Julian Assange’s appeal « trial », London 27-28 October 2021. Why this trial is a fake
Wikijustice WJJA- 15ème demande de Libération de Julian Assange. Pourquoi la demande d’extradition en appel est juridiquement impossible.
Why the extradition request on appeal is legally impossible
Pourquoi Julian Assange est libre par la Loi et pourquoi la demande d’extradition en appel est juridiquement impossible
Wikijustice – The Assange Case
15th request for release
Why Julian Assange is legally free and why an extradition appeal is legally impossible
WJJA hereby calls upon the judiciary of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, the members of the sovereign government of the United Kingdom, the judiciary of the sovereign countries and the members of the governments of the sovereign countries, all of whom are respectful of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations and the body of international law, to do everything in their power to locate and release the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange.
In order to ensure his safety, WJJA requests the judiciary of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, the members of the sovereign government of the United Kingdom, the judiciary of sovereign countries and the members of the governments of sovereign countries, all of whom are respectful of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations and the body of international law, to make public his birth identity, to allow him to contact WJJA and to give him the opportunity to express himself publicly.
We recall that the WJJA has filed a complaint with the courts of sovereign countries showing that the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange is in the hands of a private entity, called Parakratos, obeying the orders of members of the Mountbatten-Windsor brotherhood and that he is the subject of an illegal false trial (See complaint 1).
Shedding light on what’s happening in order to win the battle : Who are Julian Assange’s relatives?
August 2019, by Monika Karbowska
Summer is gone, and softly gone with it is the deafening silence around the most iconic political prisoner in Europe. Mediatic whispers are slighlty rising, based on concerts, rallies and « I am Assange » visual artworks refering to the dreadful 2015-2016 terrorist attacks. Getting Julian Assange out of jail, protecting him and leading him to a safe place should be every Human Rights activist’s aim ; and, while pondering the quickest and most effective strategy to do so, I laid my fingers on one of my former « mapping » documents from the period of political repression I experienced, as a european union activist.
Who are my true friends ?
Some Greek, Polish and Bulgarian unionists and friends of mine and I reported in 2007 – 2009 the exploitation of East-European migrants, posted workers considered as slaves for workforce recruitment agencies, working in tourist sites 15 to 18 hours a day for a salary of 400-600€. We launched a campaign to fight for those European migrant workers’ rights, printed a multilingual leaflet and I published an article under my own name in left-wing Polish and Greek media and on alterglobalization French and German websites[i] . And I paid the price. Konstantina Kouneva, my friend and famous Bulgarian union activist got acid thrown on her in a street of Athens in December 2008 and, in August 2009, I was kidnapped at night by the Greek police while I was at home, on the tourist island I worked for ; then I was indicted by two colluding accusers for burglary based on a scenario as utterly fantastic as the one written by the social democratic activist and police officer aiming at suing Julian Assange for sexual assault. Reading the fictional detective production by Irmeli Krans [ii], made me irresistibly remind of my own legal case, because of the choice of protagonists and because of the insidious sexualisation of the situation in order to shame me and silence me. I had been sued for five years for something I did not commit and threatened to be rendered to the Greek police during grotesque proceedings via a European arrest warrant following a rigged trial marked by magistrates, lawyers, police officers and local bosses being family members. When I could organize my successful legal defense, I therefore used the mapping document entittled « Who are my real friends in this legal case ». On the paper, next to me, was written the name of my mother ; on the right and on the left, were a few of my friends from different countries ; at the bottom of page were the actions to take and the ones financing them. My lawyers, my doctors and my moral and political supports showed all around.
I don’t really believe poor Julian Assange to be able to write such a document for himself though that type of review is absolutely needed if you are a dissident hounded by the capitalist system and if you want to save your own skin. It doesn’t matter if your sheet of paper is sparsely filled, what is important is the loyalty and the reliability from your real supports. The closer you get to your release, the more you may even remove from your list nuisances who make you lose precious energy and take your time away over unproductive storyteling. You can’t afford to do that because it is your life on the line now. So I wondered how Julian Assange could answer the following question : « who are my true relatives ». And, as a human rights organization is intended to defend the rights of those too weak to protect themselves, I’m trying to help Julian Assange sort out the true ones from the liars, beyond the walls of the dark hollow place is in.
The more I would immerse myself in the significant documentation spanning the ten-year European Julian Assange’s saga, the more I found the official storytelling put forward by the media and weblogs to be covering very different tales. So I had to adjust my mapping to a changing situation. I would get rid of people who were Julian’s closest relatives but who disappeared, became unavailable and either way, don’t defend him : Sarah Harrison, and my well-established left-winger friends from Berlin could not find her wherabouts, Jacob Appelbaum, the true hero of the movie « Risk » and the brilliant developper of the search engine called Tor, has not given news for three years, since he was forced to leave the Tor project. I will not consider Mrs Renata Avila because, as a East-European citizen, she had her state completely destroyed et deeply reshaped by Soros’ organizations and I cannot trust someone getting a salary from an organization funded by the very same man.
[i] http://amitie-entre-les-peuples.org/Travail-capitalisme-et-migration
https://wolnemedia.net/wyzysk-pod-akropolem/
file:///C:/Users/Ikaria/Documents/Documents/Monika/Politique/Europe/Οι%20σκλάβοι%20του%20Αιγαίου.htm
https://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/183992.shtml
[ii] http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
The « Director »
Anyway, I quickly realised his former relatives could not be a part of Prisoner Assange’s perfect adopted family scene. In the center, the « director », as some media nicknamed him when he died in 2016[i] , would get pride of place. He is Gavin McFayden, the very Kristinn Hrafnsson’s partner in WikiLeaks’ financial managing, via Islandic society Sunshine Press Production, created on October 8th 2010[ii] while Julian Assange is monopolized with the Swedish charges. He was so closed to Julian Assange since his arriving in Europe in 2009 at least, that some people consider him as the real WikiLeaks founder – WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 , and as Assange’s mentor, best friend and only friend. Well, I must admit photos with the two of them reveal in a way tenderness [iii], especially as Julian Assange paid him a tribute at his death in a direct message on Twitter from his « embassish » jail whereas he said nothing about his maternal grandfather’s death, Alfred Hawkins, or about his social father’s death, Brett Assange in 2012[iv].
Gayvin McFayden’s role in WikiLeaks’ saga and Julian Assange’s personal fate needs to be seen as pivotal and historic. Hippie activist of the Trotskist International for the Socialist Workers Party, filmmaker and journalist, MacFayden probably made his far-left contact network available to his spiritual son Julian Assange as WikiLeaks was supposed to be an extension or the outcome of the Center for Investigative Journalism created in 2003 while Bush and Blair’s Irak War was culminating[v] . Therefore, the same Center provided Julian Assange with staff and closed associates such as Sarah Harrison, Renata Avila, or David Farrell, putting together and formatting the well-known 2010 leaks : the Afghan and Irak Logs, US diplomatic cables. MacFayden founded a committee raising funds to defend Julian Assange and may have manages them. Perhaps it is the famous « legal defence fund » led by Susan Benn, MacFayden’s widow, that selected Doughty Street Chambers and suggested people like G. Robertson or J. Robinson to be Julian Assange’s legal team [vi].
It is true I cannot remember CIJ’s actions though, at the peak of European resistance against globalization et imperialism, dozens of thousands of political leftist activists would have debates in cultural centers and squats during the European Social Forum in London, in 2004. Young enthusiastic British activists from Stop The War Coalition managed to gather 100,000 people together for the final march ending at Trafalgar Square on October 18th 2004. As a very committed European activist, I think WikiLeaks, in 2010, was the outcome and not the starting point of struggles against US war hostile invasion in Irak[vii] .
McFayden left an empty place in Julian Assange’s « resistance network mapping » because he, Julian Assange’s spiritual father also known as « master » among some sources, died of cancer in 2016. I am not sure whether I should add Mrs Susan Benn to Assange’s relatives not just because of the lack of facts proving they were closed but because the way the lawyers, shepherded and paid (?) by her support fund, acted does not seem very useful. My Greek legal case lasted five years and as long as I would pay politically suspicious lawyers, I would lose my trials one after another and I would fail to keep in mind the appropriate needed successful strategy. In European laws, as the accused one, I was in charge of my own defence line, of my freedom and of my honour. Accessing the translation of my file and any file documents related in the language I understand the most was my absolute right. Most important, I am a citizen endowed with inalienable rights and lawyers are no substitute for me concerning may own rights. They are just assistance I can change whenever I want to, once I paid them upon presentation of legal invoice, or because they were legal aid provided by my country of residence.
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J33qDyAkkk4
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/gavin-macfadyen-obituary
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/apr/24/fbis-long-obsession-gavin-macfadyen/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gavin-macfadyen-5sm355v99
[ii] https://fr.scribd.com/document/341479410/Sunshine-Press-Productions-Ehf-private-limited-company-aka-Wikileaks
[iii] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/business/media/gavin-macfadyen-dies-wikileaks.html
[iv] https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/julian-assanges-grandfather-dies-in-victoria/1572359/
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790278989596295170/photo/1
[v] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/shine-a-light/gavin-macfadyen-1940-2016-why-investigative-journalism-matte/
[vi] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18648922
[vii] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/oct/18/eu.world1
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2004/esf/
Who gets profits from Wikileaks’ money ?
Numerous articles have showed for years the futility of Jennifer Robinson’s strategy. She has initiated no legal action to get Julian Assange out of jail upon health reasons since April 2019, and she abstained from filing an appeal of his detention for breaching his bail [i]. I am even less willing to trust her because I am a European citizen and Polish sovereignist communist activist and Jennifer Robinson has spent her summer supporting actively a separatist organization in Indonesian West Papua, contributing to the Indonesian State inner divisions and tensions whereas Indonesian people are trying to protect their natural resources nationalizing them[ii] . In his writings and speeches, Julian Assange NEVER promoted imperialist interferences in other states or peoples’ conflicts, he never supported colour revolutions on purpose of « regime change » benefiting pro-western political forces. It is not that much unreasonnable to think that a detainee’s counsel should share the slightest values he reflects [iii].
There are numerous grey areas concerning Wikileaks’ finance and fund receiving parties which is no news. German law Wau Holland foundation, who acts as a fund raiser, and Islandic Sunshine Press Production company’s role and WikiLeaks’ legal framework require to be busily assessed [iv]. And what really matters is Assange, I mean the man, who has never benefited from his organization’s financial windfall, whether it is legendary bitcoins or real money, being parts of his European head-officed organization’s financial statement. Presently, those facts heavily strain his actual situation as a detainee. In august 2010, Julian Assange was already powerless, with no money, stuck in Sweden and subjected to do-gooders for his accomodation, his food (sic), his phone credits while he was already tracked down by US secret services and while the European legal armada was starting in order to ground him and extradite him to the US [v].
Just a question from a migrant a proletarian activist : why did nobody from WikiLeaks, from CIJ or no family member of him send him a Western Union money order within the two hours following the freezing of his bank account ? In december 2010, British judicial system considered citizen Julian Assange as a indigent as he had no address, no flat, no belongings… Nothing. This is why he was refused release on bail and then, once a outrageous bail was paid by healthy leftist social democrates, he was trapped in a house belonging to a man vouching for Prisoner Julian Assange’s good behaviour, he was monitored day and night by electronic tagging, he was inflicted a night curfew and he had to report to a local police station evryday. The man, Julian Assange, has relied on his relatives for nine years for mere daily actions. Besides, how can we trust such a tale abounding on the Internet about Assange managing his organization as a merciless boss, firing his co-worker Daniel Domscheit Berg or using shamelessly the 17-year-old juvenil’s computer skills and letting him down when the CIA starts watching him [vi]. And remember we have just realized Gavin MacFadyen was the one in charge of WikiLeaks – with Kristin Hrafnsonn as a background leader – and that Julian Assange only had a honorary position on the organization chart, just like a luxury trainee working on the project of non-profit organization, which is typical of the alterglobalization-NGO decade.
Actually, we, French people, are incorrigible social achievement defensor and we can’t keep from wondering whether Julian Assange had an employment contract with WikiLeaks organization with social protection and retirement contributions ? These issues are important while in a repressive capitalist system that treat you differently depending on whether you are a volunteer with no income or a socially integrated salaried taxpayer. I was about to forget the essential aspect for non EU migrants : working gives you a resident permit referencing your address and work position. If Julian Assange had such a permit mentionning his job as a journalist, nobody would have denied it to him. However he doesn’t own such a document, his address may be a Post Office box somewhere in Australia and Sweden refused him the work permit he applied for while living at his accuser’s place, Anna Ardin. Still about the financial issue, non one among his relatives seems to pay attention to Julian Assange social status or social security and retirement contributions though he is a foreigner in Europe. He would have avoid many problems and much suffering had a non-profit migrant-worker organization assisted him.
Years later, the problem arised again because Julian Assange exhausted himself mentally and physically while locked in the Ecuadorian diplomatic mission’s facilities. The 2015 medical report set up by three London doctors mandated by the Ecuadorian State, implies that Julian Assange is not medically taken care of because of security issues – indeed – but also because of « who’s paying » issues [vii]. So it seems that the Ecuadorian diplomatic mission pays for his daily expenses but he still has no employment contract and no social security, from Great Britain, from Ecuador or with the status of posted worker ! I was shocked to discover such information. And well, I spent 30 years, as an social activist and volunteer, explaining to undocumented workers it is essential to regularize their situation thanks to an employment contract! In 2015, Julian Assange was 44. He was probably getting tired of such living conditions as different illnesses had started to weaken him. Nowadays, in the only well-detailed letter we received last June, he complains about phone call prices in detention centres. In jail, everything has a price. If you cannot pay, it is because you, or your relatives, have no money. As an insecure proletarian, I cannot feel indifferent towards such a cry for help.
[i] https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/220819/les-avocats-fantomes-de-julian-assange
[ii] https://www.insideindonesia.org/resource-nationalism-as-imperialism-3
[iii] https://twitter.com/suigenerisjen
[iv] https://fr.scribd.com/document/341479410/Sunshine-Press-Productions-Ehf-private-limited-company-aka-Wikileaks
[v] Julian Assange’s 2016 statement against Sofia Wilem’s accusation
[vi] https://www.wired.com/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
https://www.wired.com/2013/06/wikileaks-mole/
[vii] « One of Mr. Assange’s colleagues commented that there had been many difficulties in finding medjcal practitioners who were willing to examine Mr. Assange in the Embassy. The reasons givert were uncertainly over whether medical insurance would cover the Embassy {a foreign jurisdiction )»’- medilca file from the December 2015 in the Equatorian diplomatic mission
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/cms/Psychosocial%20Medical%20Report%20December%202015.pdf
The frightening londonian-ecuadorian chapter
The chapter regarding the Ecuadorian Embassy needs to get a key-place in my « resistance mind-mapping » and raises many questions. It is in fact incorrect to state that someone cannot be medically treated in an embassy. The place, just like any other residence of the ambassador, consular place or flat for members of the diplomatic mission and family members, are inviolable and people inside benefit from diplomatic immunity. The inviolability of a given place lies in the fact that the agents of the State are allowed to penetrate inwards only with the agreement of the Head of mission, i.e. in line with the foreign government willingness. The inviolability of the person owning the diplomatic passport. The inviolability of the person holding the diplomatic passport implies that he or she cannot be arrested and detained or prosecuted by a judge because it is an « absolute immunity » under the Vienna Convention, more precisely according to the diplomatic usage of this Convention as it is practiced since 1961 [i].
Any son or daughter of diplomat fellows, position I kept along my whole childhood, knows how difficult it is to denounce domestic violence in this kind of system because the protection of minors from the host country are not applicable, combined with the fact that the country of origin is far away. In other words, the foreign State is sovereign in all areas related to its diplomatic mission.
It chooses and accredits doctors from outside the hosting country if needed, bringing them in, employing them. For the record, the Republic of Poland, as a legacy of good communist management, installed in its Parisian embassy a medical office, led by a much skilled doctor who treats about 150 people working for the mission, an equipped dental practice with a fully dedicated dentist, in the era of People’s Republic of Poland at least. Poland is an average sized country (twice more inhabitants than Ecuador, or two thirds of French population), and no doubt Russia and the United States have entire field hospitals in their main offices[ii].
Ecuador is not a wealthy country, but I refuse to believe that it was impossible to install mobile dental equipment as in use by Health specialized NGOs, or similarly to perform an X-ray of Julian Assange’s shoulder. If this was not done, it means the problem was elsewhere.
The diplomatic premises may even be enlarged. To buy an entire house for the « prisoner », to buy a building, or the corridor, the staircase, the landing, in order to get a direct access through the emergency exit… And if Great Britain were determined to trample 500 years of tradition of diplomatic reciprocity and destroy the Vienna Convention, it was politically possible to break off relations with this country, to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, to bring back the allied BRICS countries which are deeply concerned about State sovereignty and international law observance. As for Julian Assange, this experience has been devastating for his health and his global situation.
The map of the relatives thus appears terribly empty and Julian Assange sadly alone. We then have to question his family. In my personal case, my mother was right next to me, essentially helpful. She was 70 years old, doubtful about my political struggles, she nevertheless gathered all the required resources to compensate the repression I suffered, and constantly I reported to her shamefully and gratefully, the progress of my case and the initiatives from my political friends to get me out of a destructive cabal. My mother and one of the key activists having rescued me are now close friends.
[i] https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19610070/index.html
https://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1961_num_7_1_1076
[ii] Informations from Adam Karbowski, Ewa Zaleska, and Halina Matejczuk; Halina Matejczuk „Bylam konsulem PRL”, Fundacja Konstantego Ostrowskiego, 2015, Bialystok, (« I was Consul in Polish People’s Republic »)
The family
Mrs Christine Hawkins Assange did not let me the chance to provide my assistance because my calls, tweets and messages have gone unanswered; I have no aim to overwhelm her but on the contrary to support her morally by testifying that the life of her son, a political prisoner, is close to our hearts, we citizens of Europe. I understand that she is exhausted by ten years’ imprisonment and a sterile defence while her son’s situation is constantly deteriorating. It sounds natural to me that she has stopped sending tweets, or even that she would not travel to Europe to join the citizens’ committees trying to open the prison doors and shouting out the scandal of the detention of her dying son. I have learned of her as a victim of domestic violence by a man who was a member of an extremely dangerous cult, as Julian Assange pointed out in his autobiographical texts [1]. I therefore understand her difficulty to face this harsh battle against a warlike and imperialist political system among which the self-focused networking ramifications effectively suggest the organization of a sect.
The CIA, MI5 and MI6, the Swedish SAPO, the German BND and their obsessional attempts to trap her child, torture him, experiment on him, must traumatise her to the utmost extent, reminding her of what Anne Hamilton Byrne’s cult was doing to the children she was taking from Australian single mothers in the early 1960s up to the year 1987, when the « Lebensborn » children camp was dismantled[2]. I sympathize because Christine Ann Hawkins probably suffered a lot trying to protect her eldest son and her second son conceived with Leif Meynel, a Family Cult’s member. Her never-ending escaping life evokes a terrifying impression of totalitarian surveillance, much more terrible than my life as a child of communist diplomats constantly monitored and obstructed by the secret services of Polish People’s Republic and Soviet Union in the 1980s, during the intense period of the finishing Cold War. I have a certain lucidity or paranoia related to my origins, but at least I know that the People’s Republic believed it was fair to protect its elites offspring from the hostile powers attempts to purchase and abuse them.
However, Assange mother’s absence prevents our action from being effective because she is alone representing the family whom Julian Assange presented as close to him in the film « Risk », the only one appearing in the reports of Russia Today in 2012 [3]. Moreover, the absence of Christine Assange is not entirely compensated by John Shipton’s activism. This man presents himself as Julian Assange’s biological father who managed to visit him twice in Belmarsh, in early June and early August 2019. Thus, hundreds of defence committee activists, in the absence of any communication from lawyers, remain suspended to the alarming but succinct statements of this single interlocutor. Where is Julian Assange? In Belmarsh in a cell or in the medical district? Perhaps he is in a special area in the prison, a terrorist isolation cell, a « very dark place » (as he recently wrote in a letter to us) « a dark place » evoking the secret CIA prisons in the Eastern countries which existence have been proven? Is he alive, and if so, what is his exact state of health? Is he able to coordinate his defence and political support or is he dying? John Shipton was never clear on the date and duration of the interviews, on the exact place where he would have seen Julian Assange, on the personal or political nature of their exchanges, on Julian Assange’s ability to express himself, on his ability to live on a daily basis (getting up, walking, eating, thinking and speaking…), the video fled by a fellow inmate in June having never been dated or authenticated or explained by Shipton, Mrs Assange or the lawyers. Experienced French activists who have spent their lives trying to get Nelson Mandela out of prison and who fight daily for the rights of Palestinian political prisoners are unsatisfied regarding the trustfulness of the information provided by John Shipton. A political prisoner always needs to talk, to send a message to the outside world to continue his fight, his health condition is a battle issue. If Julian Assange remains silent, is it due to his declining health ? So why not go immediately to the obvious conclusion, the necessity to launch legal procedure for requesting an exemption from punishment on health grounds? Nothing happening in prison can be really hidden, even in a high-security prison, as told me Mateusz Piskorski, a Polish sovereignist political activist who has just spent three years in arbitrary detention for « pro-Russian espionage ». It is surprising and frightening that no information or message from Julian Assange has yet been reported by the families of the other prisoners of Belmarsh.
John Shipton appeared late in Julian Assange’s surroundings in 2013 while he was locked up in the Ecuadorian premises. Assange says in his writings and interviews that he met his biological father when he was 25 years old and never explained the nature of their relationship. What an outside observer may learn is that Shipton appears publicly as a leading member of the Wikileaks Party and leads his son in an election campaign for the Australian Senate elections [4]. Julian Assange’s notoriety is thus combined with John Shipton’s long-standing political connections in the Australian Peace Movement or within the Socialist Equality Party, a Trotskyist party currently a pillar of the Fourth International and an active participant in support committees [5].
However, the testimony of Daniel Mathews, a Julian Assange’s student friend who finally leaved party, depicts a Julian Assange who does not lead the Wikileaks Party and barely participates in the virtual meetings [6]. Naturally, any political refugee who has left his country for more than 5 years knows that it is difficult to regain a foothold in a society that is evolving and escaping him. But Julian Assange seems quite alone, and far more focused on finding ways to rescue Edward Snowden than on political calculations necessary to build electoral coalitions among tiny opposition parties in an Australia he left 14 years ago and never wanted to return to.
All these reasons and certainly others lead to the failure of the Wikileaks Party, which scored 0.66% votes in December 2014. But if Julian Assange never mentions those electoral struggles afterwards, John Shipton still manages a structure by which he ensures a certain notoriety. Politically, his visit to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in December 2013 [7](25) exposed him to media attacks, while tabloids were being glossing over his personal fortune and the sale of his architect’s house located in a chic suburb of Sydney for more than 1.7 million dollars [8]. Recently John Shipton introduced another person to witness Julian Assange’s worrying health deterioration: Gabriel Shipton, film producer and son of John Shipton and Catherine Ann Barber Shipton. This young man introduced himself on September 2 as Julian Assange’s half-brother who had not « seen him for years » and who « may have seen him for the last time » [9](27). Although biological ties are still important in our permissive and liberal Western society, the British prison service does not necessarily favour the « biological family » in granting access rights. The « Guide for the use of family and friends of prisoners », to be downloaded from the prison website [10] and the documents published by the Consulate, for example Polish ones [11], for the benefit of relatives Polish citizens’ relatives serving sentences in Great Britain, rather prove that prisoners choose the relatives regardless from their biological family ties. Moreover, in the case of Julian Assange, it would have been necessary to prove, in the absence of a social and administrative link between John Shipton and Julian Assange, these links by a DNA test! This explains why it is very likely that in the eyes of the prison administration Mr Shipton has as much right to visit the prisoner referenced A9379AY as Mrs K. or any other activist from a support committee. Did Julian Assange choose Gabriel Shipton, whom he has not seen in years, conscientiously and voluntarily to exercise his right of access and bring political messages out to the outside world?
Beyond the thorny issue of biological paternity, if I were imprisoned for my political activities, and this can still happen to me, it would embarrass me to see my father’s mistress’ son or daughter landing onto my cell first and foremost under the pretext of common paternal genes. I would ask strong and experienced personal friends to come and carry my messages to the world and to put in place together the strategy to win the battle. But does Julian Assange, whose many personal rights have been violated, still have a choice? Is he just able to willingly fill in an administrative document? All these uncertainties generate anxiety, especially since in the event of death, Gabriel and John Shipton would then identify the body and their announcement would result in a final verdict.
Create a coordination of citizen movements
In this context of harsh seclusion, only one person stands out: John Pilger, a well-known leftist journalist and anti-imperialist activist who has known Julian Assange since 2011 and is trusted by a majority of left-wing political activists. However, since Pilger is 80 years old, it is difficult to ask him to lead such a battle. We sincerely wish to help him in this task and we think that a European coordination meeting of Julian Assange’s Defence Committees is necessary and feasible. The meeting could take place in London or Berlin. My experience as an organiser of Social Forums and other European meetings makes me a potential co-organizor of this meeting that could occur on the beginning of October 2019.
