will have grounds to insist journalists and publishers are extradited for their reporting. Even in states that bar the extradition of their citizens, as soon as the journalist goes on holiday or on assignment, they can be arrested and extradited from a third state using the Assange precedent.

4. The Trump Administration seeks to turn Europe and the rest of the world into a legal Guantanamo Bay.

The US seeks to apply its laws to European journalists and publishers and at the same time strip them of constitutional rights, effectively turning Europe into a legal Guantanamo Bay, where US criminal laws are asserted, but US rights are withheld. In April 2017, CIA director Mike Pompeo said that “Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen.” He stated:

“We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”[10]

But while rejecting any rights under the first amendment, which guarantees free speech and freedom of the media under the US Constitution, the US believes it still has a right to prosecute a non-US publisher in Europe.

Alan Rusbridger, former editor of The Guardian:

“Journalists – whatever they think of Julian Assange – should defend his First Amendment rights”.[11]

James Goodale, the lawyer representing the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, put it succinctly:

“… the prosecution of Assange goes a step further. He’s not a source, he is a publisher who received information from sources. The danger to journalists can’t be overstated…  As a matter of fact, a charge against Assange for ‘conspiring’ with a source is the most dangerous charge that I can think of with respect to the First Amendment in almost all my years representing media organizations. The reason is that one who is gathering/writing/distributing the news, as the law stands now, is free and clear under the First Amendment. If the government is able to say a person who is exempt under the First Amendment then loses that exemption because that person has “conspired” with a source who is subject to the Espionage Act or other law, then the government has succeeded in applying the standard to all news-gathering. That will mean that the press’ ability to get newsworthy classified information from government sources will be severely curtailed, because every story that is based on leaked info will theoretically be subject to legal action by the government. It will be up to the person with the information to prove that they got it without violating the Espionage Act. This would be, in my view, the worst thing to happen to the First Amendment — almost ever.” [12]

Which other publishers and journalists are also in the frame?

Wikileaks co-published the Afghanistan and Iraq files in 2010 with a range of media organizations. The co-publishers of the Afghanistan material were Der Spiegel, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Espresso. The co-publishers of the Iraq material were Der Spiegel, The Guardian, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Channel 4’s Dispatches, the Iraq Body Count project, RUV (Iceland) and SVT (Sweden). The individual journalists reporting the Afghanistan and Iraq material are identified below.

Co-publishers with WikiLeaks of the Afghanistan war logs

Journalists who reported the material

Expresso: Gianluca Di Feo, Stefania Maurizi[13]

The Guardian: Nick Davies, David Leigh, Declan Walsh, Simon Tisdall, Richard Norton-Taylor, Rob Evans (14) 

The New York Times: Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt, Andrew W. Lehren, C. J. Chivers, Carlotta Gall, Jacob Harris, Alan McLean (15)

Der Spiegel: Matthias Gebauer; John Goetz; Hans Hoyng; Susanne Koelbl; Marcel Rosenbach; Gregor Peter Schmitz (16) 

Co-publishers with WikiLeaks of the Iraq warn logs

Bureau of Investigative Journalism: Writers no names (17) 

Channel 4 (UK TV): Anna Doble, Kris Jepson (18)

The Guardian: Nick Davies, Jonathan Steele, David Leigh, James Meek, Jamie Doward, Mark Townsend, Maggie O’Kanem (19)

Iraq Body Count: Writers Not named (20)

Al Jazeera: Gregg Carlstrom (21)

Le Monde: Patrice Claude, Yves Eudes, Rémy Ourdan, Damien Leloup, Frédéric Bobin (22)

New York Times: Michael R. Gordon, Andrew W. Lehren, Sabrina Tavernise, James Glanz (23)

RUV (Icelandic state TV): Kristinn Hrafnsson
Der Spiegel: Writers not named. (24) 

SVT )Swedish state TV): Susan Ritzén, Örjan Magnusson (25)

The Guardian published hundreds of documents in full, in various sets, often using those exposes as major headlines, as did the other papers.[26] The New York Times published WikiLeaks “war logs”, as: “An archive of classified military documents offers views of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”.[27]

Re-reported coverage of WikiLeaks files by other media organizations is of course even more extensive. Hundreds of outlets reported on the files, often quoting from them extensively. Some of these news organizations published dozens of files in full, with interactive maps and facilities to search the documents, such as The Telegraph in the UK.[28]

All major newspapers prominently covered the WikiLeaks publication of thousands of CIA files in March 2017, the biggest leak in the history of the CIA and the stimulus for the Trump Administration to shut down WikiLeaks.

