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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_9505-768x1024.jpg.
The judgment of the Naxos court clearing me of the repressive cabal against me

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_9507-768x1024.jpg.
Trade union leaflet for which I was prosecuted in Greece

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_9509-1024x768.jpg.
Union table at Thomas restaurant in Santorini in summer 2007

[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]

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est 28macfadyen-obit-jumbo.jpg.
Julian Assange and Gavin MacFadyen in December 2011

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] .

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est MacfaydeAssange.jpg.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est gavin.jpg.

[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

https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/susan-benn-representative-of-the-julian-assange-defence-news-photo/147408599?adppopup=true

[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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-Mac-Kraf-1024x659.jpg.
Kristinn Hrafnsson, Gavin MacFadyen, and Julien Assange (left to right) of WikiLeaks, before a Media press conference at a south London Hotel, where they talked about the Iraq body count, this morning. (Photo by John Stillwell/PA Images via Getty Images) – the owners of the Sunshine Press Production compagny , Hrafnsson, MacFadyen, Assange

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est CvaZp-sVUAA3hf1-1024x1024.jpg.
Gavin MacFadyen the Director of Wikileaks and co-Director of Sunshine Press Production and the Center for Investigative Journalism CIJ

[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

https://www.les-crises.fr/accusations-suedoises-deposition-de-julian-assange-14-15-novembre-2016-texte-complet/

[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

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est julian-assange-press-conference-at-frontline-club-london-britain-shutterstock-editorial-1271286b-1024x742.jpg.

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].

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Julian-Assange-captivite.jpg.

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

file:///C:/Users/Ikaria/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/RODELYS_Elza%20(1).pdf

[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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est visit-Julian-768x1024.jpg.
easy to apply for a visit on the Belmarsh prison website

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].

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_20190813_141227-768x1024.jpg.
Cancellation of Julian Assange’s visit that I booked: Belmarsh’s document explains that the DATES and times are not AVAILABLE. It does not say that Julian Assange refuses to see me, nor that visits are impossible, nor that I am not on the visitors’ list. The sybilline answer will be repeated each time we make requests that are first accepted and then refused.

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

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est fete-huma.jpg.
Poster of Aymeric Monville’s book and petition for the release of Julian Assange at the Fête de l’Humanité in September 2019

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Julian_Assange.jpg.

[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)

http://rescuethefamily.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Moore_(The_Family)

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/i-m-still-alive-cult-survivor-speaks-about-life-beyond-anne-hamilton-byrne-20190614-p51xx5.html

[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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021390/Julian-Assange-s-father-sells-quirky-Sydney-home-1-42million.html

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/realestate/news/sydney-nsw/the-home-of-julian-assanges-father-fails-to-sell-at-auction/news-story/86d2c63a0780436b62fc50a490efa154

[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.

Le jugement du tribunal de Naxos m’innocentant dans la cabale répressive contre moi

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.

Tract syndical pour lequel j’ai été poursuivie en Grèce

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.

Table syndicale au restaurant Chez Thomas à Santorin en été 2007

[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].

Julian Assange et Gavin MacFadyen en décembre 2011

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

https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/susan-benn-representative-of-the-julian-assange-defence-news-photo/147408599?adppopup=true

[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?

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Gavin MacFadyen, and Julien Assange (left to right) of WikiLeaks, before a Media press conference at a south London Hotel, where they talked about the Iraq body count, this morning. (Photo by John Stillwell/PA Images via Getty Images) – les propriétaires de Sunshin Press Production , Hrafnsson, MacFadyen, Assange

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.

Gavin MacFadyen le maître de Wikileaks et co-gérant de Sunshine Press Production et du Center for Investigative Journalism CIJ

[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

Wikileaks en tant que projet de la Fondation allemande Wau Holland – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

[5] Déposition de Julian Assange du 2016 contre l’accusation de Sofia Wilem

https://www.les-crises.fr/accusations-suedoises-deposition-de-julian-assange-14-15-novembre-2016-texte-complet/

[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

file:///C:/Users/Ikaria/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/RODELYS_Elza%20(1).pdf

[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.

demande de visite facile à faire sur le site de la prison Belmarsh
Refus de visite de Julian Assange que j’avais demandée: le document de Belmarsh explique que les DATES et horaires ne sont pas DISPONIBLES. ll ne dit pas que Julian Assange refuse de me recevoir, ni que les visites sont impossible ni que je ne suis pas sur la liste de visiteurs. La réponse sybilline se répètera chaque fois que nous ferons des demandes d’abord acceptées puis refusées.

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)

http://rescuethefamily.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Moore_(The_Family)

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/i-m-still-alive-cult-survivor-speaks-about-life-beyond-anne-hamilton-byrne-20190614-p51xx5.html

[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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021390/Julian-Assange-s-father-sells-quirky-Sydney-home-1-42million.html

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/realestate/news/sydney-nsw/the-home-of-julian-assanges-father-fails-to-sell-at-auction/news-story/86d2c63a0780436b62fc50a490efa154

[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

Affiche du livre de Aymeric Monville et pétition pour la libération de Julian Assange à la fête de l’Humanité en septembre 2019

Julian Assange, a forced and secret marriage?

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est 1_EP3upWW_6M5p_L6qH1PfPA.jpeg.

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)

Procès de Wikileaks ou procès de Julian Assange? Mardi 25 février 2020 – Violences en réunion – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

Révolte à la Woolwich Court le 26 et 27 février 2020 – 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.

Romantic end to the Julian Assange case? Objections, analyses and actions of Wikijustice – Part 1 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

Romantic end to the Julian Assange case? Objections, analysis and actions of Wikijustice – Part 2 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

The Assange case – Investigation Report and Complaint of Wikijustice Julian Assange – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

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].