I would therefore like to contact Mr. John Pilger as soon as possible. No doubt that he will appreciate the dynamism, experience and radical nature of the social movements that form the heart of Julian Assange’s Support Committees, among which the one I belong to, namely the WikiJustice Human Rights Association, almost as old as the Yellow Vests movement.
(20+) WikiJustice Julian Assange | Facebook
All internet references counter-checked on 20 September 2019.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/julian-assange-we-just-kept-moving-2359423.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Australian_New_Age_group)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Moore_(The_Family)
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68nLqjm9TM&t=1520s
https://www.rt.com/news/christine-assange-interview-julian-659/
[4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/wikileaks-party-members-prepare-for-election-campaign/5050316
https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Wikileaks_Party
[5] https://socialequality.com/
https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2019/06/28/sydn-j28.html
[6] https://www.danielmathews.info/2013/08/21/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/wikileaks-party-returns-to-syria-in-mission-to-help-ordinary-people
[8] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981095/As-Wikileaks-founder-Julian-Assange-seeking-refuge-Ecuador-father-selling-home-1milion.html
[9] https://www.rt.com/news/467835-assange-brother-prison-hell/
[10] https://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/belmarsh/visiting-information
https://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/hmp-belmarsh
[11] https://manchester.msz.gov.pl/resource/5add3b87-a90b-48cb-8a3a-01fd69721ce4:JCR
Faire la lumière pour gagner la bataille : Qui sont les proches de Julian Assange ?
Monika Karbowska – août 2019
L’été est fini et avec lui le silence assourdissant autour du prisonnier politique le plus emblématique d’Europe s’estompe un peu. Un bruit médiatique fait de concerts, rallyes, visuels « je suis Assange » de triste mémoire des attentats de 2015-2016 monte doucement. Sortir Julian Assange de prison le plus vite possible, le protéger et le conduire en lieu sûr devrait être l’objectif de tous militants pour les droits humains. En réfléchissant à la stratégie la plus rapide et la plus efficace, je suis tombée sur un de mes documents « mapping » du temps de la répression que j’ai traversée moi-même en tant que militante syndicale européenne.
Qui sont mes vrais amis ?
J’avais dénoncé en 2007-2009 avec des amies syndicalistes grecques, polonaises et bulgares l’exploitation des migrants est-européens, travailleurs détachés esclaves d’agences de vente de main d’œuvre à 400-600 euros pour 15 à 18 heures de travail par jour sur les sites touristiques grecs. Nous avions lancé une campagne pour les droits de ces travailleurs migrants européens et imprimé un tract multilingue. Mon article sur le sujet, signé de mon nom, fut publié dans la presse de gauche grecque et polonaise et sur les sites altermondialistes français et allemands[1]. Mal m’en a prit. Alors que mon amie la syndicaliste bulgare Konstantina Kouneva était vitriolée dans une rue d’Athènes en décembre 2008, en aout 2009 je fuis enlevée la nuit par la police grecque de mon domicile sur l’ile touristique ou je travaillais et accusée par deux accusateurs complices de vol avec effraction sur un scénario aussi rocambolesque que celui qui fut écrit par la militante social-démocrate suédoise et officière de police pour poursuivre Julian Assange pour viol. Lire la production romanesco-policière d’Irmeli Krans[2] m’a fait irrésistiblement penser à ma propre affaire, par le choix des protagonistes et la sexualisation insidieuse de la situation destinée à me faire taire par le biais de la honte. J’ai été ainsi poursuivie pendant 5 ans pour cette chose que je n’avais pas commise et menacée dans une procédure ubuesque d’être livrée à la police grecque par un mandat d’arrêt européen suite à un procès truqué ou juges, avocats, procureurs, policiers et patronat local faisaient partie de la même famille. Lorsque j’ai pu organiser la défense efficace qui m’a fait gagner, j’utilisais donc ce document de mapping intitulé « Qui sont mes vrais amis dans cette affaire ». Sur la feuille de papier à côté de moi se trouvait ma mère, à gauche et à droite quelques amis personnels de différents pays, en bas les actions à mener et les financeurs de celles-ci. Mes avocats, mes médecins et mes soutiens moraux et politiques étaient indiqués tout autour.
Je doute que le pauvre Julian Assange soit en état d’écrire un document semblable pour lui-même alors que ce genre d’examen est absolument nécessaire quand tu es un dissident pourchassé par le système capitaliste et que tu veux sauver ta peau. Tant pis si ta feuille est clairsemée, ce qui compte est la fidélité et la solidité des vrais soutiens. Il se peut même que plus tu t’approches du but de ta libération, plus tu as éliminé les gêneurs qui te font perdre une énergie précieuse et accaparent ton temps dans un storytelling stérile. Tu ne peux plus te permettre cela, il y va de ta vie, désormais. J’ai donc réfléchi à comment Julian Assange pouvait répondre à cette question, « qui sont mes vrais proches ». Et comme une association de défense des droits humains comme Wikijustice a pour vocation de protéger les droits de ceux qui sont trop faibles pour se défendre eux même, je vais tenter d’aider Julian Assange, par-delà les murs du trou noir ou il se trouve, à démêler les vrais des faux.
Plus je me plongeais dans les documents multiples qui jalonnent la « saga » européenne de Julian Assange depuis dix ans, plus je découvrais que le storytelling officiel colporté par les médias et les blogs recouvrait des réalités très différentes. J’ai dû donc ajuster mon mapping à une situation changeante. J’éliminais tout de suite les personnes qui furent les plus proches de Julian mais qui ont disparu, sont injoignables et en tout état de cause ne le défendent pas : Sarah Harrison que même mes amis de la gauche berlinoise ayant pignon sur rue n’ont pas pu retrouver, Jacob Appelbaum, le véritable héros du film « Risk » et génial concepteur du moteur de recherche Tor, qui ne communique plus depuis 3 ans, depuis qu’il a été forcé de quitter le projet Tor. Je ne compte pas Madame Renata Avila parce qu’il est vrai qu’en tant qu’Européenne de l’Est dont le pays a été profondément détruit et « remastérisé » par les organisations de Soros, je ne peux faire confiance à quelqu’un qui est salarié dans une association financée par le même.
[1] http://amitie-entre-les-peuples.org/Travail-capitalisme-et-migration
https://wolnemedia.net/wyzysk-pod-akropolem/
file:///C:/Users/Ikaria/Documents/Documents/Monika/Politique/Europe/Οι%20σκλάβοι%20του%20Αιγαίου.htm
https://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/183992.shtml
[2] http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
Le « Director »
De toute façon j’ai compris que ces anciens proches ne figureraient pas au centre du tableau de la « famille de cœur » du prisonnier politique Julian Assange. Au centre trônerait le « Director » comme le nomme certains médias lors de son décès en 2016[1], celui qui est associé avec Kristinn Hrafnsson à la direction de l’organisation financière probable de Wikileaks, Sunshine Press Production, société de droit islandaise crée le 8 octobre 2010[2] au moment ou Julian Assange est accaparé par les accusations suédoises : Gavin MacFadyen. Ce dernier est tellement proche de Julian Assange depuis au moins son arrivée en Europe en 2009, que certains le présentent comme le véritable fondateur de Wikileaks en 2006, le mentor de Julian Assange, son seul et meilleur ami. Il faut dire que les quelques photos sur lesquels ils figurent ensemble montrent une certaine tendresse[3], sentiment renforcé par le fait que Julian Assange lui rend hommage à son décès par un message twitter original du fond de son ambassade prison, alors qu’il ne communique rien sur le décès de son grand-père maternel Warren Alfred Hawkins ou de son père social, Brett Assange en 2012[4].
Le rôle de Gavin MacFadyen dans la saga Wikileaks et dans le sort personnel de Julian Assange doit être vu comme central et historique. Militant soixante-huitard de la 4ème Internationale trotskiste, du Socialist Workers Party, réalisateur, journaliste, MacFadyen a probablement mis ses réseaux politique d’extrême gauche à la disposition de son fils spirituel car Wikileaks devait être un prolongement, un aboutissement du Centre du Journalisme d’Investigation crée en 2003 au plus fort de la guerre de Bush et Blair contre l’Irak[5]. Le Centre pourvoit ainsi Julian Assange en collaborateurs proches (Sarah Harrison, Renata Avila, Joseph Farrell) pour la mise en forme des grandes révélations de 2010 : Afghan et Irak logs, télégrammes diplomatiques américains. MacFadyen crée un comité qui récolte des fonds pour la défense de Julian Assange et probablement gère cet argent. Peut-être que c’est ce « legal defence fond », aujourd’hui dirigé par Susan Benn, la veuve de MacFadyen, qui a choisi la Doughty Street Chambers et suggéré les G. Robertson et J. Robinson comme avocats de Julian Assange[6].
Certes, je n’ai aucun souvenir de l’action de CIJ alors qu’au plus fort de la résistance européenne contre la mondialisation et l’impérialisme des dizaines de milliers de militants politiques de gauche débattaient dans les centres culturels et les squats lors du Forum Social Européen de Londres en octobre 2004. Les jeunes et bouillonnant militants britanniques du mouvement Agir Contre la guerre « Stop the War » ont réussi à rassembler 100 000 personnes pour la grande manif finale finissant à Trafalgar Square le 18 octobre 2004. De mon point de vue de militante européenne engagée, Wikileaks fut en 2010 l’aboutissement et non le point de départ des luttes contre l’invasion guerrière états-unienne en Irak[7].
La place de MacFadyen est vide sur la « carte du réseau de résistance» car le père spirituel (appelé aussi « maître » per certaines sources) de Julian Assange décède d’un cancer en 2016. J’hésite à placer Madame Susan Benn parmi les amis proches de Julian Assange non seulement à cause de l’absence de la moindre preuve de cette proximité, mais aussi parce que l’action des avocats cornaqués et payés ( ?) par son fond de soutien ne me semble pas efficace et pertinente. Mon affaire grecque a duré 5 ans et tant que je payais des avocats politiquement douteux je perdais mes procès les uns après les autres et je perdais la visibilité de la stratégie nécessaire pour gagner. Dans le droit européen, en tant qu’accusé je suis responsable de ma propre défense, de ma liberté et de mon honneur. C’est pour cela que l’accès à mon dossier et la traduction des pièces dans la langue que je comprends le mieux est mon droit absolu. Parce qu’avant tout je suis une citoyen.ne dotée de droits inaliénables et les avocats ne peuvent se substituer à mes droits. Ils ne sont qu’une aide que je peux changer à tout moment une fois que je les ai payés sur présentation de facture légales ou sur la base d’une aide juridique que me procure mon pays de résidence.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J33qDyAkkk4
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/gavin-macfadyen-obituary
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/apr/24/fbis-long-obsession-gavin-macfadyen/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gavin-macfadyen-5sm355v99
[2] https://fr.scribd.com/document/341479410/Sunshine-Press-Productions-Ehf-private-limited-company-aka-Wikileaks
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/business/media/gavin-macfadyen-dies-wikileaks.html
[4] https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/julian-assanges-grandfather-dies-in-victoria/1572359/
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/790278989596295170/photo/1
[5] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/shine-a-light/gavin-macfadyen-1940-2016-why-investigative-journalism-matte/
[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18648922
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/oct/18/eu.world1
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2004/esf
Qui profite de l’argent de Wikileaks ?
De nombreux articles ont démontré l’inanité depuis des années de la stratégie de Jennifer Robinson qui n’a entrepris depuis avril 2019 aucune action pour faire libérer Julian Assange en raison de sa mauvaise santé et s’est abstenue de déposer le recours en appel de la détention pour violation de la liberté sous caution. [1] Je peux d’autant moins lui faire confiance en tant que citoyenne européenne et militante souverainiste communiste polonaise que Jennifer Robinson a passé tout l’été à soutenir activement le séparatisme d’une organisation de la région indonésienne de Papouasie Occidentale, contribuant ainsi aux divisions et tensions à l’intérieur de l’Etat d’Indonésie, au moment ou celui-ci tente de protéger ses ressources naturelles en les nationalisant[2]. Dans ces écrits et ses discours Julian Assange n’a JAMAIS promu l’immixtion impérialiste dans les conflits d’autres peuples et Etats, il n’a jamais soutenu les révolutions de couleur visant à des « regime change » au profit de forces politiques pro-occidentales. Il ne me semble pas exagéré de demander que l’avocate d’un prisonnier politique devrait aussi partager un minimum les valeurs que celui-ci représente[3].
Concernant les financements de Wikileaks, de nombreuses zones d’ombres demeurent sur les financeurs comme sur les récipiendaires des fonds et ce n’est pas nouveau. La Fondation Wau Holland de droit allemand qui récolte les fonds, le rôle de l’entreprise Sunshine Press Production islandaise de même que la structure juridique de Wikileaks méritent plusieurs analyses[4]. Mais ce qui compte c’est l’homme Assange dont on s’aperçoit aujourd’hui qu’il n’a jamais profité de la manne financière de son organisation, qu’elle soit sous forme de bitcoin mythiques ou d’un vérifiable bilan financier d’une entreprise avec siège en Europe. Cet état de fait grève lourdement sa situation concrète de prisonnier aujourd’hui. Déjà en août 2010 Julian Assange se trouve démuni sans argent en Suède, à la merci d’âmes charitables pour son appartement, sa nourriture (sic) : – et ses crédits téléphoniques alors qu’il est déjà poursuivi par les services secrets américains et que l’armada judiciaire européenne se met en route pour l’immobiliser et l’extrader aux Etats Unis[5].
Question de migrante et militante prolétaire : pourquoi personne de Wikileaks, du CIJ, de sa famille ne lui a envoyé dans les deux heures qui suivirent le blocage de son compte un mandat Western Union ? En décembre 2010 la justice britannique considère l’homme Assange comme un indigent, car il n’a ni adresse, ni appartement, ni biens, ni rien. C’est pour cela qu’elle lui refuse la libération sous caution, puis une fois la caution exorbitante payée par la gauche socio-démocrate riche, le cloître dans la maison d’un homme qui se porte garant de la bonne conduite du prisonnier, le lie au lieu par un bracelet électronique contrôlé nuit et jour, lui impose un couvre-feu de nuit et l’oblige à pointer quotidiennement à la police locale. Depuis 9 ans, l’homme Julian Assange est dépendant des personnes de son entourage pour les actes les plus quotidiens de sa vie. Au passage, quel crédit accorder à tous ce storytelling foisonnant sur internet sur l’homme Assange dirigeant son organisation comme un chef impitoyable, licenciant son collègue Daniel Domscheit Berg ou utilisant sans vergogne les compétences informatiques de mineurs de 17 ans qu’il lâche lorsque la CIA s’y intéresse[6], alors que nous venons de comprendre que c’est Gavin MacFadyen qui est aux commandes de Wikileaks -avec Kristin Hrafnsonn présent en arrière-plan – et que Julian Assange n’a qu’un poste honorifique dans l’organigramme, tel un stagiaire de luxe dans un projet associatif typique de la décennie des ONG altermondialistes?
En effet, en tant que Français, incorrigibles dans la défense des conquis sociaux, on ne peut s’empêcher de s’interroger : Julian Assange a-t-il un contrat de travail avec l’organisation Wikileaks, une sécurité sociale, des cotisations retraite ? Ces questions sont d’importance lorsqu’on subit la répression capitaliste qui vous traite différemment si vous êtes un bénévole sans revenu ou un salarié inséré et payant des impôts. J’oubliais le détail qui est primordial pour les migrants hors Union Européenne : lorsque vous travaillez, vous possédez une carte de séjour mentionnant votre adresse et votre profession. Si Julian Assange avait une carte de séjour portant la mention « journaliste », personne, jamais, n’aurait pu lui contester cette qualité. Mais il n’a pas de carte de résident au Royaume-Uni, son adresse est probablement celle d’une poste restante en Australie et la Suède lui refuse la carte de travail qu’il demande alors qu’il séjourne dans l’appartement de l’accusatrice Anna Ardin. Dans le chapitre finances, personne de proche ne semble se soucier du statut social, des cotisations maladie ou retraites de Julian Assange qui, après tout, est un étranger sur le sol européen et aurait évité bien des souffrances si une association d’aide aux salariés migrants l’avait judicieusement conseillé.
Des années plus tard le problème ressurgira lorsque Julian Assange aura épuisé ses ressources physiques et mentales, enfermé dans les locaux de la mission diplomatique équatorienne. Le rapport médical de 2015 établi par trois médecins londoniens mandatés par l’Etat de l’Equateur suggère que l’impossibilité de le soigner dans les locaux de la mission est lié, outre à la question sécuritaire, à la problématique de « qui paye » ?[7] Julian Assange apparaît alors comme quelqu’un dont la mission diplomatique paye les frais de vie, mais il n’a toujours aucun contrat de travail ni aucune sécurité sociale, qu’elle soit britannique, équatorienne ou une autre sous statut de travailleur détaché ! J’ai été choquée découvrant cela, moi qui ai 30 ans au compteur de militantisme social auprès de migrants à qui j’ai passé des années de bénévolat à expliquer la nécessité de régulariser leur situation avec un contrat de travail ! En 2015 Julian Assange a 44 ans, il est peut-être fatigué de cette vie de sans-papier alors que diverses maladies commencent à le miner. Aujourd’hui dans la seule lettre un peu détaillée qui nous soit parvenue en juin dernier il se plaint du prix des communications téléphoniques en prison. En prison tout s’achète. Si tu ne peux pas acheter, c’est que toi et tes proches vous n’avez pas d’argent. Prolétaire précaire depuis trois décennies, je ne peux rester insensible face à cet appel au secours.
[1] https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/220819/les-avocats-fantomes-de-julian-assange
[2] https://www.insideindonesia.org/resource-nationalism-as-imperialism-3
[3] https://twitter.com/suigenerisjen
[4] https://fr.scribd.com/document/341479410/Sunshine-Press-Productions-Ehf-private-limited-company-aka-Wikileaks
[5] Déposition de Julian Assange du 2016 contre l’accusation de Sofia Wilem
[6] https://www.wired.com/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/
https://www.wired.com/2013/06/wikileaks-mole/
[7] « One of Mr. Assange’s colleagues commented that there had been many difficulties in finding medjcal practitioners who were willing to examine Mr. Assange in the Embassy. The reasons givert were uncertainly over whether medical insurance would cover the Embassy {a foreign jurisdiction )»’- dossier médical du 11 décembre 2015 après la visite deux trois médecins mandatés par l’Ambassade de l’Equateur.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/cms/Psychosocial%20Medical%20Report%20December%202015.pdf
https://www.rt.com/news/359425-assange-mental-physical-health/
Le terrible chapitre londono- équatorien
Le chapitre de l’ambassade équatorienne mérite une place spéciale pleine d’interrogations dans mon « mapping de résistance ». Il est factuellement faux de dire qu’il est impossible de soigner une personne sur le territoire d’une ambassade. L’ambassade, tout comme la résidence de l’ambassadeur, les locaux consulaires et les appartements des membres de la mission et de leurs familles sont inviolables et jouissent de l’immunité diplomatique. L’inviolabilité du lieu signifie que l’Etat de résidence ne peut pénétrer dans les locaux que avec l’accord du chef de la mission, c’est-à-dire avec l’accord du gouvernement de celui-ci. L’inviolabilité der la personne détendeur du passeport diplomatique signifie qu’elle ne peut être arrêtée et détenue ni poursuivie par un juge car il s’agit d’une « immunité absolue » selon la Convention de Vienne, ou plutôt l’usage qui est fait de cette Convention dans la pratique des relations diplomatiques depuis 1961 [1].
Quiconque a vécu en tant que membre d’une famille de diplomate, comme moi-même j’y ai passé ma jeunesse, sait combien il est difficile de punir les violences intrafamiliales dans ce genre de système car la protection des mineurs du pays d’accueil ne peut agir et celle du pays d’origine est loin. Cela veut dire donc que l’Etat est souverain en toutes choses dans sa mission diplomatique. Il peut choisir et accréditer des médecins de l’extérieur, les faire venir du pays, les salarier. Pour la petite histoire, la République de Pologne possède, héritage de la bonne gestion communiste, un cabinet médical dans son ambassade parisienne, ainsi qu’un excellent médecin appointé qui soigne environ 150 personnes de la mission, un cabinet dentaire équipé ou un dentiste officiait en permanence du temps de la Pologne Populaire… La Pologne est un petit pays, mais nul doute que la Russie et les Etats Unis possèdent des hôpitaux de campagne entiers dans leurs principaux locaux[2]. L’Equateur n’est pas un pays riche mais je refuse de croire qu’il était impossible d’installer un équipement mobile de médecine dentaire dont se servent les organisations humanitaires ou de faire à Julian Assange une radio de son épaule par le même procédé. Si cela n’a pas été possible c’est que le problème était ailleurs.
De même, l’Etat peut agrandir les locaux de sa mission. Acheter une maison entière dans laquelle le « prisonnier » aurait été plus à l’aise, racheter l’immeuble, le couloir, l’escalier, le palier, accéder par la propriété à la sortie de secours que l’immeuble comportait par la force des choses… Et si la Grande Bretagne était déterminée à piétiner 500 ans de tradition de réciprocité diplomatique et détruire la Convention de Vienne, il était envisageable politiquement de rompre les relations avec ce pays, saisir le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU, l’Assemblée Générale de l’ONU, rameuter les pays amis des BRICS très soucieux de respect de la souveraineté de l’Etat et de droit international… Pour Julian Assange le chapitre Equateur est clos et cette expérience a été dévastatrice pour sa santé et sa situation personnelle. Je pense que « la carte des amis proches » peut difficilement comporter des personnes liées à cette période de sa vie.
La carte des proches apparaît donc terriblement vide et Julian Assange profondément seul. Nous devons alors nous pencher sur sa famille. Dans mon cas personnel, ma mère figurait juste à côté de moi en tant que personne indispensable. Agée de 70 ans, ne soutenant pas mes combats, elle a néanmoins rassemblé toutes les ressources matérielles possibles pour payer les frais de la répression que j’ai subie, et régulièrement je lui confessais honteuse et terriblement reconnaissante, l’avancement de mon dossier et les actions entreprises par mes amis politiques pour me sortir de cette cabale mortelle. Aujourd’hui ma mère est amie avec une des militantes clé de mon sauvetage.
[1]https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19610070/index.html
https://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1961_num_7_1_1076
[2] Entretiens avec Adam Karbowski (ancien Consul de Pologne), Ewa Zaleska, et Halina Matejczuk; Halina Matejczuk „Bylam konsulem PRL”, Fundacja Konstantego Ostrowskiego, 2015, Bialystok , « J’ai été consul de la Pologne Populaire ».
La famille
Je n’ai pas pu connaitre Madame Christine Hawkins Assange car mes appels, twitts et messages sont restés sans réponse. Je ne veux surtout pas l’accabler mais au contraire lui soutenir le moral en montrant que la vie de son fils prisonnier politique nous tient à cœur, nous citoyens de l’Europe. Je comprends qu’elle soit épuisée par dix ans d’emprisonnement et d’une défense stérile alors que la situation de son fils se dégrade constamment Je comprends même qu’elle ait cessé de twitter et qu’elle ne soit pas venue en Europe joindre ses forces à celle des comités citoyens pour forcer la porte de la prison et faire connaitre urbi et orbi le scandale de la détention de son fils mourant. J’ai pris connaissance de son passé de femme victime de violences conjugales de la part d’un homme membre d’une secte extrêmement dangereuse, comme Julian Assange l’a précisé dans ses textes autobiographiques[1]. Je comprends donc qu’elle soit trop fragile pour cette bataille contre un système politique mondial guerrier et impérialiste dont le fonctionnement en ramifications de réseaux d’intérêts fait effectivement penser à l’organisation d’une une secte. La CIA, MI5 et 6, la SAPO suédoise, le BND allemand avec leur obsession de capturer son enfant, de le torturer, de se livrer à des expériences sur lui doivent la traumatiser au plus haut point lui rappelant ce que la secte d’Anne Hamilton Byrne faisait subir aux enfants qu’elle enlevait aux mères célibataires australiennes du début des années 60 jusqu’à 1987, date du démantèlement du « Lebensborn » d’enfants[2].
Je compatis car Christine Ann Hawkins a probablement beaucoup souffert en tentant de protéger son fils ainé et son deuxième fils né de Leif Meynel, membre de la secte. De cette vie de fuite se dégage une impression terrifiante de surveillance totalitaire, bien plus terrible que ma vie d’enfant de diplomates communistes constamment surveillée et entravée par les services secrets de la Pologne populaire et de l’Union soviétique dans les années 80, au plus fort de la phase finale de la guerre froide. J’ai une certaine lucidité ou paranoïa liée à mes origines, mais au moins je sais que l’Etat populaire croyait bien faire en protégeant les rejetons de son élite des tentatives d’achat et d’abus de la part de puissances hostiles.