The fact that media freedom under threat is recognized by a raft of organizations:

Dinah PoKempner, General Counsel, Human Rights Watch:

“No one should be prosecuted under the antiquated Espionage Act for publishing leaked government documents. That 1917 statute was designed to punish people who leaked secrets to a foreign government, not to the media, and allows no defense or mitigation of punishment on the basis that public interest served by some leaks may outweigh any harm to national security.”[29]

David Kaye: UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression:

“Prosecuting Assange would be dangerously problematic from the perspective of press freedom… and should be strongly opposed”[30]

Kenneth Roth, Director of Human Rights Watch:

“Deeply troubling if the Trump Administration, which has shown little regard for media freedom, would charge Assange for receiving from a government official and publishing classified information–exactly what journalists do all the time.”[31]

David Bralow, an attorney with The Intercept:

“It’s hard to see many of WikiLeaks’ activities as being different than other news organizations’ actions when it receives important information, talks to sources and decides what to publish. The First Amendment protects all speakers, not simply a special class of speaker.”[32]

Alexandra Ellerbeck, Committee to Protect Journalists, North America program coordinator:

“We would be concerned by a prosecution that construes publishing government documents as a crime. This would set a dangerous precedent that could harm all journalists, whether inside or outside the United States.”[33]

Trevor Timm, director of Freedom of the Press Foundation:

“Any charges brought against WikiLeaks for their publishing activities pose a profound and incredibly dangerous threat to press freedom”.[34]

Bruce Shapiro, contributing editor to The Nation:

“The notion of sealed charges against a publisher of leaked documents ought to have warning sirens screaming in every news organization, think tank, research service, university, and civil-liberties lobby…. The 

still-secret Assange charges, if unchallenged, could burn down the scaffolding of American investigative reporting”.[35]

Ben Wizner, ACLU:

“Any prosecution of Mr Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations”. (36) 

High-ranking Trump Administration officials have issued a series of threats against Assange and WikiLeaks to “take down” the organization, asserting that “Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a US citizen” (then-CIA director Mike Pompeo[37]) and stating that arresting Assange is a “priority” for the US (then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions[38]).

The key reason for this approach is WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of files on the CIA in 2017, which revealed the CIA’s efforts to infest computers, smartphones, TVs, routers and even vehicles with CIA viruses and malware. The US government arrested a young US intelligence officer as WikiLeaks’ source who now faces 160 years in prison and is being held in harsh conditions. The media reported in 2017, just after the Vault 7 publications, that the US was expanding the investigation against Assange and had prepared charges against him.[39] All the while, it has never been questioned that WikiLeaks simply published truthful information.

Julian Assange’s contribution to journalism

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have won numerous major journalism prizes, including Australia’s highest journalistic honour (equivalent to the Pulitzer), the Walkley prize for “The Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism”, The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (UK), the Index on Censorship and The Economist’s New Media Award, the Amnesty International New Media Award, and has been nominated for the UN Mandela Prize (2015) and the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize (nominated by Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire). WikiLeaks has been repeatedly found by courts to be a media organization.[40]

WikiLeaks receives censored and restricted documents anonymously after Julian Assange invented the first anonymous secure online submission system for documents from journalistic sources. For years it was the only such system of its kind, but secure anonymous dropboxes are now seen as essential for many major news and human rights organizations.

WikiLeaks publications have been cited in tens of thousands of articles and academic papers and have been used in numerous court cases promoting human rights and human rights defenders. For example, documents published by WikiLeaks were recently successfully used in the International Court of Justice over the UK’s illegal depopulation of the Chagos Islands, which were cleared to make way for a giant US military base at the largest Island, Diego Garcia. The Islanders have been fighting for decades for recognition.

