{"id":240,"date":"2020-06-27T02:42:47","date_gmt":"2020-06-27T00:42:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh\/?p=240"},"modified":"2020-12-16T22:49:29","modified_gmt":"2020-12-16T21:49:29","slug":"romantic-end-to-the-julian-assange-case-objections-analyses-and-actions-of-wikijustice-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh\/?p=240","title":{"rendered":"Romantic end to the Julian Assange case? Objections, analyses and actions of Wikijustice – Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Julian Assange by the Logan Foundation – USA, the 18-20 April 2010<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Monika Karbowska<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(autotranslation with Deepl)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Julian Assange under the control of the cameras<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

When we began, with\nWikijustice Julian Assange, to analyze, 9 months ago, the whole history of\n\u00ab\u00a0Wikileaks\u00a0\u00bb and Julian Assange, we were struck by the suspicious\ndeaths<\/strong> that mark the history of the whole struggle for the liberation of\nthis political prisoner in the West: Seth Rich, John Johns, Michael Ratner,\nAdrian Lamo, Arjen Kamphuis… So many sudden deaths of people who were\ninvolved in Julian Assange’s revelations of state secrets or who sincerely\nwanted to help him! There are also people who have asked us if we are not in\ndanger by taking too close an interest in the case. Naturally, the fight\nagainst the system is a risk. I know this better than anyone who lost my\ncountry, my best friends, in opposition to capitalism in Poland as early as\n1991, when I was threatened by the bloodthirsty Ukrainian extreme right when I\nsupported the families of the victims of the Odessa massacre on 2 May 2014. But\nwe said to each other then: we are not isolated, we are part of the powerful\nYellow Vests social movement. To silence us we would have to silence an\nentire country that stands up against the local, European and global oligarchy<\/strong>.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yellow jackets on\nthe way to the Revolution in Great Britain<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking at the violence\nof the crisis we are going through in continental Europe and particularly in\nFrance, we could say to ourselves, three months before the end of the first\nphase of the trial at the Woolwich Court at the end of February, that we are\nnot far from this scenario? Prohibition to leave one’s home under penalty of a\npolice fine and prosecution, a halt to the economy and social ties, closure of\nall places of sociability, collective fear of dying from an unknown disease for\nwhich nothing has been prepared by the rulers…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The need for\nresourcefulness and self-management where people are still being treated, in\nhospitals and certain local health systems, to save the communes, departments\nand regions in general from a failing state capable only of repression… I’ll\nspare you the litany, you’ve been living it like me since mid-March. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the language used\nfor us is the same as the torture Julian Assange endured. His \u00ab\u00a0solitary\nconfinement\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong> in an apartment corresponds to our collective\n\u00ab\u00a0confinement<\/strong>\u00a0\u00bb in our homes…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Julian Assange’s\nlatest trial hearings without activists’ scrutiny<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this debacle in my\ncountry, it has been impossible for us to attend the four trials of Julian Assange\nsince the end of February, on 25 March, 7 April, 27 April and 4 May. It is\ncertainly possible to travel from France to Great Britain because Eurostar puts\ntickets on sale every day and also to book a Paris-London on the liligo.fr\nwebsite, but it was getting out of one’s house that had become difficult in\nFrance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The information I have\nbeen able to obtain has been provided to me by the detailed accounts of the\nhearings written by the only journalist I consider to be doing substantive\nwork, Marty Silk of the Australian Associated Press (who is to be commended for\nhis work, by the way). Having been able to watch him work and watch him take\nnotes a number of times, I know that he at least describes the proceedings\nfairly accurately. For example, I learned from the two hearings on March 25 and\nApril 7 that an application for bail was finally filed by lawyers Fitzgerald\nand Summers, after so many months of prevarication, and that it was denied by\nJustice Baraitser on March 25. The bulk of the hearings on 25 March and 7\nApril, however, consisted not in arguments about the release, but in endless\ndebates about the revelation of the identity of a new \u00ab\u00a0companion\u00a0\u00bb of\nJulian Assange and his two children. <\/strong>According to Marty Silk, it was rather\nthe lawyers who constantly brought up the subject in a dramaturgy worthy of\nParis Match, Gala or Voici when the judge and the prosecution were observing an\nobvious neutrality. Obvious because in a legal procedure only the identity of\nthe litigant is known to the public attending the trial. The name of the\nhusband\/wife is known to the judicial institution since it concerns the civil\nstatus of the litigant and his family obligations which are part of his social\nsituation, but it does not have to be delivered to the public. And a fortiori,\nthe judge will never publicly disclose the names of the children of the\nlitigant because this information is logically protected by the laws on the\nprotection of children, personal privacy and data protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The colourful account of\nthe \u00ab\u00a0paparazzi who might sue the poor woman if her name were to be\nrevealed to the public\u00a0\u00bb and the fear of \u00ab\u00a0kidnapping by the American\nsecret service\u00a0\u00bb left me, as is often the case, incredulous about the\nbizarre elements of this case. As already in 2019, I repeated to the activists\nthat \u00ab\u00a0if this woman lives in Great Britain, the British secret services\nknow her perfectly and if they know her, the American secret services know her\ntoo\u00a0\u00bb. It is unlikely that the CIA would take the risk of murdering or\nabducting a British woman and children on British soil. Despite all the disgust\nthat this institution may inspire in us, it has never yet committed this kind\nof crime on the soil of its closest ally vis-\u00e0-vis British nationals because to\ndo so would be diplomatically very risky for the US government. In any case,\nI had rather left to find Julian Assange’s girlfriend in France<\/strong>. Following\nthe numerous public statements made by Juan Branco and Eric Dupont Moretti\nat the press conference of February 20, 2020 in Paris,<\/strong>[1]<\/a>\naccording to which Julian Assange was the father of a French child, activists\nregularly asked us this question: \u00ab\u00a0Do you know who Julian Assange’s French\nwife is? \u00bb. No, I did not know, but I kept an option on this probability,\nknowing that it was credible that a computer activist like Julian Assange could\nhave met a companion in France in the years 2005 to 2009 and that it would have\nbeen useful for us, activists, to have his open support in our struggle for\nJulian Assange’s political asylum in France. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Stella Morris at\nthe Daily Mail.