Cependant son absence empêche notre action d’être efficace car elle est la seule famille connue de Julian Assange que lui-même a présenté comme proche de lui dans le film « Risk » et qui apparaît dans les reportages de Russia Today en 2012[3]. De plus, l’absence de Madame Christine Assange n’est pas tout à fait compensée par l’activisme de John Shipton. Cet homme se présente comme le père biologique de Julian Assange ayant réussi à lui rendre visite deux fois à Belmarsh, début juin et début août dernier. Ainsi, des centaines de militants des comités de défense, en l’absence de toute communication de la part des avocats, restent suspendus aux déclarations alarmantes mais succinctes de cet unique interlocuteur. Où est Julian Assange ? A Belmarsh dans une cellule ou dans le quartier médical ? Peut-être est-il dans un endroit spécial de la prison, une cellule d’isolement pour terroristes, un « dark place » (comme il l’écrivait récemment dans une lettre qui nous a été communiquée) « un lieu sombre » comme l’ont été les prisons secrètes de la CIA dans les pays de l’Est ? Est-il vivant, si oui, quel est son état de santé exact ? Est il capable de coordonner sa défense et ses soutiens politiques ou est-il mourant ?
John Shipton n’a jamais été clair sur la date et la durée des entretiens, sur le lieu exact où il aurait vu Julian Assange, sur la nature personnelle ou politique de leurs échanges, sur la capacité même de Julian Assange de s’exprimer, sur sa capacité à vivre au quotidien (se lever, marcher, manger, penser et parler…), la video fuitée par un codétenu en juin n’ayant jamais été ni datée ni authentifiée ni expliquée ni par Shipton, ni Madame Assange ni par les avocats. Les militants français expérimentés qui ont passé leur vie à tenter de sortir Nelson Mandela de prison et qui luttent au quotidien pour les droits des prisonniers politiques palestiniens restent sur leur faim concernant la fiabilité des informations fournies par John Shipton. Un prisonnier politique veut toujours parler, faire passer un message à l’extérieur pour continuer son combat, sa santé même est un enjeu de combat. Si Julian Assange ne dit rien c’est que peut-être que sa santé est trop altérée pour parler ? Alors pourquoi le cacher et ne pas lancer immédiatement la procédure de demande de dispense de peine pour raisons de santé ? Tout se sait en prison, même dans une prison de haute sécurité comme me disait Mateusz Piskorski, militant politique souverainiste polonais qui vient de passer trois ans en détention arbitraire pour « espionnage pro russe ». Il est étonnant et effrayant qu’aucune information ni message de Julian Assange n’aient été rapportés par les familles des codétenus de Belmarsh, prison tout à fait classique du système capitaliste néolibéral britannique.
John Shipton apparaît tardivement dans l’entourage de Julian Assange, en 2013 lorsque celui-ci est déjà enfermé dans la mission équatorienne. Assange dit dans ses écrits et ses entretiens avoir rencontré ce père biologique à l’âge de 25 ans et n’explique jamais la nature de leur relation. Ce qu’on peut apprendre en tant qu’observateur extérieur est que Shipton apparaît publiquement en tant que membre dirigeant du Wikileaks Party et entraîne son fils dans une campagne électorale pour les élections sénatoriales australiennes[4]. La notoriété personnelle de Julian Assange se conjugue ainsi avec les relations politiques de longue date que John Shipton possède dans le mouvement de la paix australien ou au sein du Socialiste Equality Party, parti trotskiste actuellement pilier de la quatrième Internationale et participant activement aux comités de soutien[5]. Cependant le témoignage de Daniel Mathews, un ami d’études de Julian Assange qui quitte finalement la structure montre un Julian Assange ne dirigeant pas le Wikileaks Party et participant à peine aux réunions virtuelles[6]. Certes, tout réfugié politique qui a quitté son pays plus de 5 ans sait qu’il est difficile de reprendre pied dans une société qui évolue et lui échappe. Mais Julian Assange paraît bien seul et bien plus préoccupé par son travail de sauvetage d’Edward Snowden que par les calculs politiciens nécessaires au montage de coalitions électorales de minuscules partis d’opposition dans une Australie qu’il a quitté depuis 14 ans et où il n’a jamais voulu revenir.
Toutes ces raisons et certainement d’autres mènent à l’échec du Wikileaks Party qui récolte en décembre 2014 0,66% de voix. Mais si Julian Assange ne mentionne plus jamais l’aventure électorale, John Shipton dirige jusqu’à aujourd’hui une structure par laquelle il s’assure d’une certaine notoriété. Politiquement, sa visite au président syrien Bachar Al-Assad en décembre 2013[7] lui vaut des attaques médiatiques alors que les tabloids ne se privent pas de gloser sur sa fortune personnelle et sur la vente de sa maison d’architecte située dans une banlieue chic de Sydney pour plus d’1 million[8] de dollars australiens. Récemment John Shipton a présenté un autre témoin de l’inquiétante dégradation de la santé de Julian Assange : Gabriel Shipton, producteur de films et fils de John Shipton et de Catherine Ann Barber Shipton. Ce jeune homme s’est présenté lui-même le 2 septembre dernier comme le demi-frère de Julian Assange qui ne « l’a pas vu depuis des années » et qui « l’a peut être vu pour la dernière fois ».[9]
Les liens biologiques ont beau avoir toujours leur importance dans notre société occidentale permissive et libérée, l’administration pénitentiaire britannique ne privilégie pas forcément la « famille biologique » dans l’attribution du droit de visite. Le « guide à l’usage de la famille et des amis des prisonniers », à télécharger sur le site de la prison[10] ainsi que les documents qu’édite le consulat, par exemple polonais[11], à l’attention des proches des citoyens polonais purgeant des peines en Grande Bretagne prouvent plutôt que ce sont les prisonniers qui choisissent le nom des proches et qu’il n’y a pas de privilèges accordés aux liens de parenté biologiques. Par ailleurs, dans le cas de Julian Assange, il aurait fallu prouver, en l’absence de lien social et administratif entre John Shipton et Julian Assange ces liens par un test ADN ! Cela explique qu’il est fort probable qu’aux yeux de l’administration de la prison Monsieur Shipton a autant de droit de rendre visite au prisonnier au numéro d’écrou A9379AY que Madame K. ou tout autre militant d’un comité de soutien. Julian Assange a-t-il choisi en toute conscience et de son plein gré Gabriel Shipton qu’il n’a pas vu depuis des années pour exercer son droit de visite et faire sortir des messages politiques à l’extérieur?
Au-delà de la question épineuse de la paternité biologique, si j’étais emprisonnée pour mes activités politiques, et cela peut encore m’arriver, cela me gênerait personnellement de voir le fils ou la fille de la maîtresse de mon père débarquer dans ma cellule en priorité sous prétexte de gènes paternels communs. Je demanderais à des amis personnels solides et éprouvés de venir pour transmettre mes messages au monde et pour mettre en place ensemble la stratégie pour gagner le combat. Mais Julian Assange dont tant de droits personnels ont été violés, a-t-il encore le choix ? Est -il seulement apte à remplir de son plein gré un document administratif de dossier de visite ? Il est très angoissant de ne pas le savoir, d’autant plus qu’en cas de décès se seraient alors Gabriel et John Shipton qui identifieraient le corps et leur annonce serait un verdict sans appel pour tous les militants dévoués de tous les comités de soutien politiques.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/julian-assange-we-just-kept-moving-2359423.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Australian_New_Age_group)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Moore_(The_Family)
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68nLqjm9TM&t=1520s
https://www.rt.com/news/christine-assange-interview-julian-659/
[4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/wikileaks-party-members-prepare-for-election-campaign/5050316
https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Wikileaks_Party
[5] https://socialequality.com/
https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2019/06/28/sydn-j28.html
[6] https://www.danielmathews.info/2013/08/21/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/wikileaks-party-returns-to-syria-in-mission-to-help-ordinary-people
[8] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981095/As-Wikileaks-founder-Julian-Assange-seeking-refuge-Ecuador-father-selling-home-1milion.html
[9] https://www.rt.com/news/467835-assange-brother-prison-hell/
[10] https://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/belmarsh/visiting-information
https://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/hmp-belmarsh – la liste précises des vêtements donnée par ce site et que l’on a le droit d’amener au prisonnier le laisse songeuse. Il y a-t-il quelqu’un qui amène des choses indispensables à Julian Assange sachant que toutes ses affaires ont été séquestrées par l’Etat de l’Equateur ?
[11] https://manchester.msz.gov.pl/resource/5add3b87-a90b-48cb-8a3a-01fd69721ce4:JCR
Créer une coordination des mouvements citoyens
Dans ce paysage marqué par la mise à l’isolement, un seule personne se détache : John Pilger, journaliste de gauche connu et militant anti-impérialiste qui connaît Julian Assange depuis 2011 et bénéficie de la confiance de la majorité des militants politiques de gauche. Cependant Pilger étant âgé de 80 ans, il est difficile de lui demander de diriger une telle bataille. Nous souhaitons vivement l’aider dans cette tâche et pour cela organiser au plus vite une rencontre de coordination européenne des Comités de Défense de Julian Assange. La rencontre pourrait avoir lieu à Londres ou à Berlin. Mon expérience d’organisatrice de Forum sociaux et autres rencontres européennes me permet d’affirmer que je suis prête à me charger immédiatement de l’organisation de cette rencontre et qu’il est possible de la mettre en place d’ici fin septembre 2019. Je souhaite donc prendre le plus vite contact avec M. John Pilger. Il est certain que lui aussi appréciera le dynamisme, l’expérience et la radicalité des mouvements sociaux qui forment le coeur des Comité de soutien de Julian Assange et également du Comité français Wikijustice issu du mouvement populaire des Gilets Jaunes[1].
Toutes les pages des sites internet cités on été vérifiés le 8 septembre 2019
[1](20+) WikiJustice Julian Assange | Facebook
Julian Assange, a forced and secret marriage?
Monika Karbowska
Since June 1 the media hype around Julian Assange’s upcoming wedding has begun. On June 1, the woman who sometimes calls herself Stella Morris and sometimes Sara Gonzalez Devant stayed in Paris at the invitation of a collaborator of the Macronist minister Dupont Moretti. She was photographed by many media photographers and appeared wearing a mask concealing her face with left-wing political leaders. However, she did not meet with activists who have been fighting for the release of Julian Assange and these activists were banned from the Assas University where she was holding her conference.
Now this woman is announcing her upcoming marriage to Julian Assange in Belmarsh prison. Since then, countless mainstream media outlets, all members of the Trusted News Initiative, a kind of Western propaganda cartel[1], have been reporting her words and her picture in front of the prison wall in Thamesmead with two small blond children.
Marriage is not, however, a media show where one puts oneself on stage to tell whatever one wants.
Marriage is a legal act that commits two people to society, that gives certain rights and a number of important duties. Marriage is a civil act which has precise legal consequences, depending on the culture of each society. In the European legal systems, which have their origins in Christianity and are secularized, marriage creates a system of obligations of mutual aid and support between the two persons, gives automatic filiation to the children born of this union, and can establish a community of property with the right to inherit. A spouse has priority to receive information about his or her partner’s health and even to make decisions affecting him or her, when his or her partner is unable to do so due to illness or other incapacity.
To be clear, if Julian Assange is married to Stella Morris, and if he is committed to a psychiatric hospital, Stella Morris will be our sole contact about him and she will make decisions about him. She will remain his gatekeeper, a role she already plays publicly while he is in captivity.
It is blatant that Stella Morris continually speaks in the place of Assange, who has not spoken publicly since May 19, 2017, and that his last letter vaguely signed « JPA » reached Yellow Vest activists on November 2, 2019, almost two years ago.
Since then, no one has received any letter signed with the name « Julian Assange ». No one has heard him speak publicly, except us who were present at the trial of October 21, 2019 during which he was able to pronounce a single sentence about the « psychologists who entered his inner life » and about the theft of the « DNA children » (« children’s DNA », « his children »?, real children or « computer » children, software he created? We don’t know)[2].
We, Wikijustice activists, also have SEEN him speaking in the Woolwich Court on February 27, 2021, even shouting vehemently, we saw him greeting us, but we could not hear him because the organizers of the pseudo-legal show had cut off the microphones and the armored glass between the public gallery and the hall prevented us from hearing the sounds of the room.[3]
While Julian Assange still hasn’t spoken out about this marriage and relationship, Stella Morris has been speaking for him for over a year.
Personally, until I see and hear Julian Assange speak freely about this relationship and this proposed marriage, this marriage will remain a fiction, a legally invalid act, an illegal act.
This marriage will be the media continuity, the staging of Julian Assange’s illegal, secret captivity.
I have fought for years with my feminist friends against forced, arranged and secret marriages of women and girls, I will not accept what I consider to be a forced and secret marriage of a man held in captivity while according to the judgment at the end of the last hearing on January 4, 2021, he should be free.
Because marriage is a serious legal act, the ceremony that commits the two people to give free consent to this act must be public. It cannot be carried out in secret and reported only by the media with complicit arrangements, by words of third persons whose identity is not clearly established, by crude photomontages, more or less finaly faked.
In the latest documentary produced by ARTE, Stella Morris justifies Assange’s silence by the fact that « he is struggling to survive at the moment ». So Assange would be dying and the urgency for her is to marry him, not to do everything to take him to the hospital, to treat him, to get him out of captivity? You don’t marry a dying man because he is not in a state to give his consent. Marriage with a dying or seriously ill person is all the more a forced marriage, and therefore a null and void marriage.
If Assange dies, then the prison governor is legally responsible and will be sued for homicide, as will all those who manipulate Assange’s name by playing up this illegal marriage: Stella Morris, John Shipton, Gabriel Shipton and all those who participate in the spreading of this storytelling.
Let us look at the conditions for a valid marriage in a western legal system and what are the conditions for Julian Assange’s marriage to be a legal civil act and not a fake.
In England, the 1949 marriage Act, as amended, governs marriage. It is as precise about the publicity of marriage and consent as other European legal systems. The couple must file their notice of marriage to the civil Registrar and give the documents containing all the legal informations – names, address, occupations, nationality, certificate of non-bigamy, certificate of divorce or death certificate for widowers. A period of 28 days must elapse during which any person who has an objection to the marriage may come forward. The banns are published at the end of this period and are public. In the Anglican Church, the priest reads the banns at mass, which is important because only an Anglican ceremony has the same legal value as a civil marriage. Citizens of other faiths, however, must perform a civil ceremony in addition to their religious ceremony.
In British law, as elsewhere in Europe, forced marriage is a crime. Anyone who has knowledge of a forced marriage must report it to the police or prosecutor as an emergency.[4]
Let us look at Julian Assange’s situation under the Marriage Act in England. Here are the most important points:
[1] Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and announces major research project – Media Centre (bbc.com)
[2] How to break walls – From a « Dark place » to a fantastic meeting, Julian Assange’s hearing on October 21st 2019 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)
[3] Trial of Wikileaks or trial of Julian Assange? Monday, February 24, 2020, the court of who is the strongest wins – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)
[4] https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/quick-guides/getting-married
The identity of the spouses
No one can get married under a false name.
An original birth certificate must be produced in order to get married. The birth certificate must show the birth name, first name and surname as well as any changes in identity since then – change of name by adoption, marriage, court order or naturalization. Parents’ names must be spelled out. These names must be public: public benches must be published, announcing the will to marry, with the real names of authentic births, corresponding to their ancestors, paternal and maternal, and having been the subject of an administrative declaration at the time of birth (Place, exact date, time) of the future spouses. Even in non-secular systems in which a concordat marriage has the value of a civil marriage, the names of the future spouses must be announced publicly, in written and spoken manner in the churches.
We know that Stella Morris is a pseudonym that this woman uses in place of her real name – she said this herself in the media. Some sources give her a third name, Smith Robertson[1]. We also know that she is not a lawyer and is not registered at the British Bar under any of her three names. She also does not have a law degree. I have analyzed her lie about her identity and profession in my two articles and Wikijustice in our international complaint.
Page 96-106
We have also asked in our 10th release request to the judicial and political authorities of Great Britain to shed light on the real identity of Stella Morris and also that of the man known as Julian Assange.
(5) Release Request 10 of political prisoner Julian Paul Assange | LinkedIn
To prove that she really married Julian Assange, she will have to release the marriage certificate with her real name and proof that the name is hers – birth certificate or ID – so that the activists who have been so supportive of Julian Assange can trust her as a legitimate wife and partner with obligations to her spouse.
Concerning Julian Assange’s identity, the question also arises. A victim of arbitrary imprisonment in secret captivity like a hostage in the days of the Ancien Régime, the man we saw in the rigged trial hearings at Westminster Court in London from September 2019 to October 2020 did « confirm » his identity at the beginning of each hearing, but he always did so in an unsure, hesitant voice. He was during the months of autumn-winter 2019-2020 visibly under the influence of drugs and medication, his gestures betrayed a suffering that was a sign of consequence of the torture suffered, as the doctor of Wikijustice demonstrated in several reports[2] .
What is the value of confirming identity under the influence of torture, in a court where the most basic human rights are violated?
Documents published on Spanish-speaking websites and probably leaked from the diplomatic mission of Ecuador have shown us how questionable the surname « Assange » is[3].
Among these documents signed by Ecuadorian diplomats and related to his application for Ecuadorian nationality by the man known as « Julian Assange », page 53, we find a copy of a birth register from Brisbane, signed by a certain Alistar Douglas Dodds on August 19, 1996 and legalized by the High Governorate of Australia in London in August 2017. The first incongruity is that for a request for nationality it is always necessary to present a birth certificate of less than 3 months, but here the applicant presents a document 19 years old and strangely certified today by a current authority.
But above all we see that this birth certificate does not include the name of a father and that the name of the mother is Christine Ann Hawkins. Therefore, the child born on July 3, 1971 can only bear the name of the mother and therefore be called Hawkins. John Shipton does not appear on this document, nor does any other man. The box labeled « Parent: father’s name » located first, before the mother’s name as it should be in a patriarchal and patrilineal society that was Australia in 1971, is empty.
No man therefore recognized « Julian Paul » born Hawkins as his son. The legitimacy of a John Shipton to speak on behalf of Julian Paul Hawkins aka « Assange » does not exist, especially since the man I saw at Westminster Court, Woolwich Court and the Old Bailey who introduced himself as ‘Julian Assange’ never made any sign of collusion with John Shipton, nor did he greet him or seek to speak with him.
Even the Wikipedia storytelling eventually admits that Julian « Assange’s » original last name is Julian Paul Hawkins.
Furthermore, none of the documents certified by the Ecuadorian consulate, including Julian Assange’s affidavit and his application for Ecuadorian citizenship, mentions marriage, let alone children. Julian Assange presents himself on various documents several times as single and without children. This is in stark contradiction to Stella Morris’ claim that the children she exposes in the media are Assange’s children born in 2016 and 2019. The name of the child born in 2016 should have appeared in Assange’s identity documents used by the diplomatic mission of Ecuador if that child had been his and recognized by him. But this is not the case, so I deduce even more that the children that Stella Morris shows us do not have Julian Assange as their father. That she is once again telling a lie, that just as she is lying about her identity and profession.
In his application for Ecuadorian nationality Julian Paul declares that he was born under the name Julian Paul Hawkins, (page 35) gives the number of his Australian passport (M5562431 – but the published passport has a blackened and illegible number on page 56) and explains in a sworn statement (page 46) why the name on his passport is not his birth name on his birth certificate.
This affidavit is made on September 5, 2017 and validated as authentic by Jorge Vantroi Moreno Fierro, Consul of the Republic of Ecuador in London. In doing so, by certifying this document, the Consul of Ecuador gives it the FORCE of LAW and engages the responsibility of the State of Ecuador in establishing a civil status of the person. Julian Assange states that his mother at the time of his birth « is then called Christine Hawkins » and that the « name assigned to him in the Queensland Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths » is Hawkins.
« My name, as it was recorded at that time was Julian Paul Hawkins » – says Julian Paul « Assange », in a convoluted formula that suggests that the name he bears was not given to him by his mother at a time when unwed mothers and natural children were discriminated against throughout the West. This sentence sounds as if Hawkins had adopted a child whose name is already Julian Paul Hawkins, not as if she was giving her surname to her child born out of wedlock to an unknown father.
« I was known by this name, which is my mother’s maiden name in the early years of my childhood » signs « Julian Paul Assange » in her statement. What is strange is that no annotation of a change of his name appears on his certified birth certificate in 2017. There is every indication that he may still have THIS NAME of Hawkins today, if this published birth certificate is indeed authentic.
« Shortly thereafter my mother married and adopted her married name and was changed to Christine Assange » – the declarant, however, gives no date and the consulate asks for no evidence to verify his claim. However, this is an application for nationality and for this it is essential to establish a filiation with certainty in order not to attribute nationality to persons whose identity is uncertain. However, no document bears the name of Christine Assange, only Christine Hawkins, and the consul does not ask for proof of this identity and marriage, which is already in itself a kind of malpractice.
« I too adopted the name of my father-in-law without there being a formal process of adoption and or a process of change of name and since then I have been known as Julian Paul Assange. » says the applicant of Ecuadorian nationality in September 2017.
Of course, such a phenomenon is unlikely in the real life of the bureaucratized societies in which we live. Without a certificate of adoption or recognition of paternity, it is legally impossible to use the name of the husband of his mother in the civil status records. Some societies may accept that a « stepfather » has an informal role to play in the daily life of a child, such as picking him up from school, but for any legal act a written proof of the man’s link with the child must be sanctioned by a legal authority. And this bond, this paternal authority, is not acquired by simple declaration.
So who named the Hawkins-boy Assange? The applicant’s account is not clear on this point and no date is given. It is not possible for an adult to take his stepfather’s name as anything other than a pseudonym, if no legal act of adoption or recognition is made.
The sentence therefore suggests that « Assange » is a pseudonym, especially since the Ecuadorian Consul has no proof of Mr. Assange’s existence as a stepfather – no birth certificate, no marriage certificate, no copy of an identity document. Nor does he ask Mr. Hawkins, who has magically become Assange, and in this he validates the use of a pseudonym as a name in a civil status. In fact, let’s not be afraid to say it, it legally validates the use of a false name.
« I have used this name in the educational system, in the financial system or other legal documents, bank documents and driver’s license » says Julian Paul Hawkins, even though we have never been able to see a bank card in his name and everything in the story of his life shows that he does not have a school diploma or a driver’s license. The Ecuadorian State does not ask him for this kind of proof, which is strange.
« In the early 90’s I applied for my first passport. This one adopted another name through use and association ».
This notion of adopting a pseudonym through « use and association » is legally impossible in Western bureaucratic societies. If an authority issues a passport not on the basis of the legal birth name but on the basis of a pseudonym and banks and schools equally, it is establishing a false document.
However, Australian law clearly states that the name on the passport application must be exactly the same as on the full birth certificate. If you wish to change your name, in Australia as in Europe, you must have valid reasons for doing so and the change must be registered in the territorial register of births, deaths and marriages[4]. The birth certificate of Julian Paul Hawkins certified as authentic by Australia in 2017 shows that no official name change has taken place and that Hawkins is therefore not called Assange. Is his name Hawkins?
So what is this Australian passport that is published on the internet and is supposed to be the official ID of the man known as « Julian Assange »? Could it be a fake?
This hypothesis raises the question of the visibly anarchic functioning of Australia, a state of the British Commonwealth that is supposed to be a democratic state under the rule of law.
« Thus as applied in my first passport and delivered by the Australian Department of External Affairs DFAT, along with my original birth certificate in the name of Julian Paul Hawkins I enclose the attestation that I have adopted the name Julian Paul Assange by use and association » concludes the document of September 5, 2017 – It could not be clearer that the name « Assange » is a pseudonym adopted « by use. »
In fact, the birth certificate remains in the name of Julian Paul Hawkins, but the Australian State has no problem renewing Julian Assange’s passport under his alias, in violation of its own laws. It thus allows the State of Ecuador to validate this name, despite its flagrant contradiction with the only civil status document presented, the birth certificate. Australia is playing a shady game in creating a false identity for its most illustrious and controversial national.
So what documents will Julian Paul Hawkins use to get married today? A birth certificate in that name or an Australian passport issued in 2017 in Assange’s name? And which of the two documents will be true? Is even one of them real?
To prove that « Stella Morris aka Sara Smith Robertson aka Sara Gonzalez Devant » and « Julian Paul Hawkins aka Assange » got married, the civil servant conducting the ceremony would have to prove the real identity of both people and publish this evidence.
We need this evidence to be sure that this marriage is real and not faked, that this marriage is not a forced marriage, because as a human rights organization we have defended and are defending the rights of this tall, thin, white-haired, sad looking man that we have seen in the 3 London courts. We have the legal authority and duty to do so because he sent an SOS to one of our doctors. It is becoming extremely urgent to determine the official birth identity of the citizen known as Hawkins or Assange and to provide irrefutable proof of it because the organizers of the trial have forbidden us to speak to this man locked in the glass cage of the court despite our efforts and requests. So we were not able to ask him what his name really is.
It is important for HIS rights that we know that this marriage is not forced so that we can be sure that he will not be a prisoner of one person, his wife, who may have exclusive knowledge of his health and who may make decisions on his behalf, such as placing him in a psychiatric hospital. We MUST know his real name in order to defend him effectively!
[1] https://www.illustre.ch/magazine/stella-morris-et-julian-assange-on-adorerait-vivre-en-suisse
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wjja-third-medical-report-julian-assange-being-véronique/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wjja-second-medical-report-political-prisoner-julian-paul-véronique/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rapport-médical-du-prisonnier-politique-julian-paul-par-véronique/
[3] Documents Diplomatiques équatoriens sur l’identité de Julian Assange – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)
[4] « The names appearing in an Australian travel document should be exactly as appears on the person’s cardinal document. For the purposes of passport applications the applicant’s cardinal document is the person’s: Original full Australian birth certificate; or Original Australian Citizenship Certificate. The person’s name appearing on these documents is also known as the person’s base name. When a person wishes to include in their travel document a name other than a name on their cardinal document, then this must be supported by acceptable evidence of a change of name, see .