Julian Assange pioneered large international collaborations to secure maximum spread and contextual analysis of large whistleblower leaks. For “Cablegate”, WikiLeaks entered into partnerships with 110 different media organizations and continues to establish partnerships in its publications. This model has since been replicated in other international media collaborations with significant successes, such as the Panama Papers.


All media organizations and journalists must recognize the threat to their freedom and ability to work posed by the Trump Administration’s prosecution of Assange. They should join human rights organizations, the United Nations and many others in opposing Assange’s extradition. They should do so out of their own self-interest given that their ability to safely publish is under serious threat. 

For more information, contact: courage.contact@couragefound.org

The Courage Foundation – www.couragefound.org – is an international organization that supports those who risk life or liberty to make significant contributions to the historical record. It campaigns and fundraises for the legal and public defence of specific individuals such as Julian Assange who are subject to serious prosecution or persecution.


Julian Assange Arrested in London as U.S. Unseals Hacking Conspiracy Indictment


Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested Thursday at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he had sheltered since 2012.

By Charlie SavageAdam Goldman and Eileen Sullivan

April 11, 2019

Leer en español

WASHINGTON — The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested on Thursday in London to face a charge in the United States of conspiring to hack into a Pentagon computer network in 2010, bringing to an abrupt end a seven-year saga in which he had holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in Britain to avoid capture.

The Ecuadorean government suspended the citizenship it had granted Mr. Assange and evicted him on Thursday, clearing the way for his arrest. His hosts had displayed growing impatience, listing grievances including recent WikiLeaks releases they said interfered with other states’ internal affairs and personal discourtesies, like the failure of Mr. Assange to clean the bathroom and look after his cat.

A bedraggled and shackled Mr. Assange, 47, was dragged out of the embassy. At a court hearing, a judge swiftly found him guilty of jumping bail, and he was detained partly in connection with an American extradition warrant. Mr. Assange indicated that he would fight extradition, and legal experts said that process could take years. He is likely to argue that the case is politically motivated rather than driven by legitimate legal concerns.

Mr. Assange’s arrest brought to a head long-simmering tensions that have raised profound First Amendment press freedom issues. Since Mr. Assange began publishing archives of secret American military and diplomatic documents in 2010 — provided by the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning — senior officials in two administrations had weighed whether to try to put him out of business by charging him with a crime. Ms. Manning was convicted at a court-martial trial in 2013 of leaking the documents.

The Obama administration had explored whether to bring charges against Mr. Assange but decided not to, in part because of fears of creating a precedent that could chill traditional journalism. But in November, an accidental court filing appeared to disclose that the Trump administration had secretly charged him with some unspecified offense.

The indictment unsealed Thursday, however, revealed that prosecutors in Northern Virginia had not charged Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act for publishing government secrets. Instead, they charged him with conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion based on his alleged agreement to try to help Ms. Manning break an encoded portion of passcode that would have permitted her to log on to a classified military network under another user’s identity.

Because traditional journalistic activity does not extend to helping a source break a code to gain illicit access to a classified network, the charge appeared to be an attempt by prosecutors to sidestep the potential First Amendment minefield of treating the act of publishing information as a crime. Nevertheless, journalists should still be worried, said Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Mr. Assange.

“While the indictment against Julian Assange disclosed today charges a conspiracy to commit computer crimes, the factual allegations against Mr. Assange boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source,” Mr. Pollack said. “Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

Spokesmen for the Justice Department’s National Security Division and for the United States attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment.

Julian Assange Indictment

0.7 MB

The indictment of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, filed in federal District Court in Virginia. (PDF, 7 pages, 0.22 MB)

7 pages, 0.22 MB

Mr. Assange has been in the sights of the United States government since his organization began publishing Ms. Manning’s leaks in 2010, bringing to light many secrets — like revealing that more civilians had died in Iraq than official estimates showed, detailing the accusations against Guantánamo detainees and airing American diplomats’ unvarnished takes on what was happening around the world — vaulting WikiLeaks to fame. A grand jury in Virginia began investigating people with links to WikiLeaks.

Most recently, Mr. Assange has been under attack for his organization’s release during the 2016 presidential campaign of thousands of Democratic emails stolen by Russian hackers. (Russian intelligence officers apparently adopted the guise of a hacker calling itself Guccifer 2.0 when providing the files to WikiLeaks.) But the conspiracy charge against Mr. Assange is not related to WikiLeaks’ role in Russia’s operations to sabotage the election.