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After years of trying at\nall costs to protect her identity and succeeding in spite of the\n\u00ab\u00a0paparazzi\u00a0\u00bb, Stella Morris alias Sara Gonzales Devant or Stella Smith\nRobertson[2]<\/a>\nis now putting herself and her children on stage with her face uncovered in\nfront of the journalists of the tabloid \u00ab\u00a0Daily Mail\u00a0\u00bb[3]<\/a>\n– I discovered the article on the evening of April 11th. The newspaper\npublishes a few photos, a fictionalized text and a video of Stella Morris with\na cat and two children in a decor that resembles that of a computer workshop\n(equipment in boxes on shelves…) in which children’s toys have been placed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This news prompts me to\nwrite here some reflections on the nature of the activism that I have carried\nout in recent months, for which I have taken many risks and experienced\nmoments of great violence, as I have described in all my articles, on the trial\nof Julian Assange. Indeed, I have attended all of the hearings in Julian\nAssange’s trial since September 2019<\/strong>: September 20, October 11, October 21,\n2019, November 18, December 13, December 19 and 20, 2019, January 13, 2020,\nJanuary 23, 2020, February 19, 2020, February 24, 24, 26 and 27, 2020. After\nhaving put in so much effort, I feel justified in making a few remarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, it is\nunfortunate that no journalist questions and encourages the public to reflect\non the credibility of a person who may have changed his or her first and last\nname three times in his or her life<\/strong> and who claims to be doing a job when\nthere is no proof that he or she is capable of doing so. In western legal\nsystems, it is very difficult to change one’s name and even more difficult to\nchange one’s first name except in the case of marriage or naturalization. A\nspecial procedure requiring valid arguments is then necessary. If Sara Gonzales\nDevant, a specialist in the history of East Timor, is the same person as Stella\nMorris, legal advisor, then it is necessary to mention that \u00ab\u00a0Stella\nMorris\u00a0\u00bb is a pseudonym and to be accurate in the story so as not to\nmislead the public and activists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is unfortunate that\nthe media portray Stella Morris or Sara Gonzales Devant or Stella Smith\nRobertson as a \u00ab\u00a0barrister\u00a0\u00bb when she is not a member of the British\nBar, the Bar Council or the[4]<\/a>\nLaw Society[5]<\/a>\nunder any of her three names. She is not the only one: Jennifer Robinson and\nGeoffrey Robertson are also not registered with the British Bar, but the words\nare important, to say legal adviser or legal assistant would be more accurate.\nOf Julian Assange’s many \u00ab\u00a0lawyers\u00a0\u00bb, only Jean Gareth Peirce and\nAlaistar James Lloyd Lyon are registered with the Law Society and Edward\nHamilton Fitzgerald and Mark John Summers with the Bar Council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, while Stella\nMorris portrays Julian Assange as both her client and her companion, reporters\ncould also have concluded that Stella Morris does not respect the code of\nethics of her profession when she is in the courtroom sharing her intimate life\nwith the accused<\/strong>. If she is indeed the accused’s companion, her presence is\na procedural defect that should have caused the hearings to be cancelled. To\n\u00ab\u00a0defend\u00a0\u00bb as a lawyer is to defend according to rules and a code of\nethics that in most countries prohibit a lawyer from having close personal ties\nwith his or her client. Moreover, the second procedural flaw is that if Julian\nAssange is indeed Stella Morris’s partner, she cannot remain her lawyer, since\nif she respected the rules she would not be able to plead and therefore\nrepresent him properly. Julian Assange would again find himself powerless\nbecause of a personal and legal imbroglio which could only once again be\ndetrimental to him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At all the hearings from\n19 December 2019 to 27 February 2010 we noted the incongruous presence of very\nyoung people who obviously do not have a law degree and are not, of course,\nregistered with the Bar Council or the Law Society. On 19 December, 13 and 23\nJanuary and 19 February 2020, it was the young hacker MC McGrath[6]<\/a>\nwho played the role of apprentice lawyer sitting on the defence bench at the\nWestminter Magistrate’s Court. On February 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2020, he was\npresent next to Stella Morris and a bunch of teenage girls who were visibly\nbored during the long hours of the \u00ab\u00a0trial of the century\u00a0\u00bb and were\nplaying on their laptops or pink computers. I know you have to see it to\nbelieve it, and as I have seen, having attended all these hearings, I encourage\nthose who do not believe me to line up from 5 a.m. next time to see what is a\nstrange sight far removed from what is expected of a serious political trial.\nFrom the audience gallery, I sometimes felt as if I was watching the dress\nrehearsal for a film shoot or a play with young extras, or an \u00ab\u00a0in\nsitu\u00a0\u00bb exercise for young actors-in-training. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stella Morris as\nSara Gonzalez <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Sara Gonzalez Devant<\/strong>\nis apparently a graduate in political science (Department of International\nDevelopment[7]<\/a>)\nat Oxford University, specializing in the issue of refugees in East Timor[8]<\/a>.\nShe would have stayed in East Timor in 2005-2006 and would have written a\ndissertation for this faculty: this document is quoted in two academic books on\nthe subject[9]<\/a>.\nOne of these academic books, edited by Jacqueline Aquino Sapiano, presents her\nas a scholarship holder of the \u00ab\u00a0Agencia Espanola de Cooperaci\u00f3n y\nDesarolla AECID\u00a0\u00bb, the Spanish governmental agency for international\ncooperation. The website of a British refugee aid organisation (Refugee Legal\nAid Information) states that she would have been a consultant in East Timor for\nthe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees[10]<\/a>\nand would have worked in 2010-2011 on the issue of transgenerational poverty\nfor the Oversea Development Institute,<\/strong> a major international think tank\nworking on the themes of migration, sustainable development and climate change\nand financed by British, American, Swedish and French government agencies as\nwell as major companies[11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