Evidence of name change.A person who was born in Australia or resides in Australia, should change one’s name through an Australian State or Territory Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (RBDM), and provide a name change document from RBDM confirming their change of name. »
Names and name change | Australian Passport Office (passports.gov.au)
Marriage in British legal documents
In hospitals
Marriage is a right guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Fundamental Rights and the british Marriage Act 1949 amended in 1983.
The Marriage Act of 1983, which amended the 1949 Act, provides for the exercise of the right to marry by persons who are confined to a closed place: patients in hospitals, patients at home, prisoners under house arrest and prisoners in jail[1].
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/32
What is interesting is that it provides for the conditions of the publicity of the marriage and the exercise of the consent even in these conditions. One document is essential: a public medical certificate explaining why this person cannot exercise his or her right to marriage other than in this place of confinement which is also his or her home (« house-bounded »). This essential certificate must be provided to the registry office 14 days before the notification of the intention to marry given by the future spouses. This document is then part of the public banns along with the other identity documents provided for by the 1949 Act.
It is the registry office that is responsible for the publicity of the marriage, but the institution in which the « confined » person resides is responsible for the reality of his consent. This is the case of hospitals, psychiatric hospitals and also prisons.
If the person is too ill, his consent is not valid and the marriage is void. That is why relatives, human rights associations and citizens must be able to check whether the person locked up can really exercise his or her consent and that he or she has not been subjected to a forced marriage. Too many people have been locked up in psychiatric institutions by malicious relatives for political reasons or for inheritance.
The Winsdor-Mountbatten family did imprison one of their members, Alice von Battenberg, in psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland and Germany for several years after kidnapping her five daughters and son. However, the history of Alice von Battenberg shows that she was anything but mentally ill, since during the Second World War she participated in the Resistance in Greece, made several trips to occupied Europe and was distinguished as Righteous Among the Nations[2].
If Julian Assange is in a hospital or a psychiatric hospital, we need to know it, his address and also the medical reasons for his internment. We should be able to ask to visit him to see for ourselves if his rights are being respected.
Stella Morris presents him as sick, dying. Maybe he is already in a psychiatric hospital, maybe he is already dead. After all it’s been almost a year since we last saw him alive – I last saw him alive at the Old Bailey on September 9, 2020. How can Stella Morris make us believe that Julian Assange is giving his consent to a marriage with her when he is so ill that he is dying? How could we believe her words without demanding to see for ourselves the mental and physical state of Julian Assange?
How could we NOT object to such a marriage: a secret ceremony with a dying, confined man? A human rights organization cannot accept such a scenario.
A man interned in a psychiatric hospital in secret is a victim of illegal imprisonment. A marriage under these conditions can only be a forced marriage, therefore a crime and a violation of the law.
We strongly oppose it.
In prison
The document PSI 14/2016 « Marriage of prisoners and civil partnership registration » of the National Offender Management Service (or Her Majesty Prison and Probation Service) organizes the modalities of exercising the right to marriage in prison[3].
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2016/psi-2016-14-marriage-prisonsers.pdf
We learn that every prisoner can get married inside the prison and some can also get married outside the prison, provided that they meet the security conditions which vary according to their status and the length of their sentence. The procedure is very simple: the prisoner and his or her partner fill out a form notifying the prison management of their intention to marry. The prison management has 3 months to answer if and under what security conditions (police escort of the prisoner) they will allow the ceremony to take place outside the prison. If the exit is not authorized, the wedding must be held inside the prison. It is not possible for the prison management to object to a prisoner’s marriage. The prison governor also has specific duties towards the prisoner to enable him to exercise his rights.
It must ensure that the prisoner can provide the necessary certificates for the completion of the legal act of marriage, i.e. his birth certificates, the certificate of non-bigamy that everyone must also provide for his marriage on the outside, an address on the outside on the marriage certificate if one wants to hide the fact that it took place in prison.
In addition, the prison management must ensure the presence of religious representatives for the religious ceremony and a registrar. Indeed, only the Anglican religious wedding has the quality of a civil wedding, all other religious ceremonies require the guarantee of a secular registrar in addition. It is important to point out that while Stella Morris claims that Julian Assange solicited a Catholic priest for their wedding, we now know that a Catholic marriage certificate issued in a British prison is not legally valid unless countersigned by a secular registrar. If Stella Morris is married in the presence of a Catholic priest, we are entitled to ask him to publish the marriage certificate signed by an English registrar. A Catholic certificate will never be proof of a valid marriage in Anglican England. The Catholic ceremony will remain a private matter. The marriage will not be official.
Finally, the prison management must ensure that the marriage certificate has been received by the couple. One of the features that undermines the rights of prisoners is the duty of the management to report the marriage of a prisoner « subject to immigration laws » to the immigration authority. In principle, management cannot refuse to marry an immigrant person, but it can track down a supposed « imposture ». I point this out here because we still do not know under which nationality Julian « Assange » is detained, nor of which nationality Stella Morris is or even where he is actually detained since the Belmarsh management refused to comment on this in a letter we obtained[4]. These doubts should be removed with the publication of their respective birth certificates authenticated by a legal, sworn authority of a sovereign state subject to international law after contradictory examination of the documents, containing their birth identities.
The prison governor has an obligation that is extremely important to us, should the ceremony take place in prison: to verify that the inmate is not married under duress.
« If governors have concerns that a prisoner may be entering into a marriage or civil partnership under duress, this should be reported to the registrar or registration authority.
Forcing someone to marry against their will is a criminal offence under section 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. »[5] (Section 4.7)
In effect, the prison warden is the guarantor of the exercise of the human rights of the person whose inalienable freedom has only been temporarily suspended for the duration of a sentence. He is therefore criminally responsible for ensuring that the detainee is not abused.
If Julian Assange is in Belmarsh, if his wedding ceremony is in Belmarsh, then the governor of the prison, to whom we have so many times sent our requests, must prove that this marriage was fully consented to and not sealed under any kind of duress.
We will hold him responsible.
How should a prison warden ensure that the marriage remains a public ceremony that any citizen can verify? On the one hand, by publishing his authorization, which thus acts as a « publication of marriage banns » containing the names of the future spouses and the place of the ceremony. On the other hand, he must allow « a reasonable number » of guests to participate in the ceremony in prison, including two witnesses, based on a list that the detained will have given him 3 months before. If the director refuses the entry of a guest, he must explain the reasons in writing.
And above all, the prison management must allow any person who might object to the marriage to express this opposition. Thus the « statement of marriage, » a form that serves as a « public bann » must be visible to « any public inspection » (section 7.8)
« During this period some details from the notice will be available in the register office for public inspection to allow for any objection to be made ».[6]
Also, any person who wishes to object to the celebration marriage must be received and heard by the registry office even on the day of the ceremony.
« In the rare case that a person would like to object to the celebration of a marriage or civil partnership in prison before the day of the ceremony, it must be addressed to the director of civil status or to the authority in charge of registration.
« In the rare event of someone wishing to enter an objection to a marriage/civil partnership taking place in prison before the day of the ceremony, he or she should be referred to the Superintendent Registrar/ registration authority. If the person arrives at the prison on the day of the ceremony/registration, he/she should be allowed to speak to the Superintendent Registrar, officiating Registrar/ faith Chaplain » .[7] (section 8.9)
If we learn through the press that Stella Morris is announcing her marriage to Julian Assange without providing any proof of consent other than a photo of herself in front of Belmarsh, we will be sure to come and demand that the governor of Belmarsh hears our formal opposition to this marriage as a human rights organization. We will tell him that there is a serious suspicion that a forced marriage has taken place against the will of Mr. Hawkins/Assange.
And we will ask him to provide evidence of Mr. Assange’s consent to this marriage only through a visit where we can hear him speak freely on the subject, free from any presence of an intimidating nature that might influence his words.
I recall that on February 13, 2020, when the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange returned to sit in the dock, he showed all the signs of a man who had just been abused and was afraid.
We will not be satisfied with a single video. Too many videos and photos of Julian Assange have been photoshopped, anti or post-dated for us to trust the professional image makers.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/32
[2] Karin Feuerstein-Prasser, « Alice von Battenberg, die schwiegermutter der Qeen, ein unkonventionnelles Leben, 2020, Piper Taschenbuch
[3] https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2016/psi-2016-14-marriage-prisonsers.pdf
[5] « If Governors have concerns that a prisoner might be entering into a marriage or civil partnership under duress, this should be raised with the Superintendent Registrar or registration authority. Forcing someone to marry against their will is a criminal offence under Section 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 »
[6] « During this period some details from the notice will be available in the register office for public inspection to allow for any objection to be made »
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2016/psi-2016-14-marriage-prisonsers.pdf
[7] https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2016/psi-2016-14-marriage-prisonsers.pdf
Julian Assange is free!
All this legal device is really only for prisoners with sentences. Category A prisoners, convicted of blood crimes, can only get married in prison. Category B prisoners, sentenced to more than 5 years and likely to flee, can marry outside only after a thorough investigation of their intentions and the ability of the prison regime to accommodate the necessary security constraints. Category C and D prisoners may marry outside.
Not convicted persons are not barred from marriage, but they are encouraged from the outset to postpone their ceremony until after their remand, since their remand cannot exceed 3 months (Article 3.3).
Since the citizen known as Julian Paul Assange should, in view of the last hearing, be entirely free of his movements and choices, why doesn’t he get married publicly as every citizen has the right and duty to do? Why doesn’t Stella Morris demand that the man she claims to want to marry be released so that the wedding can be public, in the presence of all those who worked for his release, his friends, his family?
Since the cost of a ceremony in prison is borne by the prisoner, it is more interesting for the defendant to organize his wedding outside, which he will not fail to obtain, the practice of the English courts being to grant bail as often as possible to prisoners with a family and a stable address. I was able to verify this by attending many times the hearings of Poles awaiting extradition who systematically obtained a conditional release as long as a person undertook to provide them with an address and the bail.
And who would prefer to get married in prison? No one. Especially if young children are to be present. What parent can forbid children to attend their wedding ceremony in a friendly and joyful place or not wish their presence there?
Normally Julian Assange is not convicted. Normally Julian Assange is not even in remand detention: no one has ever been in England kept in pre-trial detention as long as he has: 25 months! More than two years! Never seen since the Ancien Régime, the Middle Ages to be exact! The regression of individual rights in the Assange case is as spectacular as the regression of our rights to decide about our bodies since the covid dictatorship was imposed on us!
Normally, Julian Assange is in fact completely free since he was released from all charges by Judge Baraitser at the end of the extradition trial on January 4. The judgment document states in full: « I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003″[1]!
The possibility of appealing this decision does not exist in the 2003 extradition treaty signed by Great Britain and the United States. So why is Julian Assange not really free, effectively?
Why don’t we see him in the flesh, hear his voice telling us himself what he thinks and what he wants?
Who holds him captive and for what reason? Why does Stella Morris never tell him that he is legally free and cannot be in a prison where only real offenders serve real sentences? Why doesn’t she ever speak out against this illegal incarceration in secret? Why does she never demand the immediate release of the so-called father of her children? «
Why have we never seen a credible photo of Stella Morris with Julian Assange and their children together? How can we believe that they are a couple when the media shows as proof of Morris’s claims, excerpts from surveillance camera videos, stolen photos where we only see two not very identifiable silhouettes? Why doesn’t Stella Morris object to the illegal publication of these stolen images showing the alleged intimacy of her couple?
How can we believe that she was daily with Julian Assange Hans Crescent Street for 7 years in a married life and that she has no single photo of them together to the point that the only photo of this « couple » is a faked photo allegedly from 2012 because it was taken in the street? The two photos of Julian Assange holding a baby in his arms are neither proof of his paternity nor proof of Stella Morris’ maternity nor proof of their relationship: they are photos of a man with an unidentified baby in his arms, that’s all.
How can we believe that Julian Assange does not want to speak to the public other than through the clumsy words of a woman who changes her name 3 times in the space of a year?
How can we believe that a photo of Stella Morris alone in front of Belmarsh can be proof of her marriage to Julian Assange?
Because a photo of a woman in front of Belmarsh prison is not proof of marriage to Mr. Julian Assange. Fact is that I too can say that I married Julian Assange because I too have photos of myself in front of Belmarsh prison!
Julian Assange, un mariage forcé et au secret?
Monika Karbowska
Depuis le 1 juin le battage médiatique autour du mariage prochain de Julian Assange a commencé. Ce 1 juin la femme qui se fait appeler tantôt Stella Morris tantôt Sara Gonzalez Devant a séjourné à Paris à l’invitation d’un collaborateur du ministre macroniste Dupont Moretti. Elle a été photographiée par moult photographes de médias maintream et s’est affichée vêtue d’un masque dissimulant son visage avec des leaders politiques de gauche. Elle n’a toutefois pas rencontré de militants qui ont lutté pour la libération de Julian Assange et ces militants ont été interdits de séjour à l’Université d’Assas où elle tenait sa conférence.
Maintenant cette femme annonce son prochain mariage avec Julian Assange dans la prison de Belmarsh. Depuis, un nombre incalculables de grands médias, tous membre du Trusted News Initiative[1], sorte de cartel de propagande occidentale, répercutent ses paroles et sa photo devant le mur de la prison à Thamesmead en compagnie de deux petits enfants blonds.
Le mariage n’est pourtant pas un show médiatique où l’on se met en scène pour raconter ce qu’on veut.
Le mariage un acte juridique qui engage deux personnes vis-à-vis de la société, qui donne certains droits et un nombre important de devoirs. Le mariage est un acte civil qui a des conséquences juridiques précises, dépendantes de la culture de chaque société. Dans les systèmes juridiques européens issus du christianisme et laïcisés, le mariage crée un système d’obligations d’entraide et de soutien mutuel entre les deux personnes, donne une filiation automatique aux enfants nés de cette union, peut instaurer une communauté de biens avec droit à l’héritage. Un conjoint est prioritaire pour recevoir les informations sur la santé de son partenaire et même de prendre des décisions le touchant, lorsque son partenaire n’en est pas capable pour cause de maladie ou d’autre incapacité.
Pour être clair, si Julian Assange est marié avec Stella Morris, et s’il est interné dans un hôpital psychiatrique, c’est Stella Morris qui sera notre unique interlocutrice à son sujet et c’est elle qui prendra les décisions le concernant. Elle restera son « gatekeepper », gardienne de porte d’entrée, rôle qu’elle joue déjà publiquement alors qu’il est en captivité.
Il est flagrant que Stella Morris parle continuellement à la place d’Assange qui ne s’est plus exprimé publiquement depuis le 19 mai 2017 et que sa dernière lettre signée vaguement « JPA » est parvenu à des militants Gilets Jaunes le 2 novembre 2019, il y a presque deux ans.
Depuis, personne n’a reçu de lettre signée du nom de « Julian Assange ». Personne ne l’a entendu s’exprimer publiquement, sauf nous qui étions présents au procès du 21 octobre 2019 au cours duquel il a pu prononcer une seule petite phrase sur les « psychologues qui sont entrés dans sa vie intérieure» et sur le vol du « DNA children » (« ADN d’enfants » – ses enfants ? enfants vrais ou « enfants informatiques», c’est à dire logiciels crées par lui ? Nous ne le savons pas).[2]
Nous, militants de Wikijustice, nous l’avons aussi VU s’exprimer dans la salle de la Woolwich Court le 27 février 2021, crier même avec véhémence, nous l’avons vu nous saluer, mais nous n’avons pas pu l’entendre car les organisateurs du show pseudo-juridique avaient coupé les micros et que la vitre blindée entre la galerie du public et la salle nous empêchait ainsi d’entendre les sons de la salle. [3]
Alors que Julian Assange ne s’est toujours pas exprimé au sujet de ce mariage et de cette relation, Stella Morris parle à sa place depuis plus d’un an.
Personnellement tant que je ne verrai pas et que je n’entendrai pas Julian Assange s’exprimer librement sur cette relation et ce projet de mariage, ce mariage restera une fiction, un acte non valable juridiquement, un acte illégal.
Ce mariage sera la continuité médiatique, la mise en scène de la captivité, au secret, illégale de Julian Assange.
J’ai lutté pendant des années avec mes amies féministes contre les mariages forcées et arrangées de femmes et de petites filles, je ne vais pas accepter ce que je considère comme un mariage forcé et secret d’un homme maintenu en captivité alors que selon le jugement à l’issue de la dernière audience du 4 janvier 2021, il devrait être libre.
Car comme le mariage est un acte juridique sérieux, la cérémonie qui engage les deux personnes à prononcer un consentement libre pour cet acte doit être publique. Elle ne peut pas être effectuée au secret et répercutée uniquement par des médias avec des arrangements complices, par de paroles de tierces personnes dont l’identité n’est pas clairement établie, par des photomontages grossiers, plus ou moins bien truqués.
Dans le dernier documentaire produit par ARTE Stella Morris justifie le silence d’Assange par le fait « qu’il lutte pour survivre en ce moment ». Donc Assange serait mourant et l’urgence pour elle est de se marier avec lui, pas de tout faire pour l’emmener à l’hôpital, le soigner, le sortir de captivité ? On ne se marie pas avec un mourant car il n’est pas en état de donner son consentement. Le mariage avec un mourant, ou gravement malade, est d’autant plus un mariage forcé, donc un mariage frappé de nullité.
Si Assange est mourant, alors le directeur de prison en est responsable juridiquement et se retrouvera sous le coup d’une plainte pour homicide, de même que tous ceux qui manipulent le nom d’Assange en jouant la comédie de ce mariage illégal : Stella Morris, John Shipton, Gabriel Shipton et tout ceux qui participent à la diffusion de ce storytelling.
Examinons quelles sont les conditions d’un mariage valide dans un système juridique occidental et quelles sont donc les conditions pour que le mariage de Julian Assange soit un acte civil légal et non pas une mise en scène truquée.
En Angleterre c’est la loi de 1949 amendée qui régit le mariage. Elle est aussi précise au sujet de la publicité du mariage et du consentement que les autres systèmes juridiques européens. Le couple doit déposer sa notification de mariage au registre d’état civil contenant toutes les informations légales – noms, adresse, professions, nationalité, attestation de non-bigamie, de divorce ou certificat de décès pour les veufs. Une période de 28 jours doit s’écouler pendant laquelle toute personne qui a une objection face à ce mariage peut se manifester. Les bans sont publiés à l’issue de cette période et ils sont publics. Dans l’Eglise anglicane, le prêtre lit les bans lors de la messe, ce qui est important car seule une cérémonie anglicane a la même valeur juridique qu’un mariage civil. Les citoyens d’autres confessions doivent par contre, en plus de leur cérémonie religieuse, effectuer un célébration civile.
Dans le droit britannique comme ailleurs en Europe, le mariage forcé est un crime. Toute personne qui a connaissance d’un mariage forcé doit avertir en urgence la police ou le procureur[4].
Examinons maintenant la situation de Julian Assange au regard de la Loi sur le mariage en Angleterre. Voici les points les plus importants :
[1] Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and announces major research project – Media Centre (bbc.com)
[2] Comment traverser les Murs – de la « Dark place » à une rencontre incroyable: Le procès de Julian Assange le 21 octobre 2019 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)
[3] Procès de Wikileaks ou procès de Julian Assange? Lundi 24 février 2020 – le tribunal du « Qui le plus fort gagne » – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)
[4] https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/quick-guides/getting-married
L’identité des époux
Nul ne peut se marier sous un faux nom.
Pour se marier il faut produire un acte de naissance original. L’acte de naissance doit comporter le nom de naissance, prénom et nom de famille ainsi que toutes les modifications d’identité apportées depuis – changement de nom par adoption, mariage, décision de justice ou naturalisation. Les noms des parents doivent figurer en toutes lettres. Ces noms doivent être publics : on doit publier des bans publics, annonces de la volonté de se marier, comportant les vrais noms de naissances authentiques, correspondant à leurs ascendants, paternel et maternel, et ayant fait l’objet d’une déclaration administrative au moment de la naissance (Lieu, date exacte, heure) des futurs époux. Même dans les systèmes non laïcs dans lesquels un mariage concordataire a valeur de mariage civil, les noms des futurs époux doivent être annoncés publiquement, par écrit et oralement lors des messes dans les églises.
Or, nous savons que Stella Morris est un pseudonyme que cette femme utilise à la place de son vrai nom – elle l’indique elle-même dans les médias. Certaines sources lui attribuent un troisième nom, Smith Robertson[1]. Nous savons aussi qu’elle n’est pas avocate et n’est pas inscrite au barreau britannique sous aucun de ses trois noms. En outre elle n’est pas diplômée de droit. J’ai analysé son mensonge concernant son identité et sa profession dans mes deux articles et Wikijustice dans notre plainte internationale.
Page 96-106
Nous avons aussi demandé dans notre 10ème demande de libération aux autorités judiciaires et politiques de Grande Bretagne de faire la lumière sur l’identité réelle de Stella Morris et également celle de l’homme connu sous le nom de Julian Assange.
(5) Release Request 10 of political prisoner Julian Paul Assange | LinkedIn
Pour prouver qu’elle s’est vraiment mariée à Julian Assange, cette femme devra publier le certificat de mariage comportant son vrai nom et la preuve que ce nom est bien le sien – acte de naissance ou pièce d’identité pour que les militants qui ont tant soutenu Julian Assange puissent lui faire confiance en tant qu’épouse légitime et partenaire ayant des obligations vis-à-vis de son conjoint.
Pour l’identité de Julian Assange, la question se pose également. Victime d’emprisonnement arbitraire en captivité secrète comme un otage du temps de l’Ancien Régime, l’homme que nous avons vu dans les audiences du procès truqué à la Westminster Court à Londres, de septembre 2019 à octobre 2020, a certes « confirmé » son identité en début de chaque audience mais il l’a toujours fait d’une voix mal assurée, hésitante. Il était pendant les mois de de l’automne-hiver 2019-2020 visiblement sous l’emprise de drogues et de médicaments, ses gestes trahissaient une souffrance qui était un signe de conséquence de la torture subie, comme le médecin de Wikijustice l’a démontré dans ses rapports[2].
Que valent alors des confirmations d’identité sous l’emprise de la torture, dans une cour ou les droits de l’homme les plus élémentaires sont violés ?
Des documents parus sur des sites hispanophones et probablement fuités de la mission diplomatique de l’Equateur nous ont montré à quel point le nom de famille « Assange » est sujet à caution[3].
Parmi ces documents signés par des diplomates équatoriens et relatifs à sa demande de nationalité équatorienne par l’homme connu sous le nom de « Julian Assange », page 53, nous trouvons une copie de registre de naissance issue de Brisbane, signée par un certain Alistar Douglas Dodds le 19 août 1996 et certifiée conforme par le High Governorate de l’Australie à Londres en août 2017. La première incongruité est que pour une demande de nationalité il faut toujours présenter un extrait d’acte de naissance de moins de 3 mois, or ici le requérant présente ici un document vieux de 19 ans. L’autorité australienne a bizarrement certifié conforme ce vieux document au lieu d’exiger la présentation d’un extrait d’acte de naissance de moins de 3 mois.
Mais surtout on y voit que cet acte de naissance ne comporte pas le nom d’un père et que le nom de la mère est Christine Ann Hawkins. Par conséquent, l’enfant né le 3 juillet 1971 ne peut porter que le nom de la mère et s’appeler donc Hawkins. John Shipton ne figure aucunement sur ce document ni aucun autre homme d’ailleurs. L’encadré intitulé « parents: père » situé en premier, avant le nom de la mère comme il se doit dans une société patriarcale et patrilinéaire qu’était l’Australie de 1971, est vide.
Aucun homme n’a donc reconnu « Julian Paul » née de Hawkins comme son fils. La légitimité d’un certain John Shipton à parler au nom de Julian Paul Hawkins aka« Assange » n’existe pas, d’autant plus que l’homme que j’ai vu à la Westminster Court, à la Woolwich Court et à la Old Bailey qui s’est présenté comme « Julian Assange » n’a jamais fait aucun signe de connivence avec John Shipton, ne l’a pas salué ni n’a cherché à lui parler.
Même le storytelling de Wikipedia finit par admettre que le nom de famille original de Julian « Assange » est bien Julian Paul Hawkins.
Par ailleurs, aucun des documents certifiés conforme par le consulat de l’Equateur, dont la déclaration sur l’honneur de Julian Assange et sa demande de la nationalité équatorienne ne mentionnent de mariage et encore moins d’enfant. Julian Assange se présente sur différents documents plusieurs fois comme célibataire et sans enfants. Ceci est en flagrante contradiction avec le discours de Stella Morris prétendant que les enfants qu’elle expose dans les médias sont les enfants d’Assange nés en 2016 et 2019. Le nom de l’enfant né en 2016 aurait dû figurer dans les documents d’identité d’Assange utilisé par la mission diplomatique de l’Equateur si cet enfant avait été le sien et reconnu par lui. Mais ce n’est pas le cas, j’en déduis donc encore plus que les enfants que Stella Morris nous montre n’ont pas comme père Julian Assange. Qu’elle raconte une fois de plus un mensonge, tout comme elle ment sur son identité et son métier.