The internal government debate over whether to charge Mr. Assange continued under the Trump administration and was accelerated by Jeff Sessions, the attorney general at the time, according to former officials involved in the discussions. It centered on whether Mr. Assange was a journalist or whether at least some of his actions could be deemed crimes unrelated to journalism.

A hacking offense cited in the indictment carries an eight-year statute of limitations, which may have played a role in spurring the Trump administration to decide whether to move forward: The unsealed court papers indicated that a grand jury returned the indictment on March 6, 2018 — almost eight years to the day that Mr. Assange is accused of agreeing to help Ms. Manning try to crack the password, court papers showed.

The indictment says Mr. Assange made that agreement on March 8, 2010. Had they succeeded, prosecutors said, it would have helped Ms. Manning cover her tracks by making it harder for the government to later identify who had copied files. But Mr. Assange’s efforts evidently failed — he told Ms. Manning two days later, on March 10, that he had “no luck so far,” according to the court filing.

Also on March 8, prosecutors said, Ms. Manning told Mr. Assange, “After this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” Mr. Assange replied, “Curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

That exchange came at a time when Ms. Manning had copied and sent to WikiLeaks archives of logs of significant events in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and dossiers about Guantánamo Bay detainees, but she had not yet sent the group hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables from American embassies around the world, the indictment said. Weeks later, she began copying and uploading the State Department messages to WikiLeaks, it said.

The pair also tried to cover their tracks by removing user names from the disclosed information and deleting their chat logs, according to the indictment.

During her court-martial, in which some of Mr. Assange’s efforts to help were also discussed, Ms. Manning took complete responsibility for her actions and said that Mr. Assange had not pushed her to take them.

“No one associated with W.L.O.” — an abbreviation she used to refer to the WikiLeaks organization — “pressured me into sending any more information,” she said at the time. “I take full responsibility.”

Outside the Ecuadorean Embassy on Thursday.CreditMatt Dunham/Associated Press

Outside the Ecuadorean Embassy on Thursday.CreditMatt Dunham/Associated Press

Ms. Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking the files and served about seven — the longest of any convicted leaker in American history — before President Barack Obama commuted most of the remainder of her sentence shortly before leaving office in 2017.

Ms. Manning is in jail again. A judge held her in civil contempt last month for refusing to testify before a grand jury about her interactions with WikiLeaks.

If Mr. Assange is convicted on the conspiracy to hack offense alone, he could face up to five years in prison. The government could later seek to charge him with additional offenses, but because of extradition practices, any such superseding indictment would most likely need to come soon, before Britain formally decides whether to transfer custody of him.

Until recently, Mr. Assange’s Ecuadorean citizenship, granted in 2017, presented a hurdle in President Lenín Moreno’s efforts to remove him from the embassy. Ecuador’s Constitution limits the government’s ability to turn over citizens to a foreign justice system, especially if they could face torture or the death penalty, which are outlawed in Ecuador.

The country’s former foreign minister, María Fernanda Espinosa, originally granted Mr. Assange’s citizenship, citing a policy that allowed certain foreigners under “international protection” to be naturalized. She argued that Mr. Assange’s refuge at the embassy was a case that qualified.

However, on Thursday, Ecuador’s current foreign minister, José Valencia, said Mr. Assange’s citizenship had been suspended because of irregularities, opening the door for him to be handed to the British authorities.

Mr. Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced questions about sexual assault accusations, which he has denied. Sweden rescinded its arrest warrant for Mr. Assange in 2017, but he refused to leave the embassy.

Under a previous president, Ecuador had offered Mr. Assange citizenship and open-ended refuge in its embassy. But its government soured on the relationship as the years kept passing, and it eventually began to impose limits on what Mr. Assange could say and do.

The Ecuadorean government said last year that it had cut off Mr. Assange’s internet access, saying that he had violated an agreement to stop commenting on, or trying to influence, the politics of other countries. The government also imposed other restrictions, like limiting his visitors. He sued in October, claiming that it was violating his rights.

On Thursday, Mr. Moreno, who became Ecuador’s president in 2017, said on Twitter that his country had decided to stop sheltering Mr. Assange after “his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols.”

