[/quote] ok time to put up or shut up Archer - if ya guise enough (ihave no idea if you are a man or woman - nor indeed do you, i) time to stop the shilly shally and say what is your honest opinion rather than sharpening up everyone's critical thinking calling bullshit on the stuff ya wrote being what you honestly think! prove me right prove me wrong - either way you will be showing your true self and not game playing/teaching/helping/whatevah and can't hide or deflect no matter how you answer, or refuse to. THE LAW IS ALWAYS A MATTER OF OPINION Don't matter whose interpretation of it we use it all boils down to opinion. Because the law is not a solid concrete thing. It is an opinion. Doesn't matter how many courts we go through. Judges give an opinion on what the lawyers put in front of them. Lawyers give their opinion on what will get the judge to vote their way, based on case and statute law based on opinions all the way back to when Man first started interacting. And still changing day by day and is being continually challenged and changed. You were too rigid in your role. Though i did love/hate your mastery of some neat tricks. Getting people to accept your sources as superior that was a good one (sorry Ann). Except she didn't get me to accept it's apparent legitimacy - politeness? but she knew it smelt bad but you have been doing your TR's haven't you? or it it a natural talent? i didn't go look cos Ann confirmed it was more of the same some facts some shit interpretation, and loads of confirmational bias. And yet didn't tell you to GTFO and produce something more than a blog - even if it was supposedly done by a QC. Not a very objective one wonder if he has worked for the gov't? and hey we know they are only supposed to buy the services not you personally (sorry moxie how did it feel to give them ya daughter? ya asswipe). Not like you didn't give out hints is it - feeding them the lines they should have been throwing in your face. Which is why i only used your source when absolutely pushed and to take apart your interpretation - because it is SHIT with holes ya can drive a tank through and worth no more than what value i place on it. Technically it quotes the law. And ignores so much that any competent all HONEST/Honourable Judge would dismiss it. But not all Judges are are they? They are human and display the same characteristics and flaws as every other sector of society- which is why appeals and appeals and courts over courts ... . And applying the law as a judge means considering all the possibilities and probabilities of what is placed before them before giving their OPINION but not without discussing the alternatives and why they were dismissed before giving that opinion. Or the great ones do - cos that what has stopped them being overturned and what makes them make what should be an honest Judicial OPINION And what really gave ya shit source away was i) fear - reasonable fear (remember me pushing that term? and you shying away from it) ii) is that fear well founded iii) one of the conditions - your SHIT lawyer said none when it is both D + E well you know the rest and if ya don't get some fucking new brain cells but hey like i said Tell us what YOU really think tell the truth/ don't/walk away/belittle me/whatevah i don't care because you will be showing your true colours and you have to live with that i don't! i aint playing ya game any more!! Do you believe in Freedom of whatever the fuck it is ? Do you honestly believe even if he has no need to fear anything more than the charge in Sweden, that he is unreasonable to believe he does? Dox your opinion or GTFO
What the actual fuck? It might be language barrier but nothing in that paragraph made any sense to me in any way shape or form? And why the references to scientology TR's and Moxon's daughter? What is this I don't even...... I honestly would respond but I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Sorry. I do believe in freedom of speech yes, very strongly so. I think that his fears are unfounded yes. I already did, extensively.
Yes, it definitely would be, but they have nothing on them, therefore making them unable to do it. See wanting to do something and being able to actually do it are 2 very different things.
Want and able is different. The key is WANT. Since you admit it, given US and Ecuador, who is the lesser evil, or the only one evil?
Ecuador has closed 6 radio stations and 2 tv stations for criticizing their president in the space of a month last year. And fined them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. 8 media effectively closed down vs 1 media not closed down yet despite their attempts, due to american laws preventing them from doing so. Yea I'll say ecuador is worst.
I can only say Assange, well played. Save your ass and score one for sarcasm. Closing down Wikileaks leaves no future. US journalists are quite useless and increasing so. UK's are completely useless.
Funny, but irrelevant. I wonder why you are so reluctant to answer my rather simple question. If you do not know the answer, just say so. Nothing to be ashamed of (I do not know the answer either).
no doubt, proven: US wants to close down Wikileaks in whatever way they can get away with. So, why they don't want Assange's ass in any way they can get away with? You dismiss Strafor's intelligence accessment that many in the intelligence community subscribed for? You can call that bullshit, but if the US can't get him in this case, they will find other ways. If US wants to invade another country, they just make something up - proven.
You attack people in just about every post you make then you cry about personal attacks against you. You are also condescending in almost every post. I don't understand why you think anyone should ever take you seriously.
I wonder why calling me a liar is the only option you have since you did not get the answer you wanted.
Liar. I call you that not because you did not give the answer I wanted, but because your answers do not make sense. If it helps, I ask my question in more general terms: in the hypothesis of a sealed indictment, is this document sufficient to obtain an extradition ?
And my answer is: No, obviously not. As I said before. And if it was, don't you think they would already have extradited him? (repeating myself a bit here.