She was also funded by the Jeanne Sauv\u00e9 Canadian Public Foundation \u00ab\u00a0for Women’s Leadership\u00a0\u00bb [12]<\/a>but it is impossible to find details of her work or research. Sara Gonzalez Devant has written two articles on East Timor and one on Botswana on the specialized website \u00ab\u00a0New Internationalist\u00a0\u00bb[13]<\/a> and has participated in a newsletter on the theme of refugee rights[go14]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Sara Gonzalez Devant on the south african portal Devex<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It is a very honourable\nprofessional background, but far removed from Swedish law on sexual violence\nor British law on extradition,<\/strong> which she claims to use to help Julian\nAssange as Stella Morris. As Sara Gonzalez Her professional career path also\nseems to stop in 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Stella Morris or Sara Gonzalez Devant or Sara Smith Robertson, september 2020 in the front of the Old Bailey. Despite the make up and the smile she never has in the reality, she seams the same person as the women I saw in the Westminster the 19, 20 d\u00e9cember, the 23 of January, the 19 of february and the 24, 25, 26, 27 february 2020<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What really\nhappened at 3 Hans Crescent for seven years?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having known Mrs.\nGonzalez devant under the name \u00ab\u00a0Stella Morris\u00a0\u00bb I will continue to use\nthis pseudonym. Her account, in the first article of the Daily Mail, on April\n11, 2010, inspires me to make the following reflections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having children in a\nheterosexual couple involves having sex. It is possible, of course, to have\nchildren in non-consensual sexual relationships, but Stella Morris shows us in\nher film the loving relationship she says she developed with Julian Assange.\nHaving loving emotional and sexual relationships implies having a space of\none’s own where this intimacy can blossom in confidence. It is also necessary\nto have a free and protected mental space to be able to create an ongoing\nrelationship and focus on creating that relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we have been told,\nsince 2012, about the life of Julian Assange in the apartment at 3 Hans\nCrescent Street belonging to the State of Ecuador is incompatible with the\nconditions necessary for an intimate and family life to flourish. Julian\nAssange would have been under constant surveillance by UC Global’s cameras\nplaced from 2015 onwards in all spaces, including the bathroom and toilets, as Andy\nM\u00fcller Maguhn, Chairman of the Board of the Wau Holland Foundation,[15]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>\nshows in the film shown on 27 December 2019 at the Chaos Computer Congress and\ncomposed of these intrusive images stolen from Julian Assange’s private life[16]<\/a>.\nAccording to the official narrative, which has been repeated so many times by\nthe media and by \u00ab\u00a0relatives\u00a0\u00bb, Julian Assange spent seven years confined\nto 5.5 square meters of a bedroom and an even smaller space in which his bed\nwas placed, formerly a toilet[17]<\/a>.\nNot exactly ideal conditions to develop a love life, as Stella Morris claims to\nhave visited him every day from 2015 until April 11, 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Andy M\u00fcller Maguhn shows the private pictures of the 3 Hans Crescent Street by the Chaos Computer Congress the 27 of december 2019. But where was Assange? In the storage room?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But perhaps we were\nsimply lied to and Julian Assange’s life in Ecuadorian space was very different\nfrom what we were presented with? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reality of the\nplace at 3 Hans Crescent Street<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
going to the 3 Hans Crescent Street<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

According to the land\nregister, the building at 3 Hans Crescent Street is owned in absolute ownership\n(Freehold) by the Hans Crescent Freehold limited company (Document LN62660),\nlocated in a tax haven and owned by Mohammed\nbin Khalifa Al Nahyan, son of the President of the United Arab Emirates[18]<\/a>. Ecuador,\nfor its part, has had a \u00ab\u00a0Leasehold\u00a0\u00bb (a kind of very long-term lease)\nfor Apartment 3B on the ground floor since 25 December 1976, with a storage\nroom in the basement (Document NGL333924)[19]<\/a>.\nThis apartment is located on the left corner of the building when you stand in\nfront of the entrance to number 3. One notices that only 3 windows (including\nthe famous balcony where Julian Assange sometimes appeared and was filmed by\nthe media and activists) look out onto Hans Crescent Street. The rest of the\napartment, 5 windows, overlooks a small cul-de-sac, Landon Square. The Ecuador\napartment has a large emergency exit immediately overlooking the dead end,\nperhaps a second one from the storage room, since there are two doors under the\napartment at the end of the Landon Square dead end that allow you to go out of\nthe \u00ab\u00a0basement\u00a0\u00bb (rather a \u00ab\u00a0basement\u00a0\u00bb – a room at ground\nlevel) of the building and go to the street or into the Harrods parking lot\nacross the street. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
the Landon place, the real view to Ecuadors flat.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
the entrance of the building – for the flats, the Ecuadors Flat and for the Colombian diplomatic mission<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Right in front of the\napartment, integrated in the same building complex, is the imposing entrance to\nthe parking lot and the Harrods delivery tunnel (see photos)[20]<\/strong><\/a>. <\/strong>This\nentrance located at 1 Hans Crescent Street connects this car park and the\ndelivery tunnel through the basement of the building to the Harrods store\nlocated to the right of the building complex at 3 Hans Crescent Street, on the\nBasil Street side. The Harrods car park therefore extends underneath the 3\nHans Crescent Street building complex and it is possible to exit through a\nsecond entrance on the other side of the building,<\/strong> next to the luxury\npizzeria facing the Harrods, the only restaurant in the area. These entrances\nand tunnels under the building at 3 Hans Crescent Street are mentioned in the\nland register.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
the Colombian diplomatic mission on the right side of the building, in front of the Harrods<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

No wonder. Anyone who\nknows London knows that the area is full of World War II-era underground\ntunnels[22]<\/a>.\nThe underground car parks were, as early as the 1930s, the first part of the\nunderground shelters for civilians during the Nazi bombings of London. A short\ndistance from Hans Crescent Street is even the famous \u00ab\u00a0206 Brompton\nRoad\u00a0\u00bb, the former underground station under which, during the war, the\nheadquarters of London’s anti-aircraft defence was located! Property of the\nBritish Ministry of Defence, which kept the underground bunker as it was, the\nplace was sold to the Ukrainian oligarch Dimitri Fyrtach at the height of the\nUkrainian war against the Donbass in 2014[23]<\/a>.\nAs one of the richest and most powerful oligarchs in the country, and the sole\nowner of the Russian gas supply systems to the Ukraine, chemical plants and\ntitanium import companies, Fyrtach is also closely linked to the British and\nAmerican elites. During the war in Ukraine he was accused of having been too\nclose to President Yanukovitsch, whom the Western powers initially pushed with\nthe putsch of 21 February 2014. Since then, Fyrtach has been prosecuted for\ncorruption but he remains the owner of the walls of the historic building while\nthe British Minister of Defence retains ownership and control of the vast\nunderground passages[24]<\/a>.\nWhen the old bunker was put up for sale, history buffs were able to film what\nis the point of entry of a tangle of underground passages in this district\nsteeped in a hard and heroic history[25]<\/a>.\nThese details are given to demonstrate that it is possible to enter the\nbuildings of this historic district, go down into the basement inside and exit\nthe building through another entrance, sometimes located in another building. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When he was forcibly removed from the premises at 3 Hans Crescent Street on April 11, 2019, Julian Assange held up a book by Gore Vidal in<\/strong> front of the cameras. Curiously enough, the American writer lived in his property at 31 Egerton Crescent just 500 meters from the Hans Crescent building complex, as he mentions in his autobiographical book \u00ab\u00a0Palimpsest\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
