Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Last revision Both sides next revision
letter_template_4 [2020/03/30 13:06]
feistyspinach created
letter_template_4 [2020/03/30 13:10]
feistyspinach
Line 28: Line 28:
  
    
- 
 Today's judgment compounds a series of disasters in this catastrophic case that will stain the UK forever. Today's judgment compounds a series of disasters in this catastrophic case that will stain the UK forever.
  
- 
  
 In a recent statement of "The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute" (IBAHRI) a retired Australian High Court judge, the Hon Michael Kirby, commented: In a recent statement of "The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute" (IBAHRI) a retired Australian High Court judge, the Hon Michael Kirby, commented:
Line 50: Line 48:
 Whether Ms Baraitser is enjoying her role as direct perpetrator of this torture and crime against humanity, or 'just following orders', is irrelevant. She is torturing him, she must be stopped and she must be stopped first and foremost, by us jurists, for we are under a higher duty to never allow free reign to the Roland Freislers[4] of this world. Whether Ms Baraitser is enjoying her role as direct perpetrator of this torture and crime against humanity, or 'just following orders', is irrelevant. She is torturing him, she must be stopped and she must be stopped first and foremost, by us jurists, for we are under a higher duty to never allow free reign to the Roland Freislers[4] of this world.
  
- 
  
 The prohibition against torture is absolute and, according to the UNCAT, no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including state of emergency or war or an order from a public authority, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Today, we have ample evidence of the torture inflicted on Assange. The chief perpetrator, since 2017, is the chief magistrate, Ms Emma Arbuthnot. Despite the massive scandal surrounding her extensive conflicts of interest, Ms Arbuthnot has refused to step down; she has merely stepped aside, maintaining her position as supervising judge. Her current tool of torture is Ms Baraitser. All judges in this judicial charade (including Mr Michael Snow and Ms Deborah Taylor) have been torture tools, trampling on all rule of law, to such an extent that they have annihilated any potential defence of “lawful authority, justification or excuse”. The prohibition against torture is absolute and, according to the UNCAT, no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, including state of emergency or war or an order from a public authority, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Today, we have ample evidence of the torture inflicted on Assange. The chief perpetrator, since 2017, is the chief magistrate, Ms Emma Arbuthnot. Despite the massive scandal surrounding her extensive conflicts of interest, Ms Arbuthnot has refused to step down; she has merely stepped aside, maintaining her position as supervising judge. Her current tool of torture is Ms Baraitser. All judges in this judicial charade (including Mr Michael Snow and Ms Deborah Taylor) have been torture tools, trampling on all rule of law, to such an extent that they have annihilated any potential defence of “lawful authority, justification or excuse”.
  
-  
  
 In my view, Ms Arbuthnot should be investigated, at least for "misconduct in public office" involving failure to disclose a conflict of interest, and all judges in this case should be investigated, inter alia, for the crime of torture (UK Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.134). In my view, Ms Arbuthnot should be investigated, at least for "misconduct in public office" involving failure to disclose a conflict of interest, and all judges in this case should be investigated, inter alia, for the crime of torture (UK Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.134).
  
-  
  
 In 2019, I filed a complaint against Ms Arbuthnot with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). My complaint was rejected, and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) found no fault on the part of the JCIO. In 2019, I filed a complaint against Ms Arbuthnot with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). My complaint was rejected, and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) found no fault on the part of the JCIO.
  