Thanks for your answer. There is nothing obvious here. A source to back your claim would be nice. The fact that the US have not requested his extradition so far proves nothing either way, IMHO.
sorry Ann that is not Impeccable in legal terms. Yes the chap is a QC (Queen's Counsel), which means he is smart and knowledgeable yes indeed. It does not mean that his every utterance is impeccable in legal term. Especially when YOU are not paying for his time, knowledge and utterances, in which case he would have spoken very differently before acting on Your decision in which way You wanted him to slant such opinions and possibilities as he made You aware of - both for and against. I seem to recall Archer berating and belittling you, or possibly someone else, in this thread, for linking to a blog. That is exactly what this is - a blog. Nor is it one that even claims to be objective tho likes to give the impression it is. This thread would be better entitled Misdirection from a QC on ... What he says is technically correct but it is at very best glib, shallow and biased when he gives his opinion on the applicability of the Law. He states the conditions needed for entitlement, no arguments there and then goes on to say "But let’s see if he can bring himself within any of the other categories that would entitle him to the protection of the Ecuadorian government." giving the impression he is considering it objectively and then giving his reasons why NOT i won't pick everything apart but for instance (italics are my opinion of his BLOG's opinion) If the Ecuadorean authorities interpret the Convention consistently with international norms, Mr Assange will have to show the following: (i) he has a fear of being persecuted his opinion here - tho it on the surface sounds very compassionate is actually a very insidious inference that Assange is mentally ill just for even considering it ... pat pat there there smirk smirk. But does not actually address the issue of whether he in fact actually has such a fear nor does he discuss what that fear is or any of the details around it (ii) his fear is well-founded again he states the definitions of what this means as defined by the convention but again does not refer to what the fear is, let alone who from? or any of the circumstances surrounding it. How can any determination be made on that point without such discussion? Discussion which would HAVE to evaluate all the points brought up by posters ITT! He then goes on to conclude "So the acts said to be acts of persecution need to be serious enough to threaten Mr Assange’s life or freedom, but also include serious breaches of his human rights. " which again would necessitate further discussion of many of those points - including Bradley Manning et all and all the Swedish cases brought up ITT. which would mean that Neither of those countries can be assumed to be beyond reproch on their treatment of people under the such a heading . And that both countries recent track record in itself is not only grounds for but the DUTY of any country to reject an Extradition request. (the USA particularly - Article 3 of the ECHR ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’) And yet he discusses nothing, leaving the impression that it is not even worth discussing because hey i already said he aint persecuted he is deranged kthankbai . (iii) he will be persecuted by reason of one or more of (a) his race (ie ethnicity); (b) his religion; (c) his nationality; (d) his membership of a particular social group; (e) his political opinion. Here he goes into so much MISDIRECTION and shows so much bias that we would be here all day and some of which we have already covered but the most glaring ones being the discussion of particular social group and political opinions. He limits discussion of social group status to defining it as and limiting it to "such as being a woman in Pakistan, or homosexual in Iran – groups which the UK Courts at least have so defined for purposes of asylum law" which would not even cover the groups that would make an exhaustive list of such groups. Let alone that as a lawyer, barrister and QC he is well aware that current boundaries of such groups and even what constitutes a group is being continually redefined. And as participants in Wikkileaks are indeed being persecuted or have reasonable fear of being so just be the mere participating in same would fetch it into this category - ask the Icelandic MP Briggette Jónsdóttiret al. Whether he would agree or not is irrelevant he should at least have considered it and explained why not. As for his treatment of "political opinions" more of the same and the first mention eventually of some of what his fears are and an acknowledgement why he may have some of those fears instead of saying stop being such a pussy. Then he comes to one of Archers favourite points for ridiculing any fears of being extradited to the USA from Sweden - and here he says "But while he remains in the jurisdiction of the UK or Sweden, that’s not going to happen." that there is possibility it COULD happen after as per this line in "After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government". Nope doesn't touch that part at all - and we even got Archer to admit the game changes then! Then he goes on to say "But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’)." with no discussion of Sealed Indictments Bradley Manning et al, whether there is a possibility of such or how they impact on the matter - just the possibility not whether he thinks they are likely. Then he asks "So he may struggle to show that he faces treatment in the UK or in Sweden to amount to persecution, on an objective view." regardless of the facts he himself passingly referred to Sweden being used as a cat's paw - ie that he isn't necessarily basing ALL his claims on facing treatment in UK and Sweden. Regardless of his treatment currently by the UK and Sweden. Such treatment as Archer so gloriously pronounces is EXACTLY because he is who he is. You really shouldn't have been so contemptuous and reckless in denouncing Joe Bloggs and whether it was of any importance that the UK and Sweden are treating Assange any differently to a Joe Bloggs, Archer - major footbullet there. Tho i will grant you one thing you kept repeating Archer - it IS a smart BLOG. Very smart if you want to convey a certain legal viewpoint without actually having a leg to stand on!!! Objective view my arse - both that of Francis Fitzgibbon QC and Archer. and i am not a lawyer helps also to remember Moxton is a lawyer too
long history of black ops against individual people and other countries history of cia and fbi carrying out rogue ops i.e. outside of their legally mandated areas well documented and admitted heavy use of torture, inhumane treatment and carrying out illegal death sentences well documented history of gaining support of other countries thru friendship, special arrangements,threats and blackmail and using them in very questionable and il/legal manner. Without even speculating on the unexposed non documented ones. (lets give a big hand to those whistle blowers eh?) some of the laws they have been enacting over a good number of years and a few presidents. a Gov't lawyer refusing to answer a judge on whether or not the Gov't would abide by a ruling that a recent piece of legislation was illegal (damn wish i could remember it more precisely but am sure some fag here will). the very existence of sealed indictments and that the accused (and his lawyer if known) has no right to be informed of it until he is arrested yeah sure we should just trust that the USA will behave impeccably, honestly and legally
Although I linked to more than just a blog over the discussion, you would know that if you actually read it. Also what the hell does Moxon (not Moxton) have to do with this? You seem to be quite confused.