thefire security exit of the ecuadors flat to the Landon place<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It is also known that the Embassy’st<\/del> services moved in 2015 when the double-entry building at 6 James Sessions Square and 12 Buckle Street in Whitechapel<\/strong> was completed. It is here that Ecuadorian diplomats work, most likely from 2015, alongside their colleagues at the Consulate, as shown on the official Facebook page of the State of Ecuador in London, there is no other website[26]<\/a>. The apartment at 3 rue Hans Crescent may have remained covered by diplomatic immunity and has since been used as a storage space, meeting and reception room, or simply as accommodation for diplomats or visitors to the mission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The underground going to Harrods – with delivery trucks just in front of the windows of the ecuadorian flat<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, if the story\nabout cameras installed by the security officer of the diplomatic mission were\ntrue, it is not the custom of diplomats to work with surveillance cameras installed\nin their work station (and in the toilets of their workplace), cameras zooming\nin on secret defence documents… No real diplomat would accept this, if only\nbecause of the danger that these images could be stolen. Moreover, there is no\nneed to spy on diplomats in their work, these people have already been chosen\nfor their loyalty to the government in place. Today the apartment is empty and\nthe security guard posted in the vestibule controls the entrances to both\napartments, the one from Colombia and the one from Ecuador. Those curious\nabout Ecuador are systematically directed towards 12 Buckle street. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Precisely, another\nembassy, which no media ever shows, the Colombian embassy is on the same\nfloor of the ground floor of the building. <\/strong>The two missions are therefore\nadjoining; they share the same main entrance, the same staircase and the same\nnarrow vestibule. This proximity is very surprising when one knows the deep\nhostility of the Colombian regime, closely associated with the domination of\nthe United States over all Latin America, to any left-wing government in any\ncountry of the continent, including that of Correa. Observing these two flags,\nwhich are very similar, of Colombia on the balcony of the apartment on the\nright, and that of Ecuador on the balcony of the apartment on the left, the visitor\nalways wonders how on earth Julian Assange could have felt safe <\/strong>in an\napartment with windows, some of them exposed on a square, the others stuck at\nthe end of a dead end and located on the same level as the headquarters of his\nworst enemies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude on the inconsistencies\nin the fable of the evil UC Global spying on the Ecuadorian diplomatic mission,\nit should be pointed out that a security agent officiating in the adjoining\nvestibule cannot filter the entries<\/strong> to the apartment from Ecuador without\nColombia’s agreement as well. Otherwise, this would lead to serious diplomatic\nfriction between two countries whose governments are ideologically hostile from\n2007 to 2017. It is also clear that Ecuador, which only owns apartment 3B, did\nnot have the right to control the entrances of the inhabitants of the other\napartments in the 5-storey building. This requires the agreement of Hans\nCrescent Freehold limited, owner of the entire building. Either this filtering\nwith passport control was decided by all the owners, or this story is a fake\nintended to raise the tension of the media spectacle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Storytelling put\nto the test of diplomatic customs and realities<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guillaume Long, Rafa\u00ebl\nCorrea’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs, told us during the conference at\nthe Sorbonne on September 25, 2019, that Ecuador has always respected the\nSwedish legal actions against Assange and has always negotiated with the United\nKingdom<\/strong> during Julian Assange’s seven years of stay in Ecuador<\/strong>[27]<\/a>.\nBy saying this, he confirmed the doubts we had about the image of \u00ab\u00a0the\nembassy under siege by the British police force, to the point that the\nambassador cannot do his job\u00a0\u00bb. The film \u00ab\u00a0Risk\u00a0\u00bb by Laura Poitras\ntakes this dramatization to the extreme. However, Fidel Narvaez, consul and\nhead of security at the place, is filmed talking (probably) to British\nauthorities in June 2012 when Julian Assange walked through the door of the\napartment at 3 Hans Crescent Street, but while he complains about a\n\u00ab\u00a0disproportionate\u00a0\u00bb number of police officers, he does not complain\nabout the \u00ab\u00a0siege\u00a0\u00bb and even less about a state of war[28]<\/a>…\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The real Ecuador Embassy 12 Buckle street <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
The real ecuador embassy and consulat 6 James Session Square in Whitechapel<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It must be understood\nthat in history besieging a diplomatic mission has always been an act of war,\nwhich was therefore quickly resolved by a war between the parties (often after\nthe express evacuation of personnel). The most emblematic case in the 20th\ncentury was the taking of American diplomats hostage in their mission in Tehran\nin 1979, in the context of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Since 1979, it can\nbe said that relations between the two countries have resembled hostile tension\non the verge of war. There was no example in the 20th century or even before an\nembassy was besieged by the host country for 7 years. No professional diplomat\nbelieves the story told by the media of the ambassador being prevented from\nworking in his mission and surrounded by the forces of the host country for 7\nyears in peacetime. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I explained in a\nprevious article[29]<\/a>, the Vienna\nConvention of 18 April 1961 establishes the principle of diplomatic immunity on\nthe basis of the principle of reciprocity. It is through this principle of\nreciprocity and fear of reprisals against its own diplomats that the host\ncountry, even in the event of a deterioration in relations, refrains from\nhostile acts vis-\u00e0-vis the foreign mission on its soil. The principle of\nimmunity, which requires that any intervention by the host country in the\nmission should only take place with the agreement of the highest authorities of\nthe country concerned, i.e. the Minister for Foreign Affairs, lays down the\ncondition for cooperation between the two countries to resolve any conflict\nbetween them. Clearly, it is impossible for British police officers to have\n\u00ab\u00a0surrounded\u00a0\u00bb the Ecuadorian Embassy without the agreement of Ecuador<\/strong>.\nIt was rather a surveillance-protection measure granted precisely because of\nthe Vienna Convention to Ecuador by the government of Great Britain, at\nEcuador’s request, perhaps to keep away the curious who would like to get\ntoo close to the apartment 3 rue Hans Crescent to observe the reality of Julian\nAssange’s life there.