-  
  
 On 9 March 2020, I wrote back to the JACO clarifying that my JCIO complaint was not about case management, but about Emma Arbuthnot's personal conduct. I highlighted the following: On 9 March 2020, I wrote back to the JACO clarifying that my JCIO complaint was not about case management, but about Emma Arbuthnot's personal conduct. I highlighted the following:
  
-  
  
 "//Not only did Lady Emma Arbuthnot dissimulate her serious conflicts of interest, all evidence I provided to the JCIO shows that she flagrantly misused her judicial status—as judge and supervisory chief magistrate in the Assange case—outside of court. No fair-minded and informed observer would assess said personal conduct outside of court as proper conduct. It is clear, therefore, from the evidence provided in my JCIO complaint that Lady Emma Arbuthnot misused her judicial status outside of court for personal gain or advantage; i.e., to protect and further her own personal interests, and those of her husband and son. My complaint was therefore in line with "The Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014-Supplementary Guidance" published on the JCIO website (indicating the rules and regulations applied by the JCIO). "//Not only did Lady Emma Arbuthnot dissimulate her serious conflicts of interest, all evidence I provided to the JCIO shows that she flagrantly misused her judicial status—as judge and supervisory chief magistrate in the Assange case—outside of court. No fair-minded and informed observer would assess said personal conduct outside of court as proper conduct. It is clear, therefore, from the evidence provided in my JCIO complaint that Lady Emma Arbuthnot misused her judicial status outside of court for personal gain or advantage; i.e., to protect and further her own personal interests, and those of her husband and son. My complaint was therefore in line with "The Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014-Supplementary Guidance" published on the JCIO website (indicating the rules and regulations applied by the JCIO).
Line 76: Line 69:
 Since my initial complaint, further strong evidence has come to light regarding Lady Emma Arbuthnot's personal conduct outside the court, in connection with high-level political, military and intelligence players exposed by Mr Assange and WikiLeaks.   (...) Your Office decided that "it was reasonable" for the JCIO to proceed in this way. I am greatly surprised that your Office came to that conclusion; especially as it seems to place beyond the scope of criticism, a judge who (in breach of the applicable 2014 Rules & Regulations) has managed to use one of the Queen's public courts, to conduct her own personal business. As I stated in my last email: "Emma Arbuthnot failed to disclose her conflicts of interest at the relevant time (i.e., prior to the updating of the Guide to Judicial Conduct 2018) and that having successfully covered her tracks she continued, nevertheless, to preside in and over hearings as chief magistrate ‘responsible for… supporting and guiding district judge colleagues’. The extent of Emma Arbuthnot’s conflicts of interest was discovered only recently, through the rigorous work of investigative journalists cited in my JCIO complaint and... Commodum Ex Injuria Sua Nemo Habere Debet (a wrongdoer should not be enabled by law to take any advantage from his actions)"."// Since my initial complaint, further strong evidence has come to light regarding Lady Emma Arbuthnot's personal conduct outside the court, in connection with high-level political, military and intelligence players exposed by Mr Assange and WikiLeaks.   (...) Your Office decided that "it was reasonable" for the JCIO to proceed in this way. I am greatly surprised that your Office came to that conclusion; especially as it seems to place beyond the scope of criticism, a judge who (in breach of the applicable 2014 Rules & Regulations) has managed to use one of the Queen's public courts, to conduct her own personal business. As I stated in my last email: "Emma Arbuthnot failed to disclose her conflicts of interest at the relevant time (i.e., prior to the updating of the Guide to Judicial Conduct 2018) and that having successfully covered her tracks she continued, nevertheless, to preside in and over hearings as chief magistrate ‘responsible for… supporting and guiding district judge colleagues’. The extent of Emma Arbuthnot’s conflicts of interest was discovered only recently, through the rigorous work of investigative journalists cited in my JCIO complaint and... Commodum Ex Injuria Sua Nemo Habere Debet (a wrongdoer should not be enabled by law to take any advantage from his actions)"."//
  
-  
  
 To date, the only response I have received from the JACO regarding the above communication is the following automated response: //"Thank you for your email. Please note if you have sent your email to a large number of recipients we will not send you a response unless your email specifically refers to a matter which is within the Ombudsman's remit for consideration."// To date, the only response I have received from the JACO regarding the above communication is the following automated response: //"Thank you for your email. Please note if you have sent your email to a large number of recipients we will not send you a response unless your email specifically refers to a matter which is within the Ombudsman's remit for consideration."//
  
-  
  
 Clearly, there is nothing to be gained by actions through this system set up in respect of complaints involving judges. Clearly, there is nothing to be gained by actions through this system set up in respect of complaints involving judges.
  