Dans sa demande de nationalité équatorienne Julian Paul déclare être né sous le nom de Julian Paul Hawkins, (page 35) donne le numéro de son passeport australien (M5562431 – mais le passeport publié comporte un numéro noirci et illisible page 56) et explique dans une déclaration sur l’honneur (page 46) pourquoi le nom établi sur son passeport n’est pas son nom de naissance figurant sur son certificat de naissance.
Cette attestation sur l’honneur est établie le 5 septembre 2017 et validée conforme par Jorge Vantroi Moreno Fierro, Consul de la République de l’Equateur à Londres. Ce faisant, en certifiant conforme ce document, le Consul de l’Equateur lui donne FORCE de LOI et engage la responsabilité de l’Etat de l’Equateur dans l’établissement d’un Etat civil de la personne. Julian Assange y déclare que sa mère au moment de sa naissance « est alors appelée Christine Hawkins » et que le « nom qui lui est attribué dans le registre des naissances, des mariage et des décès du Queensland » est Hawkins.
« Mon nom, tel qu’il fut enregistré était à ce moment là Julian Paul Hawkins » – déclare Julian Paul « Assange », en une formule alambiquée qui suggère que le nom qu’il porte ne lui a pas été pas donné par sa mère à une époque où les mères célibataires et les enfants naturels étaient discriminés dans tout l’Occident. Cette phrase sonne comme si Hawkins avait adopté un enfant dont le nom est déjà Julian Paul Hawkins et non pas comme si elle donnait son nom de famille à son enfant né hors mariage de père inconnu.
« Je fus connu par ce nom qui est le nom de jeune fille de ma mère les premières années de mon enfance » signe « Julian Paul Assange » dans sa déclaration. Ce qui est étrange c’est qu’aucune annotation de changement de son nom ne figure sur son acte de naissance certifié en 2017. Tout porte à croire qu’il pourrait porter toujours aujourd’hui CE NOM de Hawkins, si cet acte de naissance publié est bien authentique.
« Peu après ma mère s’est mariée et a adopté son nom de mariage et a été changée en Christine Assange » – le déclarant ne donne cependant aucune date et le consulat ne lui demande aucune preuve pour vérifier ses dires. Pourtant il s’agit ici d’une demande de nationalité et pour cela il est indispensable d’établir une filiation avec certitude afin de ne pas attribuer à de nationalité à des personnes dont l’identité est incertaine. Or, aucun document ne porte ici le nom de Christine Assange, uniquement Christine Hawkins, et le consul ne demande pas de preuve de cette identité et de ce mariage, ce qui constitue déjà en soit une sorte de faute professionnelle.
« Moi aussi j’ai adopté le prénom de mon beau père sans qu’il existe de processus formel d’adoption et ou un processus de changement de nom et depuis je suis connu comme Julian Paul Assange ». dit le demandeur de nationalité équatorienne en septembre 2017.
Naturellement un tel phénomène est invraisemblable dans la vraie vie des sociétés bureaucratisée dans lesquelles nous vivons. Sans acte d’adoption ou de reconnaissance de paternité, il est impossible légalement d’utiliser dans les actes d’état civil le nom du mari de sa mère. Des sociétés peuvent accepter qu’un « beau-père » ait un rôle à jouer informel dans la vie courante d’un enfant, comme aller le chercher à l’école, mais pour tout acte juridique une preuve écrite du lien de l’homme avec l’enfant doit être sanctionnée par une autorité juridique. Et ce lien, cette autorité paternelle, ne s’acquiert pas par simple déclaration.
Qui a donc donné au petit Hawkins le nom d’Assange ? Le récit du requérant n’est pas clair à ce sujet et aucune date n’y figure. Il n’est pas possible pour un adulte de prendre comme nom celui de son beau-père autrement que comme pseudonyme, si aucun acte légal d’adoption ou de reconnaissance n’est fait.
La phrase suggère donc que « Assange » est un pseudonyme, et ce d’autant plus que le Consul équatorien ne dispose d’aucune preuve de l’existence de M. Assange beau-père – ni état civil, ni certificat de mariage ni copie d’une pièce d’identité. Il n’en demande pas non plus à M. Hawkins devenu magiquement Assange et en cela il valide l’usage d’un pseudonyme comme d’un nom dans un Etat civil. En fait, n’ayons pas peur de le dire, il valide juridiquement l’usage d’un faux nom.
« J’ai utilisé ce nom dans le système éducatif, dans le système financier ou d’autres documents légaux, les documents bancaires et le permis de conduire » déclare Julian Paul Hawkins, même si on n’a jamais pu voir une carte bancaire à son nom et tout dans le récit de sa vie montre qu’il ne possède ni diplôme d’une école ni de permis de conduire. L’Etat équatorien ne lui demande pas ce genre de preuves ce qui est pour le moins étrange.
« Au début des années 90 j’ai effectué la demande de mon premier passeport. Celui-ci a adopté un autre nom à travers l’usage et l’association ».
Cette notion d’adoption d’un pseudonyme par « l’usage et l’association » est légalement impossible dans les sociétés bureaucratiques occidentales. Si une autorité établit un passeport non pas sur la base du nom de naissance légal mais sur la base d’un pseudonyme et que des banques et des écoles font de même, elles établissent un faux.
La loi australienne établit pourtant clairement que le nom apparaissant sur la demande de passeport doit être exactement le même que sur l’acte de naissance complet. Si on souhaite changer de nom, en Australie comme en Europe, on doit avoir des raisons valables pour le demander et ce changement doit être inscrit dans le registre territorial des naissances, décès et mariage[4]. L’acte de naissance de Julian Paul Hawkins certifié authentique par l’Australie en 2017 montre bien qu’aucun changement officiel de nom n’a eu lieu et que Hawkins ne s’appelle donc pas Assange. S’appelle-t-il Hawkins ?
Quel est donc ce passeport australien qui est publié sur internet et qui est censé être la pièce d’identité officielle de l’homme connu sous le nom de « Julian Assange » ? Serait-ce un faux ?
Ce serait alors un faux réalisé par l’Etat australien lui-même… Cette hypothèse pose la question du fonctionnement visiblement anarchique de l’Australie, pourtant Etat du Commonwealth britannique censée être un Etat de Droit démocratique.
« Ainsi comme appliqué dans mon premier passeport et livré par le Ministère des affaires extérieurs australien DFAT, avec l’original de mon certificat de naissance au nom de Julian Paul Hawkins je joins l’attestation comme quoi j’ai adopté le nom de Julian Paul Assange par l’usage et l’association » conclut le document du 5 septembre 2017 – On ne peut être plus clair sur le fait que le nom « Assange » est un pseudonyme adopté « par usage ».
De fait, le certificat de naissance reste au nom de Julian Paul Hawkins, mais l’Etat Australien ne fait pas de difficulté pour renouveler le passeport de Julian Assange sous son pseudonyme, en violation de ses propres lois. Il permet ainsi à l’Etat de l’Equateur de valider ce nom et malgré sa contradiction flagrante avec le seul document d’état civil présenté, le certificat de naissance. L’Australie joue un jeu trouble dans la création d’une fausse identité pour son ressortissant le plus illustre et le plus controversé.
Quels sont donc les documents qui serviront à Julian Paul Hawkins pour se marier aujourd’hui ? Un acte de naissance à ce nom ou un passeport australien édité en 2017 au nom de Assange ? Et lequel des deux documents sera vrai ? Y en- a-t-il seulement un de vrai ?
Pour prouver que « Stella Morris aka Sara Smith Robertson aka Sara Gonzalez Devant » et « Julian Paul Hawkins aka Assange » se sont bien mariés il faudrait que les agents qui dirigent la cérémonie prouvent la véritable identité des deux personne et publient ces preuves.
Nous avons besoin de ces preuves pour être certains que ce mariage est vrai et non truqué, que ce mariage n’est pas un mariage forcé, car en tant qu’association de défense des droits de l’homme nous avons défendu et défendons les droits de cet homme grand, mince, au cheveux blancs, aux traits particuliers et au regard triste que nous avons vu dans les 3 tribunaux londoniens. Nous avons légalement le pouvoir et le devoir de le faire car il a envoyé un SOS à un de nos médecins. Il devient extrêmement urgent de déterminer l’identité de naissance officielle du citoyen connu sous le nom d’Hawkins ou Assange et d’en apporter la preuve irréfutable car les organisateurs du procès nous ont interdit de parler à cet homme enfermé dans la cage de verre du tribunal malgré nos efforts et nos demandes. Nous n’avons donc pas pu lui demander comment il s’appelle vraiment.
Il est important pour SES droits que nous puissions savoir si ce mariage n’est pas forcé afin d’être certains qu’il ne sera pas prisonnier d’une personne, son épouse, qui pourra le cas échéant avoir la connaissance exclusive d’informations touchant sa santé et qui pourra prendre ses décisions en son nom comme par exemple le placer dans un hôpital psychiatrique. Nous DEVONS connaitre son vrai nom pour pouvoir le défendre efficacement !
[1] https://www.illustre.ch/magazine/stella-morris-et-julian-assange-on-adorerait-vivre-en-suisse
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wjja-third-medical-report-julian-assange-being-véronique/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wjja-second-medical-report-political-prisoner-julian-paul-véronique/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rapport-médical-du-prisonnier-politique-julian-paul-par-véronique/
[3] Documents Diplomatiques équatoriens sur l’identité de Julian Assange – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)
[4] « The names appearing in an Australian travel document should be exactly as appears on the person’s cardinal document. For the purposes of passport applications the applicant’s cardinal document is the person’s: Original full Australian birth certificate; or Original Australian Citizenship Certificate. The person’s name appearing on these documents is also known as the person’s base name. When a person wishes to include in their travel document a name other than a name on their cardinal document, then this must be supported by acceptable evidence of a change of name, see .
Evidence of name change.A person who was born in Australia or resides in Australia, should change one’s name through an Australian State or Territory Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (RBDM), and provide a name change document from RBDM confirming their change of name. »
Names and name change | Australian Passport Office (passports.gov.au)
Le mariage dans les documents légaux britanniques
Dans les hôpitaux
Se marier est un droit garanti par la Déclaration Universelle des Droits Humains, la Convention Européenne des Droits Fondamentaux et par la Loi britannique sur le mariage datant de 1949 modifiée plusieurs fois dont en 1983.
La loi sur le mariage de 1983 qui amende la loi de 1949[1] organise l’exercice du droit au mariage de personnes qui sont immobilisées dans un lieu fermé : malades dans des hôpitaux, malades à domicile, détenus en résidence surveillées et détenus en prison. Ce qui est intéressant est qu’elle prévoit ainsi les conditions de la publicité du mariage et de l’exercice du consentement y compris dans ces conditions. Un document y est essentiel : un certificat médical public expliquant pourquoi cette personne ne peut exercer son droit au mariage autrement que dans ce lieu d’enfermement qui est aussi son domicile (confiné à domicile – « house-bounded »). Ce certificat essentiel doit être fourni à l’état civil 14 jours avant la notification de l’intention de se marier donnée par les futurs époux. Ce document fait alors parti des bans publics avec les autres documents d’identité prévus par la Loi de 1949.
C’est l’office d’état civil qui est alors responsable de la publicité du mariage, mais l’institution dans laquelle réside la personne « confinée » est responsable de la réalité de de son consentement. Il s’agit alors de la direction des hôpitaux, des hôpitaux psychiatrique et aussi des prisons.
Si la personne est trop malade, sont consentement n’est pas valide et le mariage est nul. C’est bien pour cela que des proches, des associations de défenses de droit de l’hommes, des citoyens doivent pouvoir vérifier si la personne enfermée peut réellement exercer son consentement et qu’elle n’a pas été soumise à un mariage forcé. Trop de personnes ont été enfermées dans des institutions psychiatriques pour des raisons politiques ou par des proches malveillants pour captation d’héritage.
Les Winsdor-Mountbatten ont bien emprisonné dans des hôpitaux psychiatriques en Suisse et en Allemagne une de leur membres, Alice von Battenberg, à l’âge de 49 ans pendant plusieurs années après avoir enlevé ses quatre filles et son fils. Pourtant l’histoire d’Alice von Battenberg montre bien qu’elle était tout sauf malade mentale, puisque pendant la seconde guerre mondiale elle a participé à la Résistance en Grèce, effectué plusieurs voyages en Europe occupée et a été distinguée comme Juste Parmi les Nations[2].
Si Julian Assange est dans un hôpital ou un hôpital psychiatrique, nous devons le savoir, connaitre son adresse et aussi les raisons médicales de son internement. Nous devons pouvoir demander à lui rendre visite pour vérifier nous même si ses droits sont respectés.
Stella Morris le présente comme malade, mourant. Il est peut-être déjà dans un hôpital psychiatrique, peut-être est-il déjà décédé. Après tout cela fait presque 1 an qu’on ne l’a pas vu vivant – je l’ai vu la dernière fois vivant à la Old Bailey le 9 septembre 2020. Comment Stella Morris peut-elle nous faire croire que Julian Assange donne son consentement à un mariage avec elle alors qu’il est si malade qu’il est mourant ? Comment pourrions nous croire à ses paroles sans exiger de voir nous même dans quel état psychique et physique se trouve Julian Assange ?
Comment pourrions-nous NE PAS faire d’objection à un tel mariage : une cérémonie secrète avec un homme mourant et interné ? Une association de défense des droits de l’homme ne peut pas accepter un tel scénario.
Un homme interné dans un hôpital psychiatrique au secret est victime d’un emprisonnement illégal. Un mariage dans ces conditions ne peut être qu’un mariage forcé, donc un crime et une violations des lois. Si Julian Assange est dans cette situation nous nous opposons fermement à un tel mariage.
En prison
Le document PSI 14/2016 « Mariage of prisoners and civil partnership registration » (« Mariage de détenus et enregistrement de pacte civil ») du National Offender Management Service (ou Her Majesty Prison and Probation Service- le Service de Gestion des Prisons et de Probation) organise les modalités d’exercice du droit au mariage en prison[3].
Nous y apprenons que chaque détenu peut se marier à l’intérieur de la prison et certains le peuvent aussi à l’extérieur, sous réserve de remplir les conditions de sécurité qui varient selon leur statut et la durée de leur peine. La procédure est très simple : le détenu et son partenaire remplissent un formulaire notifiant à la direction de la prison leur intention de se marier. Celle-ci a 3 mois pour répondre si et à quelles conditions de sécurité (escorte policière du prisonnier) elle autorise le tenue de la cérémonie à l’extérieur de la prison. Si la sortie n’est pas autorisée, le mariage doit se tenir à l’intérieur de la prison. Il n’est pas possible pour la direction de la prison de s’opposer au mariage d’un détenu. Le directeur de prison a en outre des devoirs précis vis-à-vis du détenu pour lui permettre l’exercice de ses droits.
Il doit veiller à ce que le détenu puisse fournir les attestations nécessaires à l’accomplissement de l’acte juridique du mariage, c’est-à-dire ses actes de naissances, l’attestation de non-bigamie que tout un chacun doit aussi fournir pour son mariage dans la vie à l’extérieur, une adresse à l’extérieur sur l’acte de mariage si on veut dissimuler le fait que celui-ci a eu lieu en prison.
En outre la direction de la prison doit s’assurer de la présence de représentants religieux pour la cérémonie religieuse et d’un officier d’état civil. En effet, seul le mariage religieux anglican possède la qualité d’un mariage civil, toutes les autres cérémonies religieuses nécessitent la garantie d ‘un officier d’état civil laïc en sus. Il est important de le souligner alors que Stella Morris clame que Julian Assange aurait sollicité un prêtre catholique pour leur mariage : nous savons maintenant qu’un certificat de mariage catholique établit dans une prison britannique n’est pas valable juridiquement s’il n’est pas contre-signé par un officier d’état civil laïc. Si Stella Morris se marie en présence d’un prêtre catholique, nous sommes en droit de lui demander de publier le certificat de mariage signé par un officier d’état civil anglais. Un certificat catholique ne sera jamais la preuve de validité d’un mariage en Angleterre anglicane. La cérémonie catholique restera une affaire privée. Le mariage ne sera pas officiel.
Enfin, la direction de la prison doit s’assurer que l’acte de mariage est bien parvenu aux époux. Un des dispositifs qui fragilise les droits des détenus est le devoir de la direction de signaler le mariage d’un détenu « soumis aux lois de l’immigration » à l’autorité chargée de l’immigration. En principe, la direction ne peut pas refuser le mariage à un « sans papier » mais elle peut en revanche traquer un supposé « mariage blanc », ou « imposture ». Je le souligne ici parce que nous ne savons toujours pas sous quelle nationalité Julian « Assange » est détenu, ni de quelle nationalité est Stella Morris ni même où il est réellement détenu puisque la direction de Belmarsh s’est refusée à tout commentaire le concernant dans une lettre que nous avons obtenue[4]. Ces doutes devraient être levées avec la publications de leurs extraits d’actes de naissance respectifs authentifiés par une autorité légale, assermentée, d’un état souverain sujet de droit international après examen contradictoires des documents, contenant leurs identités de naissance.
Le directeur de la prison est soumis à une obligation extrêmement importante à nos yeux, au cas ou la cérémonie aurait lieu en prison : vérifier que le détenu n’est pas marié sous la contrainte.
« Si les gouverneurs ont des inquiétudes quant au fait qu’un détenu puisse contracter un mariage ou un partenariat civil sous la contrainte, il convient d’en faire part au directeur de l’enregistrement ou à l’autorité d’enregistrement.
Forcer quelqu’un à se marier contre sa volonté est une infraction pénale en vertu de l’article 121 de la loi de 2014 sur les comportements antisociaux, la criminalité et le maintien de l’ordre »[5]. (article 4.7)
En effet, le directeur de prison est le garant de l’exercice des droits humains de la personne dont la liberté inaliénable n’a été que provisoirement suspendue le temps d’une peine. Il est donc responsable pénalement que le détenu ne soit pas victime d’abus.
Si Julian Assange est à Belmarsh, si la cérémonie de son mariage se passe à Belmarsh, alors le gouverneur de la prison auquel nous avons tant de fois envoyés nos requêtes, doit prouver que ce mariage a été pleinement consenti et non pas scellée sous la contrainte quelle qu’elle soit.
Nous l’en tiendrons pour responsable.
Comment un directeur de prison doit-il s’assurer que le mariage reste une cérémonie publique dont tout citoyen peut vérifier la validité ? D’une part par la publication de son autorisation qui fait ainsi office de « publication de bans de mariage » comportant les noms des futurs époux et le lieu de la cérémonie. D’autre part, il doit accorder la possibilité à « un nombre raisonnable » d’invités de participer à la cérémonie en prison, et notamment de deux témoins, sur la base d’une liste que le détenu lui aura donné 3 mois auparavant. Si le directeur refuse l’entrée d’un invité, il doit en expliquer les raisons par écrit.
Et surtout, la direction de la prison doit permettre à toute personne qui pourrait faire objection à ce mariage de manifester cette opposition. Ainsi la « notification de mariage », formulaire faisant office de « ban public » doit être visible pour « toute inspection publique » (article 7.8)
« Pendant cette période, certains détails de la notification seront disponibles au bureau d’enregistrement pour une inspection publique afin de permettre toute objection »[6].
De même, toute personne qui souhaiterait s’opposer à cette célébration de mariage doit être reçue et entendue les autorités de l’état civil y compris le jour même de la cérémonie.
« Dans le cas rare où une personne souhaiterait s’opposer à la célébration d’un mariage ou d’un partenariat civil en prison avant le jour de la cérémonie, elle doit être adressée au directeur de l’état civil ou à l’autorité chargée de l’enregistrement.
Si la personne arrive à la prison le jour de la cérémonie/de l’enregistrement, elle doit être autorisée à parler au Superintendant de l’état civil, à l’officier d’état civil officiant/à l’aumônier religieux ». (article 8.9)[7]
Si nous apprenons par voie de presse que Stella Morris annonce son mariage avec Julian Assange sans apporter d’autre preuve du consentement du captif qu’une photo d’elle-même devant Belmarsh, nous ne manquerons pas de venir pour exiger de la part de M. le gouverneur qu’il entende notre opposition formelle à cet état de fait en tant qu’association de défense de droits de l’homme et de M. Assange en particulier. Nous lui signifierons qu’une suspicion sérieuse existe qu’un mariage forcé a eu lieu contre la volonté de M. Hawkins/Assange.
Et nous lui demanderons d’apporter la preuve du consentement de M. Assange à ce mariage uniquement par une visite au cours de laquelle nous pourrons l’entendre s’exprimer librement sur le sujet, en dehors de toute présence de nature intimidante pouvant influencer ses propos.
Je rappelle que le 13 février 2020, lorsque le citoyen connu sous le nom de Julian Paul Assange est revenu s’asseoir dans le box des accusés, il présentait tous les signes d’un homme qui venait d’être maltraité et qu’il avait peur.
Nous ne nous contenterons pas d’une simple vidéo. Trop de vidéos et de photos de Julian Assange ont été truquées, photoshopées, anti ou post-datées pour que nous fassions confiance aux faiseurs d’images professionnels.
Julian Assange est libre !
Toute ce dispositif juridique ne concerne en réalité que les détenus condamnés à des peines. Les prisonniers de catégorie A, condamnés pour des crimes de sang, ne peuvent se marier qu’en prison. Ceux de catégorie B, condamnés à des peines de plus de 5 ans et susceptibles de s’enfuir peuvent se marier dehors uniquement après une enquête approfondie sur leurs intentions et sur la possibilité du régime carcéral de s’adapter aux contraintes sécuritaires nécessaires. Les détenus de catégories C et D peuvent se marier dehors.
Les personnes non condamnées ne sont pas privées de mariage mais elles sont encouragées d’emblée à reporter leur cérémonie après leur détention provisoire puisque celle-ci ne peut pas excéder 3 mois (article 3.3).
Comme le citoyen connu sous le nom de Julian Paul Assange devrait, au regard de la dernière audience, être entièrement libre de ses mouvements et de ses choix pourquoi ne se marie-t-il pas publiquement comme tout citoyen est en droit et en devoir de le faire ? Pourquoi Stella Morris n’exige-t-elle pas que celui avec lequel elle prétend vouloir se marier soit libéré afin que le mariage soit public, en présence de tous ceux qui ont oeuvré à sa libération, ses amis, sa famille ?
Etant donné que le coût d’une cérémonie en prison est à charge du détenu, il est plus intéressant pour le prévenu d’organiser son mariage en liberté conditionnelle qu’il ne manquera pas d’obtenir, la pratique des tribunaux anglais étant d’accorder le plus fréquemment possible la liberté sous caution aux personnes pourvues de famille et d’une adresse stable. J’ai pu le vérifier en assistant maintes fois aux audiences des Polonais en attente d’extradition qui systématiquement obtenaient une liberté conditionnelle pour peu qu’une personne s’engage à leur fournir une adresse et la caution.
Et puis qui peut préférer se marier en prison ? Personne. Surtout si de jeunes enfants doivent être présents. Quels parents peuvent interdire à des enfants d’assister à leur cérémonie de mariage dans un lieu convivial et joyeux ou ne pas y souhaiter leur présence ?
Normalement Julian Assange n’est pas condamné. Normalement Julian Assange n’est même pas en détention provisoire : personne n’a jamais été en Angleterre maintenu en détention provisoire aussi longtemps que lui : 25 mois ! Plus de deux ans ! Du jamais vu depuis l’Ancien Régime, le Moyen Age plus exactement ! La régression des droits individuels dans le cas Assange est aussi spectaculaire que la régression de nos droits de décider de nos corps depuis que la dictature covid nous a été imposée !
Normalement, Julian Assange est en fait complètement libre puisqu’il a été libéré de toute accusations pesant sur lui par la juge Baraitser à l’issue du procès en extradition du 4 janvier dernier. Le document du jugement l’indique en toutes lettres : « I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003 » ![8] Cette phrase peut être traduite par « J’ordonne la libération de Julian Paul Assange en vertus de la section 91(3) du traité d’extradition de 2003» !
La possibilité de faire appel de cette décision n’existe pas dans le traité d’extradition de 2003 signé par la Grande Bretagne et les Etats Unis. Alors pourquoi Julian Assange n’est-il pas libre réellement, effectivement ?
Pourquoi ne le voyons-nous pas en chair et en os, n’entendons pas sa voix nous dire lui-même ce qu’il pense et ce qu’il souhaite ?
Qui le maintient en captivité et pour quelle raison ? Pourquoi Stella Morris ne l’affirme-t-elle jamais qu’il est légalement libre et ne peut pas se trouver dans une prison ou seuls des vrais délinquants purgent des vraies peines ? Pourquoi ne s’indigne-t-elle jamais de cette incarcération illégale au secret ? Pourquoi n’exige-t-elle jamais la libération immédiate du soit-disant père de ses enfants ? »
Pourquoi n’avons-nous jamais vu de photo crédible de Stella Morris avec Julian Assange et leurs enfants ensemble? Comment croire qu’ils sont un couple alors que les médias montrent en guise de preuve des dires de Morris des extraits de vidéos de caméra de surveillance, des photos volées où on ne voit vaguement que deux silhouettes pas très indentifiables ? Pourquoi Stella Morris ne s’oppose-t-elle pas à la publication illégale de ces images volées montrant prétendument l’intimité de son couple ?