Reporting was contributed by Katie Benner from Washington; David D. Kirkpatrick and Richard Pérez-Peña from London; Nicholas Casey from New York; and Raphael Minder from Madrid.

Follow Adam Goldman, Charlie Savage and Eileen Sullivan on Twitter: @adamgoldmanNYT@charlie_savage and @esullivannyt.

Julian Assange: What happens next after embassy arrest




After almost seven years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing potential extradition from the UK. 

His looming crown court appearance for skipping bail is likely to be the least of his worries in the coming weeks, as he could end up facing far more serious allegations abroad.

Assange has been accused of rape in Sweden and conspiracy in the US. Washington is already seeking his extradition, and Swedish authorities might soon do the same.

So where will he end up - and when? Sky News looks ahead to what comes next in this long-running saga.

'UK resist!': Julian Assange shouts during arrest

Where is he now?

Assange is being held at HMP Wandsworth in southwest London ahead of an appearance at Southwark Crown Court, where he will be sentenced for breaching his bail conditions.

The 47-year-old was sent to crown court after a judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court found him guilty of the charge, branding him a "narcissist" in the process.

He could be handed a 12-month jail term when he is sentenced.

Assange will return to Westminster via video-link on 2 May, in relation to his possible extradition to the US.

Assange arrives at Westminster Magistrates Court 

Why does the US want him?

It was widely assumed for years that US authorities had their eye on Assange, but it was not until his arrest in London that the department of justice finally confirmed why.

The official charge is of "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion", alleging that he conspired with former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to access classified information on department of defence computers in 2010.

Among the data that ended up on WikiLeaks was footage of US soldiers killing civilians in Iraq.

The video, along with other information about US foreign policy, was released as part of what the department of justice described as "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the US".

Manning was convicted of espionage and other offences in 2013, and sentenced to 35 years in jail. She was pardoned by former president Barack Obama and released in 2017.

However, Manning was jailed earlier this year for refusing to give evidence into a grand jury investigation into the website. 

Chelsea Manning's first photo after she was released from prison.

Assange could get five years behind bars if he is extradited and found guilty. The US may also add additional charges.

He has never been charged in relation to allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but his company was sued alongside Russia and the Trump campaign by the Democratic Party.

WikiLeaks published hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign, which she has long pointed to as a pivotal moment in the run-up to the election.

Abbott defends Assange over potential US extradition  

What about Sweden?

Assange first claimed political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy amid a legal battle against an attempt to extradite him to Sweden over an allegation of rape.

The Australian has always denied the claim and Swedish prosecutors set the inquiry aside in May 2017, saying they had exhausted all avenues of investigation as long as Assange remained in the embassy.

His arrest has since prompted the lawyer for the woman who accused him to ask for the case to be reopened.

Assange was in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012  

Swedish prosecutors have confirmed that they are looking into the case.
It remains to be seen if they will before the opportunity to charge him expires next August, but dozens of UK MPs are among those keen for him to face up to the accusation.

Around 70 MPs have signed a letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid urging the government to make sure that Assange faces Swedish authorities if the country requests his extradition.

The WikiLeaks founder has plenty of devoted fans

Where will the UK choose to send him?

The future of Assange is ultimately in the hands of the British courts, but the home secretary can have a major say on where he could end up - and the issue is politically charged.
In addition to the letter signed by the MPs, there is also opposition to the prospect of him being extradited to the US, notably from Jeremy Corbyn.

Assuming Sweden joins the US in seeking his extradition, it is understood that Mr Javid could decide to prioritise one or the other.

Home secretary makes statement on Assange arrest  

The extradition act states that he should consider the relative seriousness of the offence, the place where it is alleged to have happened, the date a warrant was issued, and whether the person has already been convicted.

Rebecca Niblock, a lawyer who specialises in extradition at Kingsley Napley, told Sky News "the only two that are relevant to this case are the date and the relative seriousness".

She also said there "isn't a legal mechanism" through which Mr Javid could block an extradition request to Sweden, adding the UK has a "high degree of trust" in the legal systems of other EU member states.

Some are concerned that being extradited to the US first would mean Assange would not be returned to Sweden before the case there expires, making the role of Mr Javid more important than it might otherwise have been.