-  
  
 Furthermore, all appeals made to the UK government, including those made by the UN Special Rapporteur, Nils Melzer, by the Council of Europe, The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and others, have been met with unparalleled disdain and contempt. Furthermore, all appeals made to the UK government, including those made by the UN Special Rapporteur, Nils Melzer, by the Council of Europe, The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and others, have been met with unparalleled disdain and contempt.
  
-  
  
 Judges and other jurists, as well as civil society worldwide, are trembling with indignation at this gross and shameful injustice. Judges and other jurists, as well as civil society worldwide, are trembling with indignation at this gross and shameful injustice.
Line 98: Line 87:
 The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion. On the other hand, an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or engages in one such offense against only a few civilians, provided those offenses are part of a consistent pattern of misbehaviour by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.) Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use the following test: one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and verify whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness. The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion. On the other hand, an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or engages in one such offense against only a few civilians, provided those offenses are part of a consistent pattern of misbehaviour by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.) Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use the following test: one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and verify whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness.
  
- 
  
 **Context: wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government against journalists, publishers, whistleblowers, victims of war crimes.** **Context: wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government against journalists, publishers, whistleblowers, victims of war crimes.**
Line 105: Line 93:
 It is clear that what’s at stake in this extradition case is not only freedom of the press but also freedom of all expression—and hence, all freedom! If Mr Assange is extradited that will mark the end of all journalism, all free speech, all free expression. If Mr Assange is extradited, our freedom will go with him. And without freedom of speech, what "law" will be left that we can speak about? Without freedom of expression, what thought will be able to thrive? We might as well rip up the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and anything else that might remind us of Article 19. All individuals and entities counteracting official government narratives on the ongoing 19-year "War on Terror" by the "Coalition of the Killing" (i.e., by the USA, UK, Australia et al.) will be at risk! It is clear that what’s at stake in this extradition case is not only freedom of the press but also freedom of all expression—and hence, all freedom! If Mr Assange is extradited that will mark the end of all journalism, all free speech, all free expression. If Mr Assange is extradited, our freedom will go with him. And without freedom of speech, what "law" will be left that we can speak about? Without freedom of expression, what thought will be able to thrive? We might as well rip up the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and anything else that might remind us of Article 19. All individuals and entities counteracting official government narratives on the ongoing 19-year "War on Terror" by the "Coalition of the Killing" (i.e., by the USA, UK, Australia et al.) will be at risk!
  
- 
  
 Thus, applying the above Rome Statute test, this "War on Terror" is an important element of the context. US-Coalition State officials are the perpetrators of the "wide practice of atrocities"; they are also industriously active in the cover-up. Recently, Secretary Pompeo even threatened members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for daring to express their intention to investigate the war crimes that we all know occurred. And we know they occurred because of publications made by WikiLeaks[5] (republished by mainstream media, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, etc.). Thus, applying the above Rome Statute test, this "War on Terror" is an important element of the context. US-Coalition State officials are the perpetrators of the "wide practice of atrocities"; they are also industriously active in the cover-up. Recently, Secretary Pompeo even threatened members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for daring to express their intention to investigate the war crimes that we all know occurred. And we know they occurred because of publications made by WikiLeaks[5] (republished by mainstream media, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, etc.).
  
- 
  
 Are the atrocities against Julian Assange a part of a widespread or systematic practice, a part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or do they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness, unrelated to the "War on Terror" by the "Coalition of the Killing"? Are the atrocities against Julian Assange a part of a widespread or systematic practice, a part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or do they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness, unrelated to the "War on Terror" by the "Coalition of the Killing"?
  