Comment croire qu’elle était quotidiennement avec Julian Assange au 3 Hans Crescent Street pendant 7 ans dans une vie maritale et qu’elle n’a aucune photo d’eux ensemble au point que la seule photo de ce « couple » est une photo truquée datant prétendument de 2012 car prise dans la rue ? Les deux photos de Julian Assange tenant dans les bras un bébé ne sont ni des preuves de sa paternité ni des preuves de la maternité de Stella Morris ni des preuves de leur relation : ce sont des photo d’un homme avec un bébé non identifié dans ses bras, c’est tout.
Comment croire que Julian Assange ne veuille pas parler au public autrement que par les paroles malhabiles d’une femme qui change 3 fois de noms en l’espace d’un an ?
Comment croire qu’une photo de Stella Morris seule devant Belmarsh peut constituer une preuve de son mariage avec Julian Assange ?
Car une photo d’une femme devant la prison de Belmarsh n’est pas une preuve de mariage avec M. Julian Assange. La preuve, moi aussi je peux dire que je me suis mariée avec Julian Assange car je possède des photos de moi-même devant l’entrée de la prison de Belmarsh !
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/32
[2] Karin Feuerstein-Prasser, « Alice von Battenberg, die schwiegermutter der Qeen, ein unkonventionnelles Leben, 2020, Piper Taschenbuch
[3] https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2016/psi-2016-14-marriage-prisonsers.pdf
[5] « If Governors have concerns that a prisoner might be entering into a marriage or civil partnership under duress, this should be raised with the Superintendent Registrar or registration authority. Forcing someone to marry against their will is a criminal offence under Section 121 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 »
[6] « During this period some details from the notice will be available in the register office for public inspection to allow for any objection to be made ».
[7] « In the rare event of someone wishing to enter an objection to a marriage/civil partnership taking place in prison before the day of the ceremony, he or she should be referred to the Superintendent Registrar/ registration authority. If the person arrives at the prison on the day of the ceremony/registration, he/she should be allowed to speak to the Superintendent Registrar, officiating Registrar/ faith Chaplain »
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf
The University of Assas forbids a human rights association to enter a public conference
Monika Karbowska
On 1 June, as Wikijustice Julian Assange Association, we wanted to participate in the conference given by Maitre Antoine Vey, accompanied by Mrs Stella Morris at the University of Paris Assas, 92 rue d’Assas in Paris.
Antoine Vey, a close associate since 2013 of Macron and Castex’s current Minister of Justice, Eric Dupont Moretti, had participated with him in the press conference about the Julian Assange situation on 20 February 2020 in Paris. However, I never saw him in London at any of the hearings of the Julian Assange trial, neither at the Westminster Court, nor at the Old Bailey, nor at Woolwich Court in February 2020. So I was curious to hear how someone who is not a British lawyer and has not been involved in any stage of Julian Assange’s journey would explain the legal strategy intended to be applied to him today.
I registered with my colleagues on 26 May on the event’s website where participation was free of charge: this seemed normal, given that the University of Assas is the prestigious and historic Law Faculty of the University of Paris and therefore a public university paid for by our taxes. Of course, the Evenbrite company that manages the tickets on behalf of the student association that is supposed to organise the event is located in San Francisco. It is a bit strange that a French university and a French lawyer need an American organisation to register participants for a conference on a political and legal topic at a French public university, but this could be due to the ignorance or intellectual laziness that is the bedrock of many of the dysfunctions we experience in our society.
Having quickly obtained my registration ticket, I was not suspicious. The evening before the event, at 10:45, Tribunes Assas, a student association which is the organiser of the debate, wrote me an email:
« You have booked two tickets for tomorrow’s conference at the Assas Centre at 10.30am; unfortunately this is not possible, or we need the name of the second person. If you do not have the name of the second person, they will not be able to enter the university. Thank you for giving us an answer very quickly, Tribunes Assas.
I replied that it was a bug, that I only wanted to reserve one place and I took the opportunity to ask if I had to show an identity document at the entrance. On behalf of Tribunes Assas, the president Raphaëlle de Villeneuve de Flayosc and the vice-president Eulalie Montoya gave their written answer on 31 May at 9.25 pm: « Yes, you need an identity document or any other proof of identity. Thank you ».
At 9.33pm I received an email from Eventbrite signed Tribunes Assas: « We remind you that the conference you have registered for will take place tomorrow morning at 92 rue d’Assas, amphitheatre 1. Please present an ID at the entrance and arrive at 10.15am, i.e. 15 minutes before the scheduled start time of 10.30am ».
Everything seemed normal
After a 2 hour drive from my suburban home I showed up with my Wikijustice colleague at 10.20 AM at the entrance of 92 rue d’Assas, a brand new building in the massive « 1936 Olympics » style favoured by property developers currently working hard to transform Paris as part of Mayor Hidalgo’s disastrous 2024 Olympics policy.
We queue up with young people as a middle-aged man who looks like a college page stands at the front door, list of names in hand, inspecting IDs. I was surprised when the man saw the invitation with the Event Brite and QR code on it and said « you can’t come in ».
I was stunned, but before I could reply, a young blonde girl with curly hair and a mask (you never know who you’re dealing with with those damn masks…) came running up to me and said « it’s only for Assas students ». I am more than surprised, on the one hand because I don’t know who she is, she doesn’t wear any identification, and on the other hand because I had received the confirmation email signed by Raphaëlle de Villeneuve de Flayosc and Eulalie Montoya the previous evening.
I replied that I was duly registered, that Tribunes Assas had even sent this confirmation email and had even answered my question as to whether I needed an identity document without ever telling me that participation was reserved for students only! Moreover, it is not mentioned in the conference presentation leaflet that has been widely circulated on social networks that the conference would be closed. On the contrary, the presentation leaflet suggested that participation was free and physically possible.
I put my ticket under her nose and rummage through my phone looking for the confirmation email I had received the day before from the organisers. The girl is unpleasant and wants me to believe that the public presentation leaflet limited participation to students. I was annoyed, « But that’s not true! The publications never announced that! Why do you circulate the invitation in activist circles if it is not possible to go there? Why did you answer my questions about ID if your conference was limited to students from the start? Why didn’t you tell me yesterday? «
As for the covid rules that the lady clumsily wants to use to deny me entry, I answer as I have answered at Westminster Court more than ten times: « I am in the queue before the conference starts, there is no reason for others to go before me if the number of places is limited because of so-called covid. First arrived, first served! That’s the fair rule of equality between men!
Another young woman rushes up to me, she is dark-haired, long hair, I can’t see her face under the mask but her voice is softer: « We’re sorry but we actually sent you an email this morning to tell you ».
I remain polite, but my annoyance is the same: « You can’t change the rules of the game at the last minute! It’s not democratic!
My colleague then tries to explain to a boy who we are. I add, as we are still standing on the left of the door, just 2 metres away to let the others in the queue in as they are allowed to.
The dark-haired girl then tells me « you can follow the conference on zoom ». This is exactly the kind of thing that annoys me the most. I say, « Democracy is not zoom. Democracy is lived openly and in real life. Moreover, the mask should be removed so that we can see who we are dealing with. You can’t have a dialogue with people whose faces you can’t see.
I put my money where my mouth is and show my face to these young people who are in the strange habit of living with a permanent veil over their mouths, like the women forced to live like this in Saudi Arabia until recently. A tense dialogue begins.
So I ask these young people what they know about the Julian Assange trial. Seeing the fifty or so 20 year olds holding up their student cards with a disillusioned look on their faces and listening to their conversations, we understand that they are not particularly interested in Julian Assange, but that they are only attending this event to get a grade and validate their year of study. So we set about explaining to them who we are and how we helped save Julian Assange from illegal extradition. I tell them that London is the place to go, that I have been to 23 hearings, that you have to get up early and queue to get into court, that Wikijustice has written 14 requests for release to the English courts and sent them to all the MPs, the Lords, the legal and political institutions of the UK, the US, the EU… that we received an SOS signed by « Julian Assange » and that with the citizens mobilised in the Yellow Vests movement, we went to his aid..
That they, future French judges and lawyers, future graduates of this prestigious and famous Faculty of Law called « Université Paris II Assas », must understand that they cannot, do not have the right to arbitrarily close the door of an open conference in a public university paid by our taxes, or else we are no longer in a democracy!
We speak with an ever louder voice to make ourselves heard by the students who are listening to us from their seats in line. The more our indignation rises, the more we measure the injustice and arbitrariness that are displayed before us in all their horror: citizens, human rights activists, kicked out of a public university where they came to listen to a public conference on the fate of a political prisoner whom they defended against all odds… Citizens who are members of an association for the defence of human rights kicked out of the University of Paris II Assas by the students of this university, students who will be the future judges, lawyers and politicians of our country! This is where our country is heading if we do not resist!
A few minutes later, I move to the left side of the entrance door to think in the shade about the strategy to follow. But I don’t have time to put my bag on the floor and pick up my phone, the young student leaders fade away and two men come out of the building. They rush towards us and shout at us before we can think about the situation. The first is short, with brown hair, wearing a black shirt, light-coloured trousers and a mask. He rushes at me and tells me to get out: « go away, get out, you don’t belong here ». I am not used to being spoken to in this tone in social life. The man looks like a security guard, he wears a badge at the end of a cord hanging around his neck. But I don’t let it bother me. When he comes towards me, I face him:
I reply, « Who are you to talk to me like that? I am in a public space and I have the right to stay here ». He looks at me with contempt: « This is a private conference, this is private, go away ». My colleague and I became increasingly indignant. « No. We are outside, in a public space ».
We are standing in the small square on the left side of the entrance door, we are not in the way and we are not preventing the line of young people from entering the building. The tone rises.
I still don’t know who this man is who hasn’t introduced himself. I know that a private security guard must, according to book VI of the Code of Internal Security[1], wear a uniform but which must not resemble that of a police uniform as well as a badge with his name and the name and logo of his company. The man is in civilian clothes and I can see a red white and blue flag on his badge.
Faced with his increasingly threatening attitude, I stand firm in my defence of the law and fundamental human rights, because what is happening is the last straw in front of a university that trains citizens who are supposed to ensure that these rights are respected everywhere and in all circumstances. Mr Vey, Mr Moretti, the organisers of the conference and the management of Assas have an annoying tendency to confuse censorship, dictatorship and human rights. One can only doubt the effectiveness of Julian Assange’s French lawyers, for how can they defend a man who has sacrificed his life for freedom of expression if they do not do everything possible to ensure that their fellow citizens are free to inform themselves, to express themselves and to enter a place dedicated to popular culture, a state university?
I ask the security guard to call someone in charge and the police, because I am sure of my right and I have never had an inappropriate or violent attitude in this whole affair. Nobody from Assas University will call the police. A second man, wearing a white shirt and jeans, comes out of the building to help his colleague. Both of them push us back towards the street. I don’t let myself be kicked out of the university and I stay in front of the gate. The tension is still rising. My colleague from Wikijustice explains to the students in line how the Yellow Vests defended Julian Assange and what a real democracy is.
I despair at the submissive attitude of the students locked under their masks: « Today you are firing human rights activists from a public university that they pay for with their taxes, tomorrow in 20 years you will be in our place, you will be nothing, you will be slaves! « The young blonde woman who was pretending to be the student leader shrugged her shoulders, « so what, it’s not serious ». Yes, it does matter…
Because when I was a student at Paris I, Panthéon Sorbonne, you could enter the university freely! You could attend a lecture as a free listener, consult books in the library, find out about the course programme, go to an appointment with a professor… Today there is no longer a free university, but it is still paid for by taxpayers, so it is not normal for citizens to be forbidden to enter!
Then a man in his sixties comes out of the faculty accompanied by a slightly younger woman. He wears a white shirt and a red tie, the woman a green skirt and a white blouse. Their masks prevent us from seeing their faces as usual. He doesn’t introduce himself, I don’t know who he is, but with authority he tells me that this is a private place and that we must go to the street. We invariably reply that we are not in La Défense on the premises of a private company but in a public university paid for by our taxes. Dialogue is impossible. However, the man did not threaten me as his security guard had done. After 5 minutes of tense discussion he let go. When I remind him that when he was a student the entrance to the faculty was free, he shrugs his shoulders fatalistically: « That was in the 80s », he says and leaves with the woman towards the building.
We are here in the oldest and most prestigious law university in France!
As future lawyers, the young conference organisers who hide their faces under a sectarian face covering and prevent citizens from accessing a democratic debate place should know this:
« Forced concealment of the face in violation of 225-4-10 of the French penal code:
« The fact that any person forces one or more other persons to conceal their face by threat, violence, coercion, abuse of authority or abuse of power, because of their sex, is punishable by one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €30,000.
When the act is committed to the detriment of a minor, the penalties are increased to two years’ imprisonment and a €60,000 fine.
If the forced concealment of the face by abuse of authority is an offence when it is imposed on a citizen because of his or her sex, then such forced concealment is also an offence if it is imposed on a citizen in violation of his or her fundamental rights » .
The obligation to wear a mask is therefore a violation of the right to personal integrity as guaranteed, inter alia, by Article 3 of the Charter of Rights of the European Union.
« Everyone has the right to physical and mental integrity.
In the context of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular
The free and informed consent of the person concerned, in accordance with the procedures laid down by law, the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons. the prohibition of making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain, the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings. »
I am still stunned by the violence of what I have just experienced. I watch what is happening. The two plainclothes security guards stand in front of the door. They take the place of the Assas caretaker and some other men wearing badges with the university logo. I want to understand who they are.
I spend half an hour watching them. They behave very cool. They approach the gate, walk around the small square, chat with a young man who in a minibus with the University logo brings a pallet of food: an aperitif for the conference participants? I can clearly see the blue white and red badge of the two men.
So I approach them and ask their names: a private security guard MUST identify himself to the person asking if he has any authority to screen access. No sooner have I finished my sentence than the two men, in concert, hide their badges in their shirt pockets! I am shocked. Why are they hiding their identity?
The most arrogant one looked at me with contempt « I won’t tell you ». I reply: « You know very well that a private security guard must have a badge with his name visible on it and must declare his identity. He then said to me « I am a civil servant ». I reply, « Even more so if you are a civil servant, you don’t have the right to conceal your identity »!
The two men laughed in my face, satisfied to enjoy their arbitrary power. No matter how much I talk to them about Law and Rights, in front of the historic University of Law in Paris, they don’t care. It is symbolically very violent. I tried to argue, to take as a witness a fire safety officer who came to join us, who is much more sympathetic and who knows the CNAPS code of internal security well because fire safety officers depend on it in the same way as security officers, even though they don’t do the same job… Nothing helped. The Law Faculty of Assas is guarded by mysterious men who do not answer to any Law.
They are mercenaries in the service of a private entity. They have a priori no business in a public university. Unless, Assas has been sold by the French government as was the Sorbonne Paris III according to the testimony of local residents. If this is the case, it is a theft because public property belongs to the citizens even if it is the state that manages it. In a democracy, a government represents the citizens and defends their interests.
Selling France’s heritage is an act of treason that falls under the 410-1 of the penal code. It is punishable by life imprisonment. :
« Article 410-1. The fundamental interests of the nation are understood in the sense of this title to be its independence, the integrity of its territory, its security, the republican form of its institutions, the means of its defence and diplomacy, the safeguarding of its population in France and abroad, the balance of its natural environment and the essential elements of its scientific and economic potential and its cultural heritage »
All these security agents we are dealing with behave like militiamen of an occult power displaying the same arrogance as Alexandre Benalla in 2017. The atmosphere is also the one I experienced at Westminster Court in London, when the agents of the Mitie company were guarding Julian Assange on behalf of the Mountnbatten-Windsor brotherhood. Here in front of the University of Paris II Assas, Stella Morris and Antoine Vey are protected by men who claim to be civil servants, who have badges bearing the symbol of the French Republic, and who have enough power to deny us access to the premises. But why are these men working in secret and hiding their names? Who are they?
It was then that the second of the « agents » said to me, without looking me in the eye: « The organisers did not want you to enter. They asked us not to let you in ».
This private « police » is therefore refusing entry to Assas, to a conference on the future of Julian Assange, to the only human rights association that has done everything possible to have him released, that has received an SOS from him that gives it full legitimacy to represent him and defend his interests, and that bears his name to pay tribute to his struggle.
Who are the organisers of this secret meeting in a French public university? Who is this militia?
What has France become?
Article 223-6
Amended by LAW n°2018-703 of 3 August 2018 – art. 5
« Anyone who can prevent by his immediate action, without risk to himself or to third parties, either a crime or an offence against the physical integrity of the person, voluntarily refrains from doing so shall be punished by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.
Any person who voluntarily refrains from giving assistance to a person in danger, which he could have done without risk to himself or to third parties, either by his own action or by provoking help, shall be liable to the same penalties.
The penalties are increased to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 euros when the crime or offence against the physical integrity of the person mentioned in the first paragraph is committed against a minor of fifteen years of age or when the person in danger mentioned in the second paragraph is a minor of fifteen years of age »
[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000025503132/LEGISCTA000025506179/
L’Université d’Assas interdit à une association de défense des Droits de l’Homme l’entrée à une conférence publique
Monika Karbowska
Le 1 juin dernier nous avons voulu participer en tant qu’association Wikijustice Julian Assange, à la conférence donnée par Maitre Antoine Vey, accompagnée par Madame Stella Morris dans l’enceinte de l’Université Paris II Assas, au 92 rue d’Assas à Paris.
Antoine Vey, proche collaborateur depuis 2013 et associé depuis 2016 de l’actuel ministre de la justice de Macron et Castex, Eric Dupont Moretti, avait participé avec lui à la conférence de presse au sujet de la situation de Julian Assange le 20 février 2020 à Paris. Cependant, je ne l’ai jamais vu à Londres à aucune audience du procès de Julian Assange, ni à la Westminster Court, ni à la Old Bailey, ni au tribunal Woolwich en février 2020. J’étais donc curieuse d’entendre comment quelqu’un qui n’est pas avocat britannique et n’a participé à aucune étape du parcours de Julian Assange allait expliquer la stratégie juridique destinée à lui être appliquée aujourd’hui.
Je me suis inscrite avec mes collègues le 26 mai sur le site de l’événement ou la participation était libre de frais : cela me semblait normal, étant donné que l’Université d’Assas est la prestigieuse et historique Faculté de Droit de l’Université de Paris et donc à ce titre une université publique payée par nos impôts. Certes, l’entreprise Evenbrite qui gère les billets pour le compte de l’association étudiante censée organiser l’événement est située à San Francisco. C’est un peu étrange qu’une université française et un avocat français aient besoin d’une organisation américaine pour inscrire des participants à une conférence sur un sujet politique et juridique dans une université publique française, mais cela pouvait être dû à l’ignorance ou à la paresse intellectuelle qui font le lit de bien des dysfonctionnements que nous vivons dans notre société.
Ayant obtenu rapidement mon billet d’inscription, je ne me suis donc pas méfiée. La veille au soir de l’événement, à 10h45 Tribunes Assas, une association étudiante qui figure comme organisateur du débat, m’écrivit un mail :
« Bonjour, Vous avez réservé deux billets pour la conférence de demain e présentiel au centre assas à 10h30; malheureusement cela n’est pas possible, ou il nous faut le nom de la deuxième personne. Sans cela, elle ne sera pas en mesure d’entrer dans l’enceinte de l’université. Merci, de nous donner une réponse très rapidement, Tribunes Assas ».
J’ai répondu qu’il s’agissait d’un bug, que je ne voulais réserver qu’une seule place et j’en ai profité pour demander s’il fallait présenter une pièce d’identité à l’entrée. Pour le compte de Tribunes Assas la présidente Raphaëlle de Villeneuve de Flayosc et la vice-présidente Eulalie Montoya ont signifié leur réponse écrite le 31 mai à 21h25 : « oui, il faut une pièce d’identité ou tout justificatif d’identité. Merci ».
A 21h33 j’obtenais un mail de Eventbrite signé Tribunes Assas : « Nous vous rappelons que la conférence à laquelle vous vous êtes inscrit aura lieu demain matin au 92 rue d’Assas, amphithéâtre 1. Merci de présenter une pièce d’idendité à l’entrée et d’arriver à 10h15, sit 15 minutes avant le début prévu à 10h30 » (orthographe originale).
Tout paraissait normal
Après 2 heures de route de mon domicile de banlieue je me suis présentée avec mon collègue de Wikijustice à 10h20 à l’entrée du 92 rue d’Assas, un bâtiment flambant neuf dans le style massif « jeux olympiques 1936 » qu’affectionnent les promoteurs immobiliers travaillant actuellement d’arrache-pied pour transformer Paris dans le cadre de la désastreuse politique de la maire Hidalgo pour les Jeux Olympiques de 2024.
Nous faisons la queue avec des jeunes gens alors que devant la porte d’entrée se tient un homme d’âge mûr qui ressemble à un appariteur de collège et qui, liste de noms à la main, inspecte les pièces d’identité. Quelle ne fut pas ma surprise lorsque l’homme voyant l’invitation avec la mention Event Brite et QR code que je lui présente me dit « vous ne pouvez pas entrer ».
Je tombe des nues mais avant que je ne puisse lui répondre une jeune fille blonde aux cheveux bouclés dûment masquée (on ne sait jamais à qui on a affaire avec ces satanés masques…) fonce sur moi pour me dire « c’est réservé uniquement aux étudiants d’Assas ». Je suis plus que surprise, d’une part parce que je ne sais pas qui elle est, elle ne porte aucun signe d’identification, d’autre part parce que j’ai reçu la veille au soir le mail de confirmation signé Mesdames Raphaëlle de Villeneuve de Flayosc et Eulalie Montoya.
Je réponds que je suis dûment inscrite, que Tribunes Assas a même envoyé ce mail de confirmation et avait même répondu à ma demande s’il faut une pièce d’identité sans jamais me dire que la participation était réservée aux seuls étudiants ! En outre il n’est pas mentionné dans le tract de présentation de la conférence qui a largement circulé sur les réseaux sociaux publiquement que la conférence serait fermée. Au contraire, le tract de présentation suggérait que la participation était libre et physiquement possible.
Je mets sous le nez de mon interlocutrice mon billet de participation et je fouille dans mon téléphone à la recherche du mail de confirmation reçu la veille de la part des organisatrices. Le jeune fille est désagréable et veut me faire croire que le tract de présentation public limitait la participation aux seuls étudiants. Je suis agacée « Mais ce n’est pas vrai ! Les publications n’ont jamais annoncé cela ! Pourquoi diffusez-vous l’invitation dans les milieux militants si ce n’est pas possible de s’y rendre ? Pourquoi avez-vous répondu à mes questions sur la pièce d’identité si votre conférence était d’emblée limitée aux étudiants ? Pourquoi ne m’avez-vous rien dit hier ? »
Quand aux règles covid dont la demoiselle veut maladroitement se prévaloir pour m’interdire l’entrée, je réponds comme j’ai répondu à la Westminster Court plus de dix fois : « je suis dans la queue avant le début de la conférence, il n’y a pas de raisons que les autres passent avant moi si le nombre de places est limité pour cause de prétendu covid. Premier arrivé ; premier servi ! C’est la règle juste de l’égalité entre les hommes » !
Une autre jeune femme se précipite alors sur moi, elle est brune, cheveux longs, je ne vois pas son visage sous le masque mais sa voix est plus douce : « On est désolé mais en fait on vous a envoyé un mail ce matin pour vous le dire ».
Je reste polie, mais mon agacement est le même : « Vous ne pouvez pas changer les règles du jeu à la dernière minute ! Ce n’est pas démocratique » !
Mon collègue essaye alors d’expliquer à un garçon qui nous sommes. Je renchéris, alors que nous nous tenons toujours à gauche de la porte, en nous écartant juste de 2 mètres pour laisser les autres de la file entrer puisqu’eux en ont le droit.
La jeune fille brune me dit alors « vous pouvez suivre la conférence sur zoom ». C’est exactement ce genre de chose qui m’énerve le plus. Je lui réponds « la démocratie ce n’est pas zoom. La démocratie se vit à visage découvert et en vrai. D’ailleurs il faudrait enlever le masque pour que nous puissions voir à qui on a affaire. On ne peut pas dialoguer avec des gens dont on ne voit pas le visage ».
Je joins le geste à la parole et je montre mon visage à ces jeunes gens qui prennent cette étrange habitude de vivre avec un voile permanent sur la bouche, à l’image de ces femmes contraintes de vivre ainsi en Arabie Saoudite jusqu’à récemment. Un dialogue tendu s’engage.