The government blocked moves to extradite Gary McKinnon to the US 

Were there just one potential request to consider, he would have little influence, as powers his office previously had to intervene have been severely limited since the case of computer hacker Gary McKinnon.

The then home secretary Theresa May was able to step in and stop his extradition to the US over fears that he was at risk of suicide, but a change in the law since then makes such interventions far more difficult.

Ms Niblock said Mr Javid would only be able to intervene if there were concerns that the death penalty could be used or if there were any "speciality arrangements", meaning that a person extradited to another country for one offence cannot have additional offences added on after they arrive.

Pamela Anderson is among those who support the work of Assange  

How will Assange respond?

The tables may have turned against Assange, but his arrest does not make this saga any more straightforward.

With a top legal team and devoted supporters at his back, he will no doubt fight any attempt to extradite him.

He could appeal any decision to send him to the US or Sweden to the high court, and subsequently take the case to the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

Regardless of whether an appeal ended up being successful, it could significantly delay the process.

Assange will first have to serve his sentence for breaching his bail conditions in the UK, which means we could be deep into 2020 before we know for certain where he will be heading next - and how long he might have to stay there.


Time Line of Julian Assange's Fight For Freedom



Julian Assange claimed political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June 2012 and has been there until his arrest on Thursday. 

Here's a breakdown of all the legal wranglings and diplomatic tension.

2010 August

An arrest warrant is issued over separate allegations of rape and molestation after Mr Assange's visit to Sweden. He is questioned in Stockholm and denies the claims. 


2010 November

Interpol put out an international arrest warrant after a Swedish court approves request to detain him on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

Interpol put out an international arrest warrant early on in the case   


2010 December

Mr Assange is remanded in custody after an extradition hearing in London. He later gets bail but is kept behind bars when Swedish authorities challenge the decision. 

Conditional bail reinstated at High Court when supporters offer up £240,000.

Mr Assange photographed in the back of a police van in 2010  

2011  February

The extradition request from Sweden is granted, as a UK judge says it would not breach Mr Assange's human rights. The WikiLeaks founder vows to fight the ruling.

2011 November

Mr Assange loses a High Court appeal against his extradition, and the case is destined for the highest court in the land.

Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 20122012  May

Supreme Court upholds the decision and says the extradition is lawful. It later dismisses an attempt to reopen the appeal as being "without merit".

2012  May

Supreme Court upholds the decision and says the extradition is lawful. It later dismisses an attempt to reopen the appeal as being "without merit".

2012 19 June

Mr Assange steps inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London's wealthy Knightsbridge.

He requests political asylum, fearing he could be eventually end up being extradited to the US to potentially face decades behind bars.

WikiLeaks' publishing of masses of confidential information on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as American diplomatic memos, has made Mr Assange notorious and provoked fury among US intelligence and defence chiefs.

Supporters gathered outside the embassy in August 2012  

2012 16 August

Ecuador grants the asylum request.

It means Mr Assange can be assured police are not able to enter and arrest him - as long as he doesn't leave the building - because of special diplomatic immunity rules.

Metropolitan Police guard the building in case he tries to flee to the safe haven of the South American country.

2012 19 August

Mr Assange appears on the embassy balcony as he urges an end to the US government "witch-hunt" of WikiLeaks.

2012  November

 Five months in, Ecuador's ambassador to the UK says their guest has a chronic lung condition after being cooped up inside the building.

2012 December

Back in front of the media on the balcony, Mr Assange marks six months to say the "door is open" for talks with the Swedish authorities to end the deadlock.

2013 June

A year has passed and the apparent stalemate shows no signs of being resolved.

Mr Assange tells reporters that he fears moves to extradite him to the US are already under way and that he won't leave the embassy, even if the arrest warrant over the sex offence claims is withdrawn.

2014  July

A defeat for Mr Assange as the Australian loses his legal bid for Swedish authorities to cancel the arrest warrant.

2014  August

There is speculation Mr Assange needs hospital treatment for heart and lung problems.

He tells a news conference he will soon be leaving the embassy but dismisses claims that he is about to give up his fight over extradition to Sweden.