Documents Diplomatiques équatoriens sur l’identité de Julian Assange – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est acte-de-naissance-4-1024x417.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est acte-de-naissance-JA-1-1024x551.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est acte-de-naissance-2-1024x542.png.
L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est acte-de-naissance-3-1-1024x503.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-identite-4-1024x514.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-doc-identite--1024x582.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-identite-5-1024x571.png.

« 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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-identite-2-1024x578.png.

« 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

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Sara-Stella-Gonzalez-1024x645.png.

https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2020/09/la-mere-des-deux-enfants-de-julian-assange-met-en-garde-contre-le-sort-du-fondateur-de-wikileaks.html

[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].

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Alice-visage.jpg.

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

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est PSI-142016-couverture-1024x623.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est mariage-force-prison-PSI-1024x575.png.

« 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)

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est inspection-publique-des-bans-PSI-1024x575.png.

« 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)

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est PSI-142016-invites-et-objection-1024x608.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est notification-de-mariage-prison--1024x632.png.

[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

[4]

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est lettre-Belmarsh-2-novembre-debut-1024x576.png.
L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Harding-lettre-signature-1024x576.png.

[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]!

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est jugement-phrase-finale--1024x564.png.

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!

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Monika-Belmarsh-.jpg.

  1. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

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)

Procès de Wikileaks ou procès de Julian Assange? Mardi 25 février 2020 – Violences en réunion – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

Révolte à la Woolwich Court le 26 et 27 février 2020 – 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.

Fin de partie romantique de l’affaire Julian Assange? 1ère partie – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

Fin de partie romantique de l’affaire Julian Assange? 2ème partie – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

The Assange case – Investigation Report and Complaint of Wikijustice Julian Assange – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

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

https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2020/09/la-mere-des-deux-enfants-de-julian-assange-met-en-garde-contre-le-sort-du-fondateur-de-wikileaks.html

[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

[4]

[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 »

[8]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

Romantic end to the Julian Assange case? Objections, analysis and actions of Wikijustice – Part 2

Monika Karbowska

Inconsistency of the storytelling photos and videos

The photo of the Morris/Assange couple published by the Daily Mail and reproduced in a cut-out version by Stella Morris’ current Twitter and Facebook accounts never tires of questioning the inconsistencies in the journalistic account. The couple has been together since 2015. They are photographed on a street in a city, embracing each other. But then, in 2015, wasn’t Julian Assange confined to a room in the Ecuadorian embassy, banned from going out on pain of being imprisoned and extradited to Sweden? Could he wander quietly and smilingly along London’s boulevards with Stella Morris?

So we were lied to.

I don’t like to point fingers at people’s faces and those who read my articles won’t find such rash criticism. But the composition of the photo published in the Daily Mail on April 11th [1] and taken by Stella Morris on her twitter and Facebook account is so strange that it forces me to make the following comment: an attentive observer will see, by looking at the bottom of the photo, that Julian Assange’s legs are cut off at the level of his calves and Stella Morris’ legs at the level of her feet. Having seen the two people in the flesh many times and knowing that Stella Morris is very small (less than 155 cm. tall) and Julian Assange is rather tall (185 cm. tall), the difference in detail makes it impossible for Mrs. Morris’ head to reach Julian Assange’s chin, or at most to reach his chest. It is logical and it is obvious to all those who have seen the two protagonists of the story in real life. Their legs have been cut out on the photoplate to be able to « adjust » the characters and reduce their dysmorphism. I therefore affirm that this photo is a fake.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210957/WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-fathered-two-children-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-lawyer.html

Returning to the storytelling of the same press a few years ago, the inconsistencies are even more glaring. An article in the Guardian of 15 May 2018[2] describes in great detail the intrusive surveillance that Julian Assangea would have undergone in the « embassy » from 2016 to March 2018. UC Global’s agents had been watching him for years through the surveillance cameras of a security PC installed in a neighboring building. They checked the passports of all persons entering to visit him and transmitted their details first to Rafael Correa and then to Lenin Moreno. In these conditions, since UC Global allegedly sold the images to the American authorities, these authorities were therefore perfectly aware of Assange’s relationship with Stella Morris. No need to steal baby diapers, just watch what happens in the privacy of the apartment via the cameras,an obscene pornographic process if ever there was one, but it seems that Julian Assange was not spared. The article states that Correa’s government cut off Julian Assange’s internet access permanently in February 2018 and he was banned from visiting in March 2018, locked in the « solitary confinement » that we have all begun to experience in Europe over the past few weeks, almost to the end, until April 11, 2019. Now, Ms. Morris says that this is the period when she was permanently visiting him, to conceive their second child, and then being pregnant.

2.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/julian-assange-ecuador-london-embassy-how-he-became-unwelcome-guest

It is astonishing that Julian Assange never mentioned his « partner » and his paternity for five years from 2015 to 2020. At no time since 2016 have her lawyers used this crucial information to request a stay of Swedish prosecution or her release as the breadwinner, particularly in the dramatic moments between May and October 2019 when Julian Assange was in solitary confinement following his conviction for breach of parole. Stella Morris’s tearful account did not provide us with details about the children’s civil status, which is important for any legal support to Julian Assange. Did Julian Assange recognize these children in the British registry office? Do they bear his name? Are they called Morris, Gonzalez Devant or Smith Robertson? John Shipton, considered to be the biological father of Julian Assange, is himself in contradiction with Stella Morris’ statements when on 18 April he once again refers to the ‘French family’ and ignores the children of Morris[3]. Are we to understand that John Shipton does not consider