Alors je demande à ces jeunes ce qu’elles savent du procès de Julian Assange. A voir ces la cinquantaines de jeunes de 20 ans présenter leur carte d’étudiant d’un air désabusé et en écoutant leurs conversations, on comprend qu’ils et elles ne s’intéressent pas particulièrement à Julian Assange, mais qu’ils n’assistent à cet événement que pour obtenir une note et valider leur année d’étude. Alors nous entreprenons de leur expliquer qui nous sommes et comment nous avons contribué à sauver Julian Assange de l’extradition illégale. Je leur raconte que c’est à Londres qu’il faut aller, que j’y suis allée 23 fois à 23 audiences, qu’il faut se lever de bonne heure et faire la queue pour entrer au tribunal, que Wikijustice a écrit 14 demandes de libération aux cours anglaises et transmises à tous les parlementaires, les Lords, les institutions juridiques et politiques du Royaume, des Etats Unis, de l’Union Européenne… que nous avons reçu un SOS signé « Julian Assange » et qu’avec les citoyens mobilisés dans le mouvement des Gilets Jaunes, nous sommes allés lui porter secours…
Qu’eux, futurs juges et avocats français, futurs diplômés de cette prestigieuse et célèbre Faculté de Droit dire « Université Paris II Assas », doivent comprendre qu’ils ne peuvent pas, n’ont pas le droit de fermer arbitrairement la porte d’une conférence ouverte dans une université publique payée par nos impôts, ou bien nous ne sommes plus en démocratie !…
Nous parlons d’une voix de plus en plus forte pour bien nous faire entendre des étudiants qui de leur place dans la file, nous écoutent. Plus notre indignation monte plus nous mesurons l’injustice et l’arbitraire qui s’étalent devant nous dans toute son horreur : les citoyens, militants des droits de l’Homme, virés d’une Université publique ou ils sont venus écouter une conférence publique sur le sort d’un prisonnier politique qu’ils ont défendu envers et contre tout… Des citoyens membres d’une association de défense des Droits de l’Hommes virés de l’Université Paris II Assas par les étudiants de cette université, étudiants qui seront les futurs juges, avocats et hommes et femmes politiques de notre pays ! Voilà vers quoi se dirige notre pays si nous ne résistons pas !
Quelques minutes plus tard, je me déplace sur le côté gauche de la porte d’entrée pour réfléchir à l’ombre sur la stratégie à tenir. Mais je n’ai pas le temps de poser mon sac par terre et de prendre mon téléphone, les jeunes étudiantes cheffes de l’organisation s’effacent et deux hommes sortent du bâtiment. Ils se précipitent vers nous et nous invectivent avant que nous ne puissions réfléchir à la situation. Le premier est petit, il a les cheveux bruns et porte une chemise noir, un pantalon clair et un masque. Il se rue sur moi et me somme de déguerpir : « allez-vous en, dégagez, vous n’avez rien à faire ici ». Je n’ai pas l’habitude à ce qu’on me parle sur ce ton dans la vie sociale. L’homme a une dégaine d’agent de sécurité, il porte un badge au bout d’un cordon accroché à son cou. Mais je ne me laisse pas démonter. Lorsqu’il s’avance vers moi, je lui fais face :
Je lui réponds « qui êtes- vous pour me parler ainsi ? Je suis dans un espace public, et j’ai le droit de rester ici ». Il me toise d’un air méprisant : « C’est une conférence privée, ici c’est privé, allez-vous en ». Avec mon collègue nous sommes de plus en plus indignés. « Non. Nous sommes dehors, dans un espace public, nous restons » – Nous sommes debout sur la petite place sur le côté gauche de la porte d’entrée, nous ne gênons aucunement et nous n’empêchons pas la file de jeunes d’entrer dans l’immeuble. Le ton monte.
Je ne sais toujours pas qui est cet homme qui ne s’est pas présenté. Je sais qu’un agent de sécurité privé doit, selon le livre VI du Code de la Sécurité Intérieure[1], porter un uniforme mais qui ne doit pas ressembler à celui d’un uniforme de police ainsi qu’un badge avec son nom et le nom et le logo de sa société. L’homme est en civil et je distingue un drapeau bleu blanc rouge sur son badge.
Devant son attitude de plus en plus menaçante, je suis de ferme dans ma défense des lois et des droits fondamentaux humains car, ce qui se passe est un comble devant une université qui forme des citoyens censés faire respecter ces droits en tous lieux et en toutes circonstances. Monsieur Vey, Monsieur Moretti, les organisateurs de la conférence et la direction d’Assas ont une fâcheuse tendance à confondre censure, dictature et droits de l’Homme. On ne peut que douter de l’efficacité des avocats français de Julian Assange car comment pourraient-ils défendre un homme qui a sacrifié sa vie pour la liberté d’expression s’ils ne mettent pas tout en œuvre pour que leurs concitoyens soient libres de s’informer, de s’exprimer et de pénétrer dans un lieu dédié à la culture populaire, une université d’Etat ?
Je demande à l’agent de sécurité d’appeler son responsable et la police, car je suis sûre de mon bon droit et je n’ai jamais eu une attitude déplacée ou violente dans toute cette affaire. Personne de l’Université d’Assas n’appellera d’ailleurs la police. Un deuxième homme, également Magrébin, portant une chemise blanche et un jean, sort du bâtiment et vient prêter main forte à son collègue. Tous les deux nous repoussent vers la rue. Je ne me laisse pas virer de l’enceinte de l’Université et je reste devant la grille. La tension monte encore. Mon collègue de Wikijustice explique aux étudiants de la file comment les Gilets Jaunes ont défendu Julian Assange et ce qu’est une véritable démocratie.
Je suis désespérée par l’attitude soumise des étudiants enfermés sous leur masque : « Aujourd’hui vous virez les militants des droits de l’homme d’une université publique qu’ils payent avec leurs impôts, demain dans 20 ans vous serez à notre place, vous ne serez plus rien, vous serez des esclaves ! » La jeune femme blonde qui se faisait passer pour la cheffe des étudiants hausse les épaules « et alors, ce n’est pas grave ». Si, c’est grave…
Car lorsque j’étais étudiante à Paris I, Panthéon Sorbonne, on pouvait entrer librement dans l’université ! On pouvait assister à un cours magistral en auditeur libre, consulter des ouvrages à la bibliothèque, se renseigner sur le programme des cours, aller à un rendez vous avec un professeur… Aujourd’hui il n’y a plus d’université libre, mais elle est toujours payée par les contribuables, il n’est pas normal que l’accès en soit interdit aux citoyens !
C’est alors qu’un homme d’une 60-taine d’année sort de la faculté accompagné d’une femme un peu plus jeune. Il porte une chemise blanche et une cravate rouge, la femme une jupe verte et un chemisier blanc. Leurs masques empêchent comme d’habitude de voir leur visage. Il ne se présente pas, je ne sais pas qui il est, mais avec autorité il me dit que c’est un lieu privé et que nous devons aller dans la rue. Nous répondons invariablement que nous ne sommes pas à la Défense dans les locaux d’une entreprise privée mais dans une université publique payée par nos impôts. Le dialogue est impossible. Cependant l’homme ne me menace pas comme l’avait fait son agent de sécurité. Au bout de 5 minutes de discussion tendue il lâche prise. Lorsque je lui rappelle que lorsque lui a fait ses études l’entrée à la faculté était libre, il hausse les épaules d’un air fataliste : « C’était dans les années 80 » ; dit-il et repart avec la femme vers l’immeuble.
Nous sommes ici dans la plus ancienne et la plus prestigieuse Université de Droit en France !
En tant que futur juristes, les jeunes organisateurs de la conférence qui cachent leur visage sous un couvre-visage sectaire et empêchent des citoyens d’accéder à un lieu débat démocratique devraient pourtant savoir ceci :
Dissimulation forcée du visage en violation du 225-4-10 du code pénal Français :
« Le fait pour toute personne d’imposer à une ou plusieurs autres personnes de dissimuler leur visage par menace, violence, contrainte, abus d’autorité ou abus de pouvoir, en raison de leur sexe, est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 30 000 € d’amende.
Lorsque le fait est commis au préjudice d’un mineur, les peines sont portées à deux ans d’emprisonnement et à 60 000 € d’amende. »
Si la dissimulation forcée du visage par abus d’autorité est un délit lorsqu’elle est imposée à un citoyen ou une citoyenne en raison de son sexe alors cette dissimulation forcée est aussi un délit si elle est imposée à un citoyen en violation de ses droits fondamentaux.
L’obligation de porter un masque est donc une violation du droit à l’intégrité de la personne tel que garantit, entre autres, l’article 3 de la Charte des Droits de l’Union Européenne.
« Toute personne a droit à son intégrité physique et mentale.
Dans le cadre de la médecine et de la biologie, doivent notamment être respectés:
Le consentement libre et éclairé de la personne concernée, selon les modalités définies par la loi, l’interdiction des pratiques eugéniques, notamment celles qui ont pour but la sélection des personnes. l’interdiction de faire du corps humain et de ses parties, en tant que tels, une source de profit, l’interdiction du clonage reproductif des êtres humains. »
Je suis encore sonnée par la violence de ce que je viens de vivre. Avec mon collègue nous restons dehors. J’observe et je tente de comprendre. Les deux agents de sécurité en civil se postent devant la porte. Ils prennent la place du concierge d’Assas et de quelques autres hommes qui portent des badges avec le logo de l’Université. Je voudrais comprendre qui ils sont.
Je reste une demi-heure à les observer. Ils sont très à l’aise. Ils s’approchent de la grille, font le tour de la petite place, discutent avec un jeune homme qui dans un minibus arborant le logo de l’Université amène une palette de victuailles : un apéritif pour les participants à la conférence ? Je vois distinctement l’insigne bleu blanc rouge du badge des deux hommes.
Alors je m’approche d’eux et je leur demande leur nom : un agent de sécurité privé DOIT décliner son identité à celui qui le demande s’il a une quelconque délégation d’autorité pour filtrer un accès. A peine ai-je eu le temps de finir ma phrase que les deux hommes, de concert, escamotent leur badge en le cachant dans une poche de leur chemise ! Je suis choquée. Pourquoi cachent-ils leur identité ?
Le plus arrogant me toise avec mépris « Je ne vous le dirai pas ». Je réponds : « Vous savez bien qu’un agent de sécurité privée doit avoir un badge avec son nom visible dessus et doit décliner son identité ». Il me dit alors « je suis fonctionnaire ». Je réponds « A fortiori si vous êtes fonctionnaire, vous n’avez pas le droit de dissimuler votre identité» !
Les deux hommes me rient au nez satisfaits de jouir de de leur pouvoir arbitraire. J’ai beau leur parler de Loi et de Droits, devant l’Université historique de Droit de Paris, ils s’en moquent. C’est symboliquement très violent. J’ai beau argumenter, prendre à témoin un agent de sécurité incendie qui vient nous rejoindre, qui est bien plus sympathique et qui connait bien le code de la Sécurité Intérieur du CNAPS car les agents de sécurité incendie en dépendent au même titre que les agent de sécurité, alors même qu’ils n’exercent pas le même métier… Rien n’y fait. La faculté d’Assas est gardée par des hommes mystérieux qui ne répondent devant aucune Loi.
C’est un comportement de mercenaires au service d’une entité privée. Ils n’ont a priori rien à faire dans une université publique. A moins, qu’Assas n’ait été vendue par le gouvernement français comme l’a été la Sorbonne Paris III selon le témoignages de riverains. Si c’est le cas, il s’agit d’un vol car le bien public appartient aux citoyens même si c’est l’état qui le gère. En démocratie, un gouvernement représente les citoyens et défend leurs intérêts. Vendre le patrimoine de la France est un acte de trahison qui relève du 410-1 du code pénal. C’est passible de la perpétuité. :
« Article 410-1. Les intérêts fondamentaux de la nation s’entendent au sens du présent titre de son indépendance, de l’intégrité de son territoire, de sa sécurité, de la forme républicaine de ses institutions, des moyens de sa défense et de sa diplomatie, de la sauvegarde de sa population en France et à l’étranger, de l’équilibre de son milieu naturel et de son environnement et des éléments essentiels de son potentiel scientifique et économique et de son patrimoine culturel ».
Tous ces agents de sécurité auxquels nous avons affaire comportent comme des miliciens d’un pouvoir occulte affichant la même arrogance qu’Alexandre Benalla en 2017. L’ambiance est aussi celle que j’ai connue au tribunal Westminster à Londres, quand les agents de l’entreprise Mitie gardaient Julian Assange pour le compte de la « confrérie Mountbatten-Windsor ».
Ici devant l’Université de Paris Assas Stella Morris et Antoine Vey sont protégés par des hommes qui se disent fonctionnaires, qui possèdent des badges portant le symbole de la République Française, et qui ont suffisamment de pouvoir pour nous interdire l’accès aux locaux. Mais pourquoi ces hommes travaillent-ils dans le secret et cachent-ils leur nom ? Qui sont-ils donc ?
C’est alors que le deuxième des « agents » me dit, sans me regarder dans les yeux : « les organisateurs n’ont pas voulu que vous rentriez. Ils nous ont demandé de vous interdire l’entrée ».
Oui, Wikijustice Julian Assange est visée par cette « police » privée.
Cette « police » privée refuse donc l’entrée d’Assas, à une conférence concernant l’avenir de Julian Assange, à la seule association de défense des droits de l’Homme qui a tout mis en œuvre pour le faire libérer, qui a reçu de lui un SOS qui lui donne toute légitimité pour le représenter défendre ses intérêts et porte son nom afin de rendre hommage à son combat.
Qui sont les organisateurs de cette rencontre si secrète dans une université publique française? Qui est cette milice ?
Qu’est donc la France devenue ?
[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000025503132/LEGISCTA000025506179/
Article 223-6
Modifié par LOI n°2018-703 du 3 août 2018 – art. 5
Quiconque pouvant empêcher par son action immédiate, sans risque pour lui ou pour les tiers, soit un crime, soit un délit contre l’intégrité corporelle de la personne s’abstient volontairement de le faire est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d’amende.
Sera puni des mêmes peines quiconque s’abstient volontairement de porter à une personne en péril l’assistance que, sans risque pour lui ou pour les tiers, il pouvait lui prêter soit par son action personnelle, soit en provoquant un secours.
Les peines sont portées à sept ans d’emprisonnement et 100 000 euros d’amende lorsque le crime ou le délit contre l’intégrité corporelle de la personne mentionnée au premier alinéa est commis sur un mineur de quinze ans ou lorsque la personne en péril mentionnée au deuxième alinéa est un mineur de quinze ans.
The Stella Morris Case
After 6 January – the « Parakratos » in London, the illegality of Julian Assange’s « pre-trial detention » and the illegality of the PCR test at the border
Monika Karbowska
I need to warm up and rest for long hours in my room to recover from my disappointment not seeing Julian Assange free nor seeing him at all. As always I feel as if all I have to do is see him, to open the doors of these dummy cages and to set him free. It is even more infuriating today when he is JURIDICALLY free and should NOT be locked up. I cannot bring myself to leave London because I still hope for a miracle, a turnaround. After all, the MET police have made it clear that Assange is a kind of private captive, an iron mask put on by political decision-makers without the freedoms and rights of a democracy being respected. But today we are whole peoples whose rights are being massively challenged by the political authorities and we are defending ourselves only weakly « in the hope that it will stop »!
The next day I go down to discuss in the cafés of Norfolk Place. The neighbour of the Frontline Club listens to my disappointment despite all my efforts the day before and tells me that she saw Vaughan Smith entering his club the same evening. She said to him « You must be sad that your friend has not been released », and Vaughan Smith would have answered, enigmatically, « We’ll soon see him ». Are there any secret negotiations for the release of Julian Assange conditional on his agreeing to some arrangement that he had refused until now? Perhaps.
I really want to go to the English side of the sea and spend a few days in peace and quiet. But the government has activated the covidian bans and I’m not so sure I’ll find a hotel in unknown places anymore. I first decide to take a tour of the city centre, Hyde Park and the Kensingnton and Knightsbridge area. On the 7th of January the atmosphere in this part of London is strange. A part of the population obeyed the fear of the epidemic, only went out for food shopping and wore masks. Another part of the population refuses to obey the injunctions of the political class and shows its disapproval simply by walking outside. The streets are covered by numerous MET cars which don’t stop anyone, but create a quickly heavy atmosphere. Londoners concentrate in the park as if they were meeting there. The weather is very cold and sunny, people walk, run, cycle, walk dogs, play with their children, feed squirrels, chat, drink tea, coffee and hot soup sold in a few take-away pavilions. They gather imperceptibly but in the park the police who patrol non-stop do not succeed in frightening them. It seems as if they are participating in a protest that is as silent as it is determined. I take part in the movement and I am happy to enjoy the air without a mask.
Back at my hotel, I prepare my departure to France but I am already thinking about my future return to London. Will Julian Assange be presented every 28 days for the famous « call over hearing » that brought me here for a year and a half? I want to check what English law says on this subject, although it is obvious that Assange is « outside the law », arbitrarily maintained since he is legally free and physically still captive. It was then that I discovered that on the internet that… the name « call over hearing » does not exist in British law! Everything the judge (or the lawyers I asked) said about Julian Assange’s obligation to appear every 28 days to extend pre-trial detention was FALSE ! Even the polish lawyers. They manipulated the truth. The name « call over hearing » exists only in Australian law and refers to hearings that prepare a « schedule » of the trial[1]. In UK law remand in custody is called « remand in custody », (I have heard Baraitser and others use this term more than 15 times) but it is NOT possible to extend this detention indefinitely. On the contrary, the limit of remand in custody is very clearly set out in the Act, by « Section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985), and the Prosecution of Offences (CTL) Regulations 1987 » and this limit is … 56 or 70 days for an offence tried by a Magistrate Court and 182 days for a crime tried by a Crown Court!
However, extradition is always tried by a Magistrate Court and Assange has been imprisoned for 20 months, more than 600 days, 10 times more than the legal standard of the Custody Time Limit.
I am amazed by this discovery and furious at having trusted judges and lawyers for so long and not having checked directly on the law!
But the best part is that « if the prosecutor fails to build the case for the prosecution within this time limit, the exception to the right to parole ceases to apply. The accused therefore has an absolute right to release »[2]!
The prosecution may apply for an extension of pre-trial detention, but cannot use as an argument its own inability to present valid reasons for imprisoning the citizen. If the prosecution is unable to bring forward any new elements within the shortest possible time, the citizen is released. The reasons for which the prosecution may request continued detention are the absence or illness of the accused, a judge or an important witness. The second reason is the existence of an ancillary procedure decided by the court if there is more than one accused or more than one offence.
I now understand what all the strange « secretarial » debates were about in the court proceedings against Julian Assange. I remember Clair Dobbin being « unavailable at that time », or the « judge so-and-so on a trip », or the « spanish witnesses » so indispensable that they alone justified Assange’s imprisonment… These procrastinations served to have a reason to prolong his detention! [3]The famous « Spanish procedure » also served this purpose: to start a parallel trial to give Baraitser the opportunity to order Julian Assange to « you remand in custody » every month, 20 times, from September 2019 to December 2020! But the big problem is that Julian Assange’s lawyers played the prosecution’s game to the full, without ever protesting against the arbitrary imprisonment of their client! They were and still are totally complicit in the crime!
The only time the 28 days apply is when the Public Prosecution Service (Public Investigation Service, the prosecution system) arrests the person and has 28 days to compile an indictment file before they are obliged to present it to the judge. And again, in order to be able to require someone to be remanded in custody, the accusers must prove that a crime has been committed and that the accused can effectively evade justice. Julian Assange did not commit any crime, nor was he accused of any crime when he was officially imprisoned in May 2019: an extradition request is not a crime, a computer intrusion is not a crime, and interrupting his release on bail is not a crime either, just an offence for which one is punished by losing the bail money[4] .
In the Assange case everything is done by all the protagonists in the game to create a false justice parallel with false laws and false procedures, as if the legal rules of Great Britain as a country did not exist, as if Assange was being tried in a foreign country, a parallel state, a « parakratos » as the Greeks so aptly describe their « deep state ». Parakratos is an illegal state ruled by the oligarchy, which makes a mockery of formal democracy. Great Britain is governed by a « parakratos » which makes a mockery of the « Custody Time Limit » and other human rights formalities in the case of Julian Assange.[5] In fact, the words « Custody Time Limit » were never uttered at any of the 20 hearings I attended, as if it were understood that for Julian Assange captivity will be « no limit ».
In any event, the trial must be held 182 days after the indictment, which must be presented no more than 28 days after the arrest, i.e. 6 months. I understand better why it was urgent that the trial at the Woolwich Court be held in February and why it was necessary to smoke « new charges » to put Assange back in captivity until the second trial in September.
The prisoner advice website in Britain is even more explicit about the rights of defendants and the presumption of innocence, explaining that there is a « presumption in favour of bail », conditional release. This means that it is up to the public authorities to prove that the accused must be kept in detention as he or she may abscond or interfere with the investigation. It is not up to the citizen to justify himself but to the prosecution. If the prosecution cannot prove the bad intentions of the accused, the accused is automatically released under certain guarantees such as a stable address or regular reporting to the police[6].
In the case of extradition, it is impossible for the prosecution to investigate the intentions of the accused since by definition the investigation takes place in a foreign country. That is why Poles who attend the Westminster Court are systematically released at the first hearing and present themselves free to the court afterwards. It makes sense: if the Westminster Court had to hold extended pre-trial detention hearings every 28 days for the thousands of extradition cases, the congestion would be such that it would be impossible to bring any case to a conclusion. Indeed I have never seen an Eastern European on the Westminster lists appear twice. Why didn’t that give me a clue? Because the lawyers and judges lied to me, lulled my suspicions into believing that in the case of Julian Assange everything was normal. As if Assange was some kind of monstrous criminal, an Elephant Man for whom special standards had to be created?
It is obvious that the grotesque Swedish European Arrest Warrant had to have the « rape » ticked in red, otherwise it would have been impossible to imprison Julian Assange in 2010, make him pay an expensive bail and keep him almost two years from December 2010 to June 2012 under an electronic bracelet.
A document from the Home Office for the preparation of extraditions after Brexit, dated 19 June 2020[7], even stipulates that the « Custody Time Limit » for extraditions is the same as for citizens prosecuted in the country, i.e. 56 days extendable to 70 days, maximum 182 days before the trial. Julian Assange has already served double the time allowed… and is still in captivity. The Westminster Court is even violating Home Office rules!
Moreover, this same document specifies that it is impossible to arrest a citizen without an arrest warrant. This seems obvious, but it must be remembered that no arrest warrant was ever presented to Julian Assange! Assange has slipped from his « punishment » for breaking an electronic bracelet in 2012 to indefinite captivity without ever producing an arrest warrant! Indeed, it was at the hearing on 20 September 2019, when he had FINISHED his sentence, that the arrest warrant should have been presented! What had happened then?
Assange was not presented in court and there was no lawyer! I saw it myself as it was my first time in Westminster Court. It is because we sounded the alarm that on 11 October 2019 the jailers were kind enough to show us on video a shaggy and ill-fitting Julian Assange as they would show an Edmond Dantes after years of oblivion… Needless to say that Assange’s lawyers were never overly moved by the « formality » of the absence of an arrest warrant as if they had already recorded the necessary return of our lives to the Ancien Régime….
I remember the resounding trials of Queen Victoria’s reign, especially that of the « telegraph boys »[8], those young proletarian boys raped and prostituted by prominent artistocrats: only intermediary pimps, were charged and convicted. The grandson of Queen Victoria, Victor Albert « Eddy » of Sachsen Coburg Gotha, heir to the throne, had been accused by witnesses and victims of participating in the rapes. The trial was interrupted to prevent the name from appearing in public, and the police had received such strong pressure from the palace that they were never able to complete their investigation. When in Britain it is impossible to name a name in a trial, one can be certain that it is a member of the ruling royal family involved in a dirty business. The rules of common law had been so massively violated that the opposition press was able to use the case as a weapon to challenge the legitimacy of the royalty. Today, with the lawlessness in the trial of Julian Assange we are decidedly not far from the Victorian era since even the procedures of the public prosecutor’s office no longer apply. Worse, unlike in the 19th century, the public is chased out of the court and the press is hand-picked!
Before leaving the neighbourhood I visit my acquaintances. For them there is no doubt that Julian Assange is more a prisoner of « Kensington » than of Belmarsh. The « Kensington system » is what was called in victorian times the captivity in Kensington Palace of the royal descendants that the rivals wanted to prevent from ascending to the throne. Victoria of Sachsen Coburg Gotha had been the first victim of the system when she spent an austere childhood in this manor house, as gloomy today under the guard of men in black with machine guns as it was when she was watched by her mother’s lover Marie Louise von Sachsen Coburg Saalfeld, a man named Conroy. King George IV’s entourage suspected him to be Victoria’s real father and wanted to send both mother and daughter back to Germany while Conroy manoeuvred her onto the throne to become the regent and guardian of what he wrongly believed to be a malleable person[9]. Contrary to the golden legend spread by the media since the advent of Elisabeth Lyon-Bowes as Queen of England, royal successions here have always been the result of sordid intrigues and coups d’état. The royal storytelling that Victoria mastered to perfection during her long reign and which has been pursued by modern means from 1953 to the present day should not give us any illusions. It is time to look into the turpitudes of royal power because it is more than likely that it is the royal power and not the government that is imprisoning Julian Assange.