2014 September

His legal team complains to the United Nations about the actions of the UK and Sweden. They say his confinement without charge amounts to illegal detention.

2014 November

Mr Assange loses an appeal in Sweden over the decision to uphold the arrest warrant.

2014 December

American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky and Hollywood actor John Cusack visit Mr Assange.

Other famous visitors to make a house call during his time in the embassy include ex-Baywatch star Pamela Anderson - who has dropped by on a number of occasions with a spot of lunch, Lady Gaga, Eric Cantona and civil rights campaigner Jesse Jackson.

Nigel Farage has also been spotted leaving the embassy but refused to say whether he had met Mr Assange.

Pamela Anderson is one of many celebrities to have visited Mr Assange 


Benedict Cumberbatch, however, was shunned by the WikiLeaks boss. The actor played him in the movie The Fifth Estate and wanted to meet him to study his mannerisms.

Mr Assange dismissed the book on which the film was based as "toxic".

Pamela Anderson is one of many celebrities to have visited Mr Assange  

2015 March

After years of getting nowhere, Swedish prosecutors ask to question Mr Assange inside the embassy.

2015 June

Mr Assange claims the appointment to interview him has been cancelled.

2015 13 August

The inquiry into the sexual molestation and unlawful coercion allegations is dropped after a legal time limit passes - but the more serious rape allegation stands and the investigation remains active.

2015 16 August

The Foreign Office accuses Ecuador of preventing the proper course of justice by giving Mr Assange a safe haven.

2015 12 October

Police call off their 24-hour watch outside the embassy after three years and an estimated cost of £12m. CCTV is later installed instead.

 The multimillion-pound 24-hour police guard at the embassy ended in 2015

2016 5 February

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention agrees supports his legal team's appeal and says Mr Assange is being "arbitrarily detained" at the embassy.

It urges an end to his "deprivation of liberty".

Philip Hammond, then the foreign secretary, calls it "frankly ridiculous" - a response Mr Assange calls "insulting".

2016 9 February

Prosecutors say they are working on a new request to get inside the embassy and interview Mr Assange about the rape accusation.

Julian Assange at the balcony of the embassy in February 2016  

2016  22 February

Lawyers go back to court to try to get the arrest warrant dropped but a month later the request is turned down.

2016  24 March

The government formally asks the UN to review its "deeply flawed" conclusion that Mr Assange is being "arbitrarily detained".

2016  May

A cat - a gift from Mr Assange's children - takes up residence at the diplomatic outpost.

 The dapper feline puts in periodic appearances in the embassy window sporting a red and white striped tie.

Mr Assange's dapper-looking cat became something of an attraction

2016   20 June

Ecuador confirms Sweden has put in a formal request to enter the embassy and interview Mr Assange.

2016   9 August

Sweden's court of appeal receives an appeal that argues it must comply with the UN assertion that Mr Assange's is being illegally deprived of his liberty.


2016  11 August

Mr Assange will be questioned inside the embassy, Ecuador confirms.

2016  16 September

Sweden rejects the bid to get an arrest warrant dropped, saying nothing has changed.

2016  14 November

Finally, Swedish authorities get their chance to put questions to the WikiLeaks founder during a two-day interview at the embassy.

Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren and police inspector Cecilia Redell were present - but it was an Ecuadorian prosecutor asking the questions.

Chelsea Manning's release sparked talk that Mr Assange could soon leave the embassy  

2017 17 January

Outgoing US president Barack Obama decides to free WikiLeaks' key whistleblower Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning.

Speculation mounts that Mr Assange will finally draw a line under his time hunkered down in the Ecuadorian embassy after WikiLeaks tweets before the decision: "If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ (Department of Justice) case."  

2017  19 January

Mr Assange pledges to stand by the offer to go to the US if his rights are respected.

2017  21 April

Jeff Sessions, the new US attorney general, says Mr Assange's arrest is a "priority".

2017  19 May

After years of legal fighting, Sweden's prosecutor says the rape case has been dropped: "At this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted," says Marianne Nye.

"He has tried to dodge all attempts to avoid Swedish and British legal authorities," she adds.

Mr Assange tweets that his "name was slandered" and that he will not "forgive or forget".

His accuser, meanwhile, says she is "shocked" and calls it a "scandal".