- 
  
 Scathing criticisms have been expressed by civil society (including several journalists' unions), and by organisations such as the Council of Europe (Julian Assange is now listed on the Council of Europe's Protection of Journalism / Safety of Journalists site). The context around the crimes perpetrated against Julian Assange is well laid out by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement issued on 20 February 2020 and entitled "Julian Assange should not be extradited due to potential impact on press freedom and concerns about ill-treatment"[6] The heading of that statement says it all. The body of that statement discusses the context further, as follows: Scathing criticisms have been expressed by civil society (including several journalists' unions), and by organisations such as the Council of Europe (Julian Assange is now listed on the Council of Europe's Protection of Journalism / Safety of Journalists site). The context around the crimes perpetrated against Julian Assange is well laid out by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement issued on 20 February 2020 and entitled "Julian Assange should not be extradited due to potential impact on press freedom and concerns about ill-treatment"[6] The heading of that statement says it all. The body of that statement discusses the context further, as follows:
Line 124: Line 109:
 Here is a quick list of the widespread or systematic practice implemented by some of the perpetrators, against journalists and whistleblowers. The lists of their crimes are not exhaustive. Here is a quick list of the widespread or systematic practice implemented by some of the perpetrators, against journalists and whistleblowers. The lists of their crimes are not exhaustive.
  
-    UK: arbitrary detention and torture of Julian Assange, police raid on the news outlet The Guardian, persecution of Katherine Gun etc.+UK: arbitrary detention and torture of Julian Assange, police raid on the news outlet The Guardian, persecution of Katherine Gun etc.
  
-    Australia: complicit in the arbitrary detention and torture of Julian Assange, Australian Federal Police raid on ABC's headquarters over 2017 stories known as The Afghan Files etc.+Australia: complicit in the arbitrary detention and torture of Julian Assange, Australian Federal Police raid on ABC's headquarters over 2017 stories known as The Afghan Files etc.
  
-    USA: arbitrary detention and torture of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond (with the last two having served/serving long sentences and recently released[7] from their one-year imprisonment for their refusal to be coerced into testifying against Julian Assange before the WikiLeaks grand jury)+USA: arbitrary detention and torture of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond (with the last two having served/serving long sentences and recently released[7] from their one-year imprisonment for their refusal to be coerced into testifying against Julian Assange before the WikiLeaks grand jury)
  
    
Line 134: Line 119:
 In my view, these acts against Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, and are well within the scope of Art 7 (1) (h) of the Rome Statute, as demonstrated by an application of the ICC Elements of Crimes. In my view, these acts against Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, and are well within the scope of Art 7 (1) (h) of the Rome Statute, as demonstrated by an application of the ICC Elements of Crimes.
  
- 
  
 Article 7 (1) (h) Crime against humanity of persecution Article 7 (1) (h) Crime against humanity of persecution
Line 160: Line 144:
 6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. 6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  
- 
  
 For the sake of clarity, I emphasise that the widespread or systematic attack referred to above in sub-paragraph (5) above, was/is committed against: For the sake of clarity, I emphasise that the widespread or systematic attack referred to above in sub-paragraph (5) above, was/is committed against:
  
-    Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Jeremy Hammond,+Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Jeremy Hammond,
  
-    millions of war victims, depriving them of their right to information and to crucial evidence  that would enable them to access justice and obtain redress,+millions of war victims, depriving them of their right to information and to crucial evidence  that would enable them to access justice and obtain redress,
  
-    the public at large and its right to know about crimes perpetrated in its name.+the public at large and its right to know about crimes perpetrated in its name.
  
-  
  
 "Widespread" means that the act must be committed on a large scale and directed at a multiplicity of victims. However, according to the Kunarac Trial Chamber: "Widespread" means that the act must be committed on a large scale and directed at a multiplicity of victims. However, according to the Kunarac Trial Chamber:
  • Last modified: 2020/03/30 13:11