[1]https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/planning-and-environment-court/going-to-planning-and-environment-court/hearings-and-reviews
[2] « If the custody time limit expires : When the prosecution fails to comply with the defined time limit, the exceptions to the right to bail listed in Sch 1 of the Bail Act 1976 cease to apply. Therefore, in effect the accused is given an absolute right to bail »
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/remand-in-custody-while-awaiting-trial/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/part/3/chapter/4/crossheading/calculation-of-days-to-be-served/enacted?view=plain
[3] The application must be made before the expiration of the time limit. In considering whether to grant an extension the courts have regard to the criteria laid down in s 22(3) of the POA 1985. Under that provision the court must be satisfied that the need for the extension is due to any of the three specified conditions:
- the illness or absence of the accused, a necessary witness, a judge or a magistrate;
- the ordering by the court of separate trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more offences;
- some other good or sufficient cause. »
[4] https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/remand-in-custody-while-awaiting-trial/
[5] https://www.sfo.gov.uk/publications/guidance-policy-and-protocols/sfo-operational-handbook/custody-time-limits/
[6] « Bail
Unless your family member is remanded for one of the above reasons the court will remand the accused on bail meaning they are free to leave the court but must attend on the next occasion. This is called the ‘presumption in favour of bail’.
The bail may be ‘unconditional’ or may come with a set of conditions such as they must live at a particular address, not associate with certain people or report to a police station regularly. This is known as ‘conditional bail’. If the person does not comply with the conditions they can be remanded into custody.
Serious cases
In serious cases where an individual has been charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape there is no presumption in favour of bail and the individual will automatically be remanded into custody. »
https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime
Remand in custody | Prisoners’ Families Helpline
[7] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-in-criminal-investigation-cases
La reine Victoria – Jacques de LANGLADE – Google Livres
Jacques de Langlade, « La Reine Victoria », éditions Tempus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Street_scandal
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/an-irishman-s-diary-queen-victoria-s-dad-1.2164329
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(Vereinigtes_Königreich)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoire_von_Sachsen-Coburg-Saalfeld
[9] https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/the-year-of-queen-victoria-2019/the-year-of-queen-victoria-birth-of-sir-john-conroy-mo/
My return home and France’s policy against England
It’s time to go home but there are no buses and the Eurostar prices are staggering. I find an Easyjet ticket not too expensive. Of course, I wonder about the PCR test that Macron has imposed on truck drivers in Dover and I know that this test is required for travellers from outside the European Union such as Serbia for example. But then it should be possible to do this test which I abhor on arrival at Roissy. I am consulting the company’s website, I also want to see what law governs this imposition. The Brexit is registered, a bilateral agreement governs the travel of the French to Great Britain and it is in virtue of this agreement that Great Britain let me enter its territory without a visa on January 2nd. But it is not easy to find this agreement. On the French websites it is about the quarantine requested by Great Britain and the form I filled in. There is no mention of what France requires of British nationals. It is the same thing on the English sites which logically inform me about British laws, decrees, circulars and not French ones. The media talk about a bilateral agreement on cross-border traffic signed on 24 December, Christmas Eve, to regulate the problem of lorries blocked at Dover. But the text of the agreement is not published in the Official Journal. There is a vacuum, as often now that the fact of the prince creates reality illegally in all arbitrariness.
As for Easyjet, you have to have already paid for your ticket to access the « conditions of access on board », that is to say the famous Passenger Locator Card, the form that checks your covid health status and which is as illegal as the papers that the DFDS company makes you sign. As it is illegal to collect health data on people, Easyjet does not brag about it and does not publish it in full on its website. On Friday 8th January I leave Paddington on a hopeful note (« I’ll see you soon! This circus will end! ») and take the train at Victoria Station to Gatewick, a town halfway between London and the South Coast. Gatewick is a brand new airport built for those low cost tourist and bustling journeys that are only a memory today whereas on March 11th last year, they were part of our daily life for better or worse.
What strikes me is the heavy silence in the huge, completely deserted passenger and employee terminals, except for a few lined security guards. I walk for a long time on the stairs, corridors and empty halls before arriving in a small space painted in orange « Easy Jet check-in ». A security guard with an Easyjet badge is sitting behind a gatehouse before the luggage is checked in. He does not check passports, only covid Passenger Locator Card and … PCR tests. He refuses to let me board without a PCR test. He does not want to hear my arguments that the information is not accessible on the company’s website. He doesn’t want to hear and he doesn’t understand that requiring a medical test for a trip is in fact a violation of human rights, the Constitutions, the ECHR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights etc. Of course, he has no idea that he, as a private individual, has no right to access medical information about me because it is covered by medical secrecy which is part of the right to physical integrity and privacy.
He is obtuse, stupid, unpleasant, he thinks he’s a little chief: the real kapo mentality that many previously normal citizens now endorse. He is not even moved by the fate of a woman stuck in this deserted airport who has paid for her ticket, which he knows Easyjet will never refund. (No traveller has been reimbursed by any airline since the start of the covid. The boxes are getting free credit from their former customers. Voracious capitalism is still there and Flixbus already owes me 400 Euros for bus tickets cancelled at the last minute for the past year). He doesn’t inform me, doesn’t help me in any way, pushes me aside like a useless object to meticulously check the papers presented to him by the few dozens of docile travellers like sheep who are afraid of not being able to go home without his imprimatur.
I’m falling apart. All this nervous tension and psychological violence is too much for me. Fortunately I am supported by the Wikijustice team. I ask for help from the French Consulate on whose site there is vaguely a list of companies doing the famous PCR test, the one that is used to rip us off in France by artificially increasing the number of « cases » to allow Macron to lock us up like cattle to the hut. It is indeed France that requires the PCR test of all travellers coming from Great Britain, including French nationals who are nevertheless entitled to go home and should be able to carry out the test on arrival at Roissy. The consulate employee is nice, but lost: « ah well, Easyjet doesn’t give an address or do the test on its website? Yet they had promised! And at Gatewick airport there is no mobile lab either? Yet the British had promised this during the negotiations? So we were fooled… « . And it’s the French citizens who pay.
I go to a pharmacy, the only shop open in the ghost airport. They do the test well, but it lasts a week. The mobile lab was recently in the car park, but there too you have to make an appointment and wait several days for the result. Incompatible with a plane to be hung the same day. The pharmacist advises me to pay an expensive Hillton hotel to wait for the test result at the airport. No, if I have to stay, because the plane to Paris has already left without me, I prefer to go back to more hospitable places like New Heaven, Eastbourne, Brighton, Worthing on the south coast.
I am exhausted when I take the train to the coast. But one problem after another has to be solved. I book as soon as possible the same nice hotel where I stayed on the way. The manager is a very affable young man who is in revolt against Covidien storytelling and the lockdown that is killing his business and the whole economic and social life of his region. He is happy to see me again and sorry for what is happening to me, the price of his room is much lower than what I could have hoped for in Normandy in France. One last debriefing with my friends from Wikijustice, an excellent fresh fish and chips for dinner (to take away but working very well) and I fall asleep under the weight of all these emotions and my anger against the system.
I am stuck in England while French propaganda is in full swing against the « English variant » whose inhabitants here are supposed to die massively. What I see doesn’t fit this scenario at all. I see towns where people collectively go out into the streets, parks and beaches, play sports, meet each other, eat out as much as they can to encourage their beloved shops. They don’t look at all terrified of disease. For them it’s politics. They don’t understand why the government persecutes them like this, but they don’t intend to die. When we discuss this further, they admit that their government is being undermined by the international mafias and networks that have a vested interest in the installation of the Covid dictatorship: the National Health Administration, the English social security system has been privatised and is in the hands of Big Pharma, the Imperial College of London pursues political goals that have nothing to do with public health, while Prince Charles is directly involved in the global food business and on 25 January will open the World Economic Forum in Davos with Karl Schwab, the propagator of the ideology of transhumanism, and Xi Jing Ping, the leader of China, who is thus asserting his power over a Europe in freefall.
Music resounds every evening in the small houses: the neighbourhood is usually a tourist centre, artists perform in bars and there is music, shows, bars, pubs, restaurants and hotels, shops that sell everything and nothing. The police don’t patrol much, but I understand that pub managers, artists and shopkeepers are afraid of raids and controls in the neighbourhood. So we keep a low profile. A 13-year-old girl is having a birthday party on Saturday night, I accidentally ring her parents’ doorbell but she doesn’t seem scared. No one is wearing a mask, I feel safe here too.
But I have to do everything I can to get back home while the FRENCH government is putting illegal obstacles in my way! Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to leave their country and to come back! The government doesn’t have the right to embodie me to returning home! It is not up to the British to help me go home because I am not their citizen and it is logical that they don’t care about the illegal test that my government imposes on me! If I have to do a quarantine, it must be done in my country when I arrive on French soil!
The problem and the salt of the whole affair is that it is… very difficult to do a PCR test here because the English simply don’t do it ! Already the information is not easily available, you have to book the test on the internet. One of my contacts warns me: he is Greek and his aunt has been stuck in England for 10 days without being able to return to Greece because of this damn test that many EU countries now require travellers from the British Isles to take. She booked the test twice on the internet but the results take 4 days to arrive, and the test must be dated less than 72 hours before departure. Each time the 72 hours were exceeded and she lost the test money and plane tickets… I have to find a place to do the test physically, especially as I don’t see myself tampering with my nose on my own with the homemade swab provided in a kit as the « internet » test requires. I already know that this sample is painful and anything but harmless because it affects very sensitive and vital nerve centres in the respiratory tract…
Saturday morning, January 9th, I start looking for the test. I go to a large Boots pharmacy which is on the official lists of the English and French governments. No that’s not true, they don’t do Covid testing here. Maybe in the suburbs, in a place 30km from here where I have to go by train. I try at another big pharmacy but nobody there seems to care about testing either. I start to regret December when the Paddington pharmacy opposite the Imperial College of London had « here covid test » and nobody was bothering… Maybe I should have taken the test in London? But despite the alarmist media storytelling, there weren’t many ambulances around St Marys Hospital and no posters about the tests.
In desperation, in a cosmetics shop where I do some shopping, I ask the young saleswoman: what do you do if you have Covid symptoms? The young woman opens her round eyes as if she had never thought you could REALLY have Covid. She tells me that she would go to a local doctor, but would not do a test first. Does she know a doctor who does the test, like some people in London who get paid a lot of money by rich travellers who have to take the Eurostar? She replied that at weekends it’s difficult, but pointed to the local medical centre next to the station.
I quickly understand why, in case of real illness, she would prefer to pay a private doctor. The public medical centre is deserted. I am greeted freshly by a surly secretary who directs patients by telephone to teleconsultations. I see that refusal to treat in the public system is as widespread here as it is in Poland or elsewhere in Europe and that telephone medicine is also taking its toll. I would like to make it clear that I am not ill, but that I just need this bogus test to be able to cross the French border. Her colleague is kinder and takes pity on me, she is looking for a solution. She gives me the address of two private clinics in the area where the test can be done quickly with results available within 72 hours. One is closed, the other is not too far away.
I walk for 45 minutes in the pretty Victorian quarter while the inhabitants go out quietly for their afternoon stroll after shopping. I arrive in front of a modern and luxurious building. At the entrance is a young woman in a hostess uniform. After putting on the mask and gel, I notice threatening signs such as « stop covid, stay away, social distancing ». in the lobby, which looks more like a luxury hotel than a hospital. When I come in the young woman rushes in on me and then is devastated when she sees that I am not a « client ». No, we don’t test for travel. « But if you have covid symptoms, where do you go? « This woman’s reaction to my question is the same as that of the previous one: total incomprehension as if the covid didn’t exist and was just a movie story! I specify: « what do you do if you are really sick, you have a flu or bronchitis »? His face lights up a little under his mask: « I go to see a liberal doctor, and if I’m really ill I go to the public emergencey service. But she doesn’t seem terrified by this eventuality.
I don’t insist, I thank her and I leave. What can I do? Go to the public emergency services and beg them to do it for me? That’s when a friend who supports Assange contacts me and offers me help. She can give me the address of the place where the Germans have been taking the test since it is required by their own authorities, but it is in London. I get the address immediately but I still go to check the Boots pharmacy in the far suburbs by train. It is tiring and with the cold and stress I am exhausted.
Crawley is a small town in an industrial area and a railway junction to Porthmouth. On leaving the station I find myself in front of modern hangars, a bus terminal and a newer shopping centre. The atmosphere here is already much more Covidian than on the coast. All the major shops are closed, only the Boots pharmacy remains. Young people hang out in the centre because it was supposed to be their Saturday night meeting place, but security guards inspect the masks strictly and prevent the pharmacy’s customers from touching the products on the shelves. It’s gloomy. The dispenser is veiled, masked to the eyeballs and hidden behind a large partition window. She prevents me from bending down towards the hole at the bottom of the glass in order to stretch out my ear to hear her better: with the mask I can’t understand her. We end up talking through google translation. No, the pharmacy doesn’t do any covid test. It doesn’t understand why in the city centre they directed me here. The only solution is the private clinics in other cities, but they are closed at weekends. The PCR Covid test that Macron is so fond of and with which Mr. Drosten and his start up collect phenomenal money is shunned by even the most covid convicted English. I’ve come up short again.
I no longer have anything to do here in this region which is as big as the great suburbs of London, like the space between Paris and the Essonne, but I will never be able to find or make that damn test. I have to find a place in London. In the little station a friendly railwayman is nicely flirting with me by helping me buy my return ticket. As soon as I’m outside I take off the costume of the mask and try to walk around naturally with my face uncovered on the platforms. The man visibly appreciates it. We understand each other. Here people want to live, unlike in France. Walking towards my hotel I pass through the district of artists, craftsmen and antique dealers. I admire some showcases of jewellery, ceramics and old posters. Obviously deserted and despairing. But a small café is open and a good smell escapes from it. The young owner is Italian, she allows me to sit at the table while waiting for my hot chocolate. She is sorry she can’t serve me food, it is forbidden » but we all hope that it will be over soon and we will live normally again ». That’s all we all hope for.
I finally buy some food in the big sandwich shop that sells ham and local meat next to my hotel, which I already know. Here there are no masks on the faces and we talk openly. The young waiter behind the counter is Swedish, he confirms that Sweden does not play the Covid game and is not doing any worse. But beware, not everything is simple: Sweden, so tolerant for its own people, protects itself from « foreigners » and requires a strict quarantine of each traveller, even with a Swedish passport. « It’s hard, I haven’t seen my family for a year, » concludes the young man modestly. In this suburb everyone is a migrant and even municipal posters announce « Europeans, you are welcome »!
His fellow cook is Romanian and he is much more vehement: he is my age, has experienced dictatorship and has understood that this is what is being put in place in the West. He tells me about the New World Order, the project to trace the private life of humans and the eugenic preparation of Pfizer sold under the name of vaccine. He tells me that forcing people to undergo medical experiments has been forbidden since the Nazi experiments in the camps, since Mengele. He tells me about the camps. He tells me about the war and Nazism. He is devastated by what the West has become. The Romanian migrant is much more aware of the seriousness of the situation than the young Swede, difference of historical experience.
The sandwich is excellent and good news arrives on my phone: my friend in London has managed to make an appointment for me in a pharmacy that does Covid tests even on Sunday. I have to call them back to confirm my details. A drawing solution thanks to the solidarity of Julian Assange’s support networks!
The English variant only exists in French propaganda
The next day Sunday 10th January I take the train to the familiar Victoria station. I have an appointment at one o’clock and I take advantage of the time ahead of me to wander through the beautiful districts, Knightsbridge with the Harrods opposite the Ecuadorian flat where Julian Assange was kidnapped, then the Kensington and Chelsea Borough, a « royal borough », that is to say a commune that depends exclusively on the royal power and not on the government or a municipality, as indeed Plumstead, the commune where the Belmarsh prison is located, depends on the Royal Borough of Greenwich. As in France, the fashion for masks is mainly the preserve of wealthy neighbourhoods, whereas proletarians prefer to preserve their ability to breathe. In Chelsea, adults even mask their grandchildren, although this is not compulsory. The atmosphere is therefore rather unpleasant, despite the few cafés open where I can eat without being able to sit down or warm up.
The Chelsea Pharmacy Medical Center is located at 61-62 Sloane Avenue. I take a deep breath and call my friends before going home. I have to check in at the counter and pay first. 170 Euros is HUGE, more expensive than travelling from France to England and back! Then a young medical secretary takes me to the basement. I’m suffocating under my FFP2 mask which I’ve taken on purpose to be taken seriously. The test’s clientele are not sick people, but inhabitants of this rich neighbourhood who want to travel, I can hear it in their conversations. I explain that I am also in this case and that I just want to go back to France, aware that it is the French government that requires me to take the negative test. And what will become of me if the test discovers my antibodies or bits of viruses from last year? How many cycles will the amplification be? The secretary doesn’t know. She sets me up in a small and sinister doctor’s office despite its sterile whiteness.
She gives me two papers to fill out, one medical type form (do I have covid symptoms, am I taking medication?) with my address and another that looks like an administrative form for the National Health Administration. I don’t have the time to understand all of these documents that the doctor already has. She is young, Indian origin, very masked and not at all pleasant. She doesn’t behave like a doctor but rather like a laboratory technician. I explain to her that the covid I had and precisely for this reason I am afraid of having a positive test. I even brought a part of my medical file which she can read, if she is a doctor… But she is disdainful, sweeps my file away, doesn’t let me talk and doesn’t listen to me. What she tells me is stereotyped propaganda about the covid which give me nothing. I’m looking at a typical Big Pharma employee, cold, methodical and authoritarian. She refuses to answer my questions about the number of amplification cycles of the test. She assures me that the test can only show « if I have been in contact with Covid in the previous month ». Good. Does it detect the English variant? Because that’s what Macron requires of us French people so that we can return to our country.
The woman raises her eyes to the sky and says « But there is no such thing as the English variant! It’s the same virus! I smile « so you confirm that it was the French government that invented the story of the English variant »? His silence is worthy of assent. My second question is even more delicate. On the first form I have to sign that I agree that in case of a positive test, it will be transmitted to the National Health Administration. Of course I don’t agree but I want to go home and my own government is blackmailing me?
What will happen to me if the test is positive? Will I be forcibly quarantined here? (Which would be illegal?) If so, who will pay for my stay and for my loss of earnings because I won’t be working? The woman doesn’t really know, but since she wants to be dominant, she tells me « I have to pass this information on to the authorities ». I won’t know any more. The technician puts me in front of a bed, tells me to take off the mask « for her » and pushes the long pole up my nose. It hurts like hell, and I have a thought for the poor Polish truck drivers who get their noses punctured 2 or 3 times a week each time they deliver in England and then drive back to the continent. In fact, the injury will take 10 cheeks to heal and several neurological after-effects will come back because obviously a major nerve is damaged in the airways. This test is a useless and dangerous torture for your health. I shout, the woman is not happy with my behaviour, but I tell her that I suffered a lot in March, deprived of care and taken too late to the hospital because of the lockdown policy.
She doesn’t want to hear about what the real covid is, she puts the swab in a little box that looks like a pregnancy test and leaves the room telling me to wait 10 minutes. I immediately call my friends because I feel oppressed in this room in the basement where I am locked in. And if the test is positive, will I be able to run away from here? How can I be sure that my rights will be respected? I think then that the medical experimentation camps for prisoners at Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Dachau[1] were clean and looked like state-of-the-art hospitals of the time. The selected prisoners might have thought they had a better chance of surviving there than in the misery and filth of the camp, but in fact the torture in white coats was worse and very few survived.
The lab technician posing as a doctor has the right mentality in every respect. Besides, when she comes back and looks at the box, she doesn’t say « your test is negative », but « you can go home », as if she had already realised that my basic rights to live at home will now be subordinated to the torture I have to endure and she can inflict on me. This is the fascist world that they are putting in place for us.
I ask her what time the results will be available and all I can think about is running away from this detestable place. In fact the sample is sent to a real laboratory that will confirm the analysis and they will send me the result by email within the day. I leave sounded but relieved and I just want to relax and forget about the strange times we live in.
I spend the rest of the day walking around the nice and chic Pimlico area watching Londoners continue to defy the illegal lockdown bans by going out with family and friends. I take the train in the evening to my artists’ hotel and my warm fish and chips from the seafront. The signed « Wandsworth Medical Center » document is emailed to me at midnight. I can take the morning boat, if DFDS accepts me on board. Wandsworth, another commune where the royal prisons are located.
Les expérimentations médicales à Auschwitz Clauberg et les femmes du bloc 10 – YouTube
Nazi human experimentation – Wikipedia
Medical experiments / History / Auschwitz-Birkenau
The victims of unethical human experiments and coerced research under National Socialism (nih.gov)
Back to the french police
The morning is grey and wet but I am enjoying my bus ride from my hotel to New Heaven Harbour on the waterfront boulevard. The sea is grey, green, iridescent, magnificent at the foot of the chalk cliffs. I find the ferry waiting for the loads and the few travellers at the small ferry terminal. At the ticket office, the employee with a closed face puts on her mask when she sees me and doesn’t want to look at anything but the test. It takes her 10 minutes to check the validity of my paper by going through her computer, then she agrees to sell me a ticket to Dieppe and looks at my passport. I pay 30 euros and wait for boarding which will take place after a search of our luggage by 3 security guards that is as absurd as it is meticulous, while there are only 6 of us passengers on a huge empty ferry – 3 teenagers returning from a concert because they are carrying musical instruments including a violin, a young French-English couple and me.
Before boarding the ferry I witness a scene that says a lot about the atmosphere in England. While I am waiting for boarding, a panic-stricken man rushes towards the ticket office. He asks in an English man with a strong Eastern European accent or to do a covid test because he wants to get home to the continent as soon as possible. I think he’s a truck driver. The counterwoman and her colleague shrug their shoulders and don’t want to help him at all. « We are not the government, » the woman even tells him, sending him for a walk. The man is about to leave and I understand the despair in his eyes. I approach him and ask him for his nationality. He is Bulgarian. Half in Russian, half in English, I explain to him how I took the test and I take my phone and give him the address in Chelsea. It is then that the DFDS employees, seeing me doing it, call the man back and give him a paper at the counter. Before going out, he comes to thank me and shows me what they gave him: the address of a laboratory in the city! Did they initially refuse to help him out of racism? Or for not taking part in the covidian bidding war that the locals don’t particularly like? I won’t know, but the incident leaves one wondering.
I spend 5 delicious hours in the boat admiring the landscape, the cliffs, the green sea, breathing from the top of the last bridge, full of lungs! The ticket entitles us to an excellent dish of the day at the ferry’s restaurant. I then realise, sitting at the bar table in front of the sea, that this is the only place where I can sit at the restaurant, for the first time since last October 14th… For once I am a privileged person!
I am worried on arrival in Dieppe despite the beauty of this crossing. Dieppe with its masks on the beach and its sinister madness, I don’t want to linger there any longer. We still have to go through the French border whereas the English authorities let us out without control. We get off the ferry and a small bus leaves us in front of the Police aux Frontières guardhouses in the ferry terminal. The three teenagers are picked up by an adult, they must be local as the police don’t even look at their papers. So I am the last one to present, again the covid test and my passport. I am angry about the illegal control of the test but obviously I don’t say anything about it.
Two young cops from the french border police are watching me in a backstabbing attitude, camped on their legs and clinging to their guns. One of them says to me, « Where do you come from, madam »? « From the boat » I answer. « But from where? » he insists. « The boat comes from England, I didn’t swim across the sea! This is the moment when I can take off the damn mask for the identity check. I find myself alone without a mask in front of 5 masked male cops. But I can smile at them to defuse the charge. The young cop hasn’t managed to catch me. He actually wants to know what I did in England, where I was, but in reality he doesn’t have the right to interrogate me. What I did in England is only a matter for the English authorities, if I am in order with them. It is the principle of sovereignty over a territory: each person is master in his own country and not in the other. The French police will have to revise the philosophical principles of law and the legal texts!
The man keeps trying to trap me. « You bought something in England »? He’s not a customs officer, the customs officer is just checking my passport. I laugh as I turn to him: « Fish and chips especially! Everything is closed! But I enjoyed spending a few days in a country where they don’t impose the mask outside! ». I come back to the customs officer: « You know, for your health, you have to breathe, without a mask! Oxygenate yourself! Don’t you need to breathe sometimes? « I get bolder: « How old are you? Because after the age of 45, you know, breathing is no longer an option, but a necessity! ». The policeman is very young, the customs officer is my age. He looks at me under his mask: « Madam, everyone wants to breathe ». I reply: « You’re right. It’s a pity that the mask is compulsory on such a beautiful beach in Dieppe. It doesn’t make you want to stay for a holiday ». The youngster has received his lesson, the mask should not be a taboo subject.
Dieppe is always so sinister with masked passersby and all the restaurants that are double-booked. I don’t stay and I head towards the station. The SNCF-( train) employee demands a « special travel authorisation » from me, I am stunned. His colleague takes him back « no, the curfew is still at 8 pm, 6 pm it will be next week ». The SNCF is already knows Macron’s plans against us. The agents, formerly on the left, not only don’t oppose them while their town is dying, but even beat the Führer in a zeal for kapos.
I am sad and I would like to leave as dry as I am. But to go where? If France falls, the whole of Europe will fall, even the English are counting on us for the Resistance. It’s so hard. But at least we’ve fought a successful battle, Julian Assange is still there. We’re going to fight to get him out and free ourselves. We were effective, we will be effective again. I thank Heaven and my friends for this hope.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.