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Ecuador had really\nbeen \u00ab\u00a0surrounded\u00a0\u00bb and the work of its diplomats had been prevented,\nEcuador would have been entitled to do exactly the same to the British\ndiplomats posted in Quito. However, Raphael Correa was careful not to apply the\nprinciple of reciprocity against the British Embassy in his country. On the\ncontrary, Ecuadorian-British relations certainly experienced some difficulties\nwith the Assange question, but negotiations never ceased during this period[30]<\/a>.\nThe impasse was attributed to the incompetence of Ambassador Ada Alban, a close\nassociate of Rapha\u00ebl Correa but not a professional diplomat, who was in office\nfrom 2010 to 2013. The man who has been deciding on Julian Assange’s stay\nsince April 2012 is Fidel Narvaez[31]<\/strong><\/a>,\nconsul since the beginning of Correa’s presidency, very politically linked to\nthe president, <\/strong>and very probably, as is often the case with the posts of\nconsul or vice-consul not well defined, his head of security. Curiously, Fidel\nNarvaez, presented as a close friend of Julian Assange, should, according to\nthe customs of the milieu, have been persona non grata and immediately asked to\nreturn home after the expiry of his diplomatic immunity, if he had been\nresponsible for the state of tension between his country and Great Britain. On\nthe contrary, today Fidel Narvaez lives in Great Britain, where he has a\nresidence permit. Having met him several times in the corridors of the\nWestminster Magistrate’s Court and having been able to talk to him, I did not\nget the impression that he is very worried about his situation as a\n\u00ab\u00a0troublemaker\u00a0\u00bb vis-\u00e0-vis Great Britain. On the contrary, he has\nattended Julian Assange’s hearings since 19 December 2019 and then the trial\nfrom 24 to 27 February 2020 at the Woolwich Crown Court, in the public gallery\nin the row reserved for the prisoner’s \u00ab\u00a0family\u00a0\u00bb. The British\nauthorities do not seem to resent him for having been at the origin of a\nsituation that was costly for them in media, political and financial terms and\nthat generated heavy diplomatic problems. On the contrary, the British\nauthorities have granted him the right to remain on their soil after his status\nas an Ecuadorian diplomat has ended. One more argument in favour of the\nhypothesis that the \u00ab\u00a0siege\u00a0\u00bb was a show for sensitive souls. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Storytelling\nversus real geopolitics<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only has Correa’s\nEcuador has not been at war with Great Britain during these 7 years, but it has\ncontinued to develop very profitable relations with the European Union and its\ncountries throughout this period, especially with Germany. However, Great\nBritain was a member of the European Union at that time, and considering the\nrole the Germans played in the Wikileaks project<\/strong> (the Wau Holland\nFoundation as owner and funder of the project and employer of Julian Assange in\n2010-2012[32]<\/a>), it is\nsurprising that at no time did the German government play the good offices, as\nis usually done in the world of diplomacy, to resolve the \u00ab\u00a0burning Assange\nconflict\u00a0\u00bb between Ecuador, his new friend in Latin America,[33]<\/a>and\nGreat Britain, the third strongest power in the European Union. Rafael Correa’s\ngovernment maintains privileged relations with Germany through the Friedrich\nEbert Foundation, which<\/strong> specializes in relations between the German\nSocialist Party SPD<\/strong> and socialist networks and organizations around the\nworld[34]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is as if the\n\u00ab\u00a0Assange case\u00a0\u00bb was only hot for the media, which zooms in on the\nbalcony with the<\/strong> Ecuadorian flag and removes the other elements of the\ndecor from the field of vision: vans entering Harrods’ parking lot in front of\nthe apartment, the Colombian embassy on the landing, the absence of any\nEcuadorian diplomat in the whole neighborhood, of any Ecuadorian whatsoever, as\nironically reported to me by the workers of the neighborhood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In serious diplomatic\nchannels, the Assange affair does not exist or is a marginal media epiphenomenon.\nI am sure that when we open the Foreign Office archives in 30 years there will\nbe no record of the violent conflict between Ecuador and Britain over Julian\nAssange’s presence at 3 Hans Crescent Street. The absence of conflict does not\nmean that there were no negotiations about the fate of the \u00ab\u00a0host\u00a0\u00bb as\nUC Global officials spying on Assange on behalf of Correa and then Moreno\ncalled him. Julian Assange himself spoke of his hostage status in the\nnegotiations between three countries, Ecuador, Great Britain and the United\nStates during his last speech on the balcony on May 19, 2017. He appeared sad\nand defeated, evoking the violations of rights in the European Union while the\nBritish have just chosen the Brexit by referendum. He then mentioned the\nblackmail that Ecuador would suffer from the European Union which would\npenalize \u00ab\u00a0Ecuadorian exporters\u00a0\u00bb because of his case[35]<\/a>.  We Europeans experience in our lives how\nGermany decides almost all the policy of the European Union and the fate of its\ncitizens. Does Julian Assange think of Germany as a stakeholder in the\nconflict that penalizes him without being able to express it clearly? <\/strong>No\njournalist has ever analysed his speech from this political angle, which is\nessential for understanding the situation. We will not know more, as Correa’s\nleft-wing government is careful not to take public opinion as a witness and\nnever reveals the true nature of its relationship with the Anglo-Saxon powers\nand with the European Union in the case of \u00ab\u00a0Julian Assange\u00a0\u00bb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor did any<\/strong> journalist\nor analyst consider the interests that Wikileaks publications<\/strong> (such as\nthe publication of the Vault 7 global surveillance files mentioned by Julian\nAssange in this 10-minute speech) could represent for Germany as a state in<\/strong>\nits relations with the United States, even though Merkel’s government had been\nvery angry at the CIA’s spying on the Chancellor’s mobile phone. One hypothesis\nwould be that the \u00ab\u00a0Wikileaks\u00a0\u00bb unveilings serve as leverage for\nGermany to put pressure on the United States and strengthen its independence\nfrom its powerful US allies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, on European\nsoil, since the signing of the Vienna Convention, there have been no cases of\nflagrant violation of diplomatic immunity despite the conflicts and tensions\nthat shake our continent. The only precedent resembling that of Julian Assange\nat 3 Hans Crescent Street would be that of Cardinal Mindszenty who took refuge\nin the American Embassy in Budapest after being released from prison by the\nCommunist government in 1956. But if Mindszenty, an anti-communist activist,\nspent 15 years in the spacious American building in Budapest, it is because he\nrefused to leave Hungary for the United States or the Hungarian communists\nwould have preferred to send him away to prevent him from continuing his political\naction against them. Closer to home, the dreadful assassination of the Saudi\njournalist Jamal Khashoggi in his country’s consulate terrified diplomatic\ncircles for whom a mission is a sanctuary. But it must be stressed that this\ndespicable crime was facilitated by the permissive attitude of the host\ncountry, Turkey. Here again, cooperation between countries based on reciprocity\nplayed to the full, to the detriment of the most basic human rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can deduce from this\nthat Great Britain and Ecuador practiced for 7 years a form of agreement about\nJulian Assange and that Julian Assange was the only hostage of this\nnegotiation. Germany also played a secret and important role that should be\nanalysed. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Julian Assange’s\nidentity<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Guillaume Long in the Sorbonne conference 25 of September 2019<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Did Julian Assange ever have\nEcuadorian nationality and political asylum? <\/strong>The question is\nfar from absurd. As for nationality, Guillaume Long, former Minister of Foreign\nAffairs under Rafael Correa from March 2016 to May 2017, answered our question\non the subject during the conference at the Sorbonne on 25 September 2019.\nAccording to him, Maria Fernanda Espinoza, who heads this ministry after him,\nwas not allowed to sign Julian Assange’s Ecuadorian naturalization document.\nThis prerogative was reserved for the President of the Republic, Lenin Moreno,\nwho never approved this decision[36]<\/a>.\nGuillaume Long therefore considers this nationality to be false and therefore\nlegally revocable. The document has not been published. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worse, Julian Assange has\nnever been able to show, in video or live, the document guaranteeing him\npolitical asylum in Ecuador – Ecuadorian residence permit or other. However,\narticles 27 and 28 of the Geneva Convention require the refugee to have an\nidentity document that allows him to travel and establishes his identity with\ncertainty, mentioning his exact name, date and place of birth and address[37]<\/a>.\nThe only document published by the media, the \u00ab\u00a0Documento de Identitad de\npersono que ostendo proteccion international\u00a0\u00bb, bears Julian Assange’s<\/strong>\nphoto but no other data required by the Geneva Convention, nor his signature<\/strong>[38]<\/a>.\nThis document was drawn up on 30 November 2016 by Jos\u00e9 Luis Jacome,\nVice-Minister of Human Mobility under the responsibility of Guillaume Long.\nJacome will remain in office after the election of Lenin Moreno in February\n2017, while Maria Fernanda Espinoza, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs,\ndeclared in December 2018 that she had granted Ecuadorian nationality to Julian\nAssange. This loyalty of the Ecuadorian senior civil servant to the leader who\nrevokes the nationality and asylum of a political refugee, in defiance of the\nGeneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, casts doubt on\nthe reality of his support for Julian Assange under President Correa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, Guillaume\nLong also stated on 25 September 2019 that it is possible that Ecuadorian\nasylum was only guaranteed in 2012 on the basis of the Inter-American\nConvention on Human Rights, (article 22.7 and 22.8)[39]<\/a>\nnot the UN Geneva Convention on Refugees, which would explain why Britain does\nnot recognise Julian Assange’s asylum. We can see that there is a significant\nlack of clarity regarding Julian<\/strong> Assange’s Ecuadorian political asylum and\nthat these contradictions are detrimental to him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, on 15 and 16\nNovember 2016, at a hearing with Swedish prosecutor Ingrid Isgren Julian\nAssange, he claims that he is an Australian citizen, that his passport was\ntaken by the British authorities and that he cannot prove his identity. It\nis inferred that he does not possess any documents<\/strong>[40]<\/a>.\nNo one has ascertained the true meaning of these dramatic words and no\njournalist has asked for explanations. Firstly, when the British court granted\nhim bail in December 2010, it should have returned his passport after he was\nreleased from the Wandsworth pre-trial detention centre. The confiscation of\nthis passport is, in every respect, illegal under international law, and such\nexperienced lawyers should have fought<\/strong> first to ensure that their\nclient was not de facto stateless, in addition to being<\/strong> already an\n\u00ab\u00a0undocumented migrant\u00a0\u00bb (a residence card is compulsory for Australian\ncitizens after more than 6 months in the UK). The fact that such an action\nagainst the British state was not taken for 6 years, until Julian Assange’s\nmeeting with this Swedish prosecutor, says a lot about the inefficiency of the\nlawyers we have already denounced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, it is\nsurprising that Julian Assange \u00ab\u00a0is not able to prove his formal identity\u00a0\u00bb\nwhen, as a refugee under the protection of the Geneva Convention, he should have\na document issued by Ecuador, proving his identity, his right to the protection\nof the State of Ecuador and his right to travel<\/strong> (as stipulated in articles\n27 and 28 of the Convention). The Charter of the United Nations prohibits the\nrevocation of a citizen’s nationality at birth and the fabrication of stateless\npersons. How is it that the senior Swedish official did not point out these\nflagrant violations of rights on the person of Julian Assange, violations\ncommitted by the British authorities, by the Australian authorities who must\nprotect their citizens and by Ecuador which did not provide him with an\nidentity document in accordance with the obligations of the Geneva Convention?\nJulian Assange in making this statement clearly called for the help of this\nperson legally mandated by a State and likely to understand the kidnapping of\nwhich he is a victim. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What value can the work\nof \u00ab\u00a0chief prosecutor\u00a0\u00bb Ingrid Isgren have when she cannot record on the\nhearing report the surname, first name, place and date of birth, address,\npassport number and dates, place and authority of issue and expiry of Julian\nAssange’s legal identity document? Why did she not ask him about the Ecuadorian\nidentity documents he should have? Why does she accept the illegality of the\nperson she is interviewing, an illegality which she does not denounce? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why is it that nobody notices\nthat this essential data is missing from the Swedish file? The protagonists of\nthe Swedish charges, complainants and witnesses, moreover, never seem to\nhave presented any identity documents to the<\/strong> police and the courts because\nthese documents are blank of any identifying number[41]<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time, the Minister\nof Foreign Affairs was Guillaume Long and the President of Ecuador Rafael\nCorrea. They are all as much responsible for Julian Assange’s inextricable\nsituation as Lenin Moreno, whom it is so convenient to call the\n\u00ab\u00a0villain\u00a0\u00bb of the story. This storytelling technique allows to whitewash\nthe personalities in power for 7 years and to contribute to reinforce the\npassivity of the citizen on the theme of \u00ab\u00a0we can’t do anything against\nfate, the bad guys, Moreno and the Americans are too powerful\u00a0\u00bb. This\nattitude of fatality is what we fight the most with Wikijustice. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The attitude of fate is\nalien to us because we are militants against the corrupt and dictatorial\nneoliberal capitalist system. But the further we go in our analysis, the more\nwe discover, in the case of Julian Assange, that the political, legal and\njournalistic elites who are supposed to support him do so only lazily, at the\nlast minute, without getting wet or are simply absent and silent. How can we\naccept the fatality of a trial played out in advance when, in theory, Julian Assange\nshould benefit from the support of the powerful network of connections of his\nprincipal lawyer, the famous former judge Baltazar Garzon<\/strong>? Baltazar\nGarzon frequented 3 Hans Crescent Street because he was filmed dancing at a\nparty in the apartment – this scene is immortalized in the film shown by Andy\nM\u00fcller Maguhn at the Chaos Computer Congress on December 27 last year[42]<\/a>.\nHowever, Maitre Garzon has been conspicuous by his absence since Julian\nAssange’s incommunicado detention on April 11, 2019. He did not answer letters\nfrom European activists and did not attend the extradition hearings I have been\nattending in London since 20 September 2019. Admittedly, at the end of February\n2020, he was present at the Woolwich Crown Court and was the only lawyer to shake\nhands with Julian Assange and talk to him. But he only remained at the trial\nfor a day and a half, on 24 February and the morning of the 25th. Nor did he\nmobilize any Spanish politicians or activists for his client’s cause. Baltazar\nGarzon is very close to Reporters Without Borders<\/strong>, of which he was an\nactive supporter during the time of Robert M\u00e9nard’s presidency, especially by\nbeing the honorary president of RSF’s internal legal support organisation\nDamocles, \u00ab\u00a0charged with taking legal action to defend the freedom of\njournalists[43]<\/a>. RWB\nwas absent from the struggle for the release of Julian Assange in 2019 and only\nwoke up for the trial in February 2020. Christophe Deloire, General\nSecretary of RSF France<\/strong>, and Christian Mihr<\/strong> for Germany, however,\nonly stayed for one day at the trial, delegating the task of representation to\nRebecca Vincent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We often notice the\npresent, rarely the absent. However, the absence of personalities at the very\nmoment when we were able to observe the torture that Julian Assange is\nundergoing during the hearings contributes to the reinforcement of the feeling\nof powerlessness in the face of the fatality of the rights violations.\nPowerlessness that the dominant system wants to inculcate in us willingly or\nunwillingly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Julian Assange’s\nalleged children before Stella Morris…<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Returning to the\ntestimony of Stella Morris on the intimate relationship she claims to have\ndeveloped with Julian Assange from 2015, it is surprising that Julian Assange,\nin his interview with the doctors mandated by the Working Group on Arbitrary\nDetention of the United Nations High Committee for Human Rights and dated\nNovember 2015, already speaks of his children whom he cannot see growing up. So\nthese are not the children that Stella Morris shows in the Daily Mail photos.\nThe doctor who wrote the report \u00ab\u00a0on the trauma and psycho-social situation\nof Mr. Julian Assange\u00a0\u00bb mentions several interviews conducted from June\n2014 to July 2015. This doctor speaks, on the contrary, of \u00ab\u00a0young\nchildren in France as<\/strong> well as others in Australia with whom Mr. Assange\ncannot maintain an affective relationship in the embassy[44]<\/a>.\nIn addition, the report describes all the traumas caused by prolonged\n\u00ab\u00a0confinement\u00a0\u00bb in a place with no light, no possibility of going out,\nno exercise, and surrounded by a hostile environment (something that we are\nbeginning to understand with the health violence that has recently been\ninflicted on us in France on a large scale): insomnia, anxiety, depression,\nloss of the ability to use one’s senses… <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The storytelling about Julian Assange french wife and children – 2015<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This\n\u00ab\u00a0confinement\u00a0\u00bb has been described as torture by Nils Melzer, the UN\nSpecial Rapporteur on Torture in his famous report on the situation of Julian\nAssange. Stella Morris’ rose-water novel currently in the media discredits\nNils Melzer’s report<\/strong> and puts Julian Assange in danger. For how can a\nprisoner be both tortured and the happy father of a loving family? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, driven into\nraptures by the images shown by Stella Morris, the audience is led to forget\nwhat Julian Assange himself said about his children in France and those in\nAustralia. Citizens will know nothing about the mother of the latter, who is\nnot present to support the father of her children. Yet, for human rights\ndefenders, the question arises as to whether lawyers and the justice system\nhave done everything possible to protect their interests both in terms of the\nlegitimacy of their filiation and in terms of their property. Indeed, these\nchildren are heirs, like Stella Morris’ children, to dividends through the\nshares Julian Assange owns in the Icelandic company Sunshine Press\nProduction[45]<\/strong><\/a>.\n<\/strong>The worrying question \u00ab\u00a0who manages Julian Assange’s<\/strong>\nassets\u00a0\u00bb must be asked by the activists so that Julian Assange is not robbed\nof his property during the long years of captivity he has suffered. Daniel\nAssange, portrayed by the media as his Australian son, now 31 years old, never\ncame to the hearings and never defended his father either in front of the\ncameras or at a press conference. He never went to see his father in Belmarsh. It\nis now normal to have doubts about his existence. <\/strong>In 2010, this son was\nstill tweeting about his father, since he disappeared[46]<\/a>.\nNone of the journalists chasing John Shipton in a pack have asked themselves\nthe question of the son present in his father’s life in 2010 and absent in\n2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, if this\nrelationship began in 2015 when Julian Assange’s health was a concern, why\nhasn’t Stella Morris already sounded the alarm to save her companion? Why has\nshe remained silent about the torture he is suffering, as demonstrated by Nils\nMelzer’s report and the three Wikijustice medical reports dated 29 December\n2019, 8 February and 29 February 2020?[47]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whoever does not denounce\nthe crime, torture, is guilty of failing to assist a person in danger.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 1 of the UN\nConvention against Torture is very clear: anyone who consents to torture, [48]<\/a>tacitly\nor with knowledge of it, is an accomplice to the crime: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 1\nof the Convention against Torture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.cncdh.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/cat_protocole_1.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00ab\u00a0\u00ab\n1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term \u00ab\u00a0torture\u00a0\u00bb means any\nact by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is\nintentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or\na third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a\nthird person has committed or is suspected of having committed, to intimidate\nor coerce her or intimidate or coerce a third person, or for any reason based\non discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or\nat the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a<\/strong> public\nofficial or other person acting in an official capacity. This<\/strong> term does\nnot extend to pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to\nlawful sanctions\u00a0\u00bb.