This is desperate. Since you can't do anything about the assylum, I'm out of here. You waste your energy, and may be you will feel better.
Moxon too is a lawyer, and none here would believe a word that comes out of his mouth without putting it through the bullshit detector, even should he even accidentally tell the truth about something . Let alone believing and/or deferring to it just because he IS a lawyer, with the assumption and presumption that he knows and understands the law and will always treat with it honourably and equitably. Even if he is a QC. It pays to remember that when dealing with any person speaking from a presumed/assumed/real position of authority/"superiority". Especially if people are using them as references to prop up their own shakey position. As for any other links you may have provided - why on earth would i waste my time reading what is undoubtedly more of the same shit? If it wasn't the same shit, you wouldn't have stuck so doggedly to the same position using the same few circuitous, self-referencing, limited in scope and depth of understanding of the law, its application, tenuous and easily swatted points that you do, and would have used them to address the rebuttals of same. Or someone here would have quoted (and rebutted) Nor would you even need to attempt to dismiss any other viewpoint without addressing and rebutting these points with objectivity, solid, not so self-referencing, limited, circuitous arguments that deal with all the complexities of the law and it's application in this complex case to actually support your position on merit. Let alone trying to be accepted and acclaimed as the ultimate authority using soundbites to prove that not only you are right and that a case of this complexity could be condensed such a way Nor would you need to resort to name calling, as you not only do whenever you are stuck in the hopes of distracting from same, but also in the hopes of winding anons up so you can bawwww in butthurt and accuse them of the very things you do continuously. You may not be a scilo, you may not even be an ex scilo, but you sure do like using their tactics! You forget that many of us are inoculated to them. You have accused and insulted many people itt including me, and have accused me of name calling you. When i said you were an "unfunny joke that was less funny each time you opened your mouth" that wasn't name calling or an insult merely a statement describing the side of your character and manner you are displaying in this thread. when i said " keep trolling" that was using a verb to accurately describe your postings. is your reading comprehension not as good as you like to think? and if you really do get as butthurt as your bawwing makes it appear, then maybe you are a little too sensitive a pussy (not a kitteh) to be here. I notice you are still stuck in the same tactics and cherry picked the only part you think you can use to belittle and distract rather than dealing honestly, defending and expanding your supposedly unassailable position and actually saying something with substance. Instead you continue with your silly charade - even after the curtain has been pulled back. Maybe you could change your nic to something as appropriate as Francis Fitzgibbon QC. After all you have so very much in common!! i feel so mean fighting the un/little armed. Fun for a while but gets old fast And way more fun to be had reading the superduper, superlulzy depositions made possible by a legal team that really knows how to interpret the law and deal with legal argument - did i mention how jawdroppingly lulzy they are? worth repeating! see here to see how a real man with any substance rather than a jelly puppet does it https://whyweprotest.net/community/...rico-unsealed-deposition.104809/#post-2175314 kthanxbai
supposedly super dupper hot shot crreme de la creme lawyer Who, until 1920, represented the Crown and Gov't and were not allowed to appear against the Crown and FOR the defence without a speshul licence. Old habits and traditional ties still hold strongly. wikki is your friend in this case
Archer has been attacked more than he has attacked. All this chat but STILL no evidence that the US wants to extradite Arseange! It's all hypothetical and assumptions, that's why Arseange failed in ALL of his appeals. He could not provide any evidence that the US was out to get him. Just heresay, paranoia and bullshit. The legal system doesn't work on "I think" or "they did this to them so..." Evidence, proof or facts. Something that's lacking in arseange's defence and ITT.
You obviously are a great legal fag and the depth of your knowledge and comprehension of the law defeat me i bow my head to you mainly cos i don't want you to see how unintentionally funny you are
He is biased and as Ann said a liar. He definately needs help to make his conclusions more acceptable. My favorite part is "Not So Anonymous" marking everyone's post as "dumb" that disagrees with Archer. Yeah definately no bullying going on here. But, you just want the truth....riiiiiight.
I can't be blame for the actions of others, and are you saying you are unbiased? If so let me go lol a bit. PS: Your butthurt is showing, hide that in public.