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/www.lepoint.fr\/monde\/dupond-moretti-veut-demander-l-asile-politique-pour-assange-a-emmanuel-macron-20-02-2020-2363736_24.php<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a>             An article from an Australian\nmedia outlet that mentions the Smith Robertson identity: https:\/\/www.sbs.com.au\/news\/julian-assange-s-fiancee-publicly-joins-the-campaign-for-his-release<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>             https:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-8210957\/WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-fathered-two-children-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-lawyer.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> https:\/\/www.directaccessportal.co.uk\/search\/1\/barrister<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> https:\/\/solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/theintercept.com\/staff\/m-c-mcgrath\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> https:\/\/www.qeh.ox.ac.uk<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/www.devex.com\/people\/sara-g-494301<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a>             Sara Gonzalez Devant,\n\u00ab\u00a0Displacement in the 2006 Dili conflict, dynamics of ongoing crisis\u00a0\u00bb,\nRefugee Studies Centrer Working Paper 45, 2008, University of Oxford. In\nJacquline Aquino Sapiano, \u00ab\u00a0East Timor, How to build a nationa in Southeast\nAsia in the 21 century\u00a0\u00bb, Proceedings of the 2006 Naples Congress,\nInstitute for Research on Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2018 and in Vandra\nHarris, Andrew Goldsmith, \u00ab\u00a0Security, Development and Nation Building in\nTimor Leste\u00a0\u00bb Routledge, 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a>\nhttp:\/\/refugeelegalaidinformation.org\/former-editors<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/www.odi.org\/sites\/odi.org.uk\/files\/odi_funders_2017-18.pdf<\/a> – the\nname of Sara Gonzalez Devant or Stella Morris does not, however, appear in the\ndocuments visible on the site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a>            \nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/fondationjeannesauve\/, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/jeannesauve.org\/scholar\/sara-gonzalez-devant\/sara-gonzalez-devant-2\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.google.fr\/search?q=Jeanne+Sauv%C3%A9+foundation+Sara+gonzalez+front&sxsrf=ALeKk02l_RYDGsYftXnWNL5Dsd5LnzKnQ:1587493438654&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=qQ3SzNEc7cVGGM%253A%252C0jcLFerXhBC25M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSNOVT9k5UN9Xm70eQ_WdruEeIrEw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJ5_nzkfroAhUE1xoKHQ13AawQ9QEwA3oECAoQBw#imgrc=qQ3SzNEc7cVGGM:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/newint.org\/author\/Sara%20Gonzalez%20Devant<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 [14]https:\/\/rightsinexile.tumblr.com\/post\/16854265845\/a-monthly-forum-for-news-and-discussion-on-refugee<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a>
http:\/\/www.wauland.de\/media\/2016-12-31_jahresbericht.pdf<\/a> http:\/\/www.wauland.de\/media\/2016-12-31_jahresbericht.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.wauland.de\/de\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Wau Holland Foundation – the real boss of Wikileaks<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> https:\/\/media.ccc.de\/v\/36c3-11247-technical_aspects_of_the_surveillance_in_and_around_the_ecuadorian_embassy_in_london<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/www.lemonde.fr\/idees\/article\/2015\/07\/03\/julian-assange-monsieur-hollande-accueillez-moi-en-france_4668919_3232.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

www.slate.fr\/story\/126902\/assange-colocation-equateur-ambass<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a>\nhttps:\/\/blogs.mediapart.fr\/edition\/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias\/article\/121219\/assange-regression-feodale-au-royaume-uni<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a>            Documents available on https:\/\/eservices.landregistry.gov.uk\/eservices\/FindAProperty\/view\/MapEnquiryInformationRequest.do<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/media\/set\/?set=a.3154590997940931ype=3<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a>            Document from HM Land Regiester:\nRegisterBGL5852 – 87-135 Brompton Road (SW1X 7XL) – Freehold\u00a0\u00bb, which is\nthe cadastre for the Harrods store.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a>            Joshua Levine, \u00ab The secret\nhistory of the Blitz \u00bb, Simon and Shuster UK, 2016, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nick Cooper, \u00ab London Underground at war \u00bb,\nAmberley Publishing 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

http:\/\/www.nickcooper.org.uk\/subterra\/lu\/tuaw.htm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/underground-history.co.uk\/brompton.php<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Hidden London tours: The secrets of Down Street Tube station<\/a><\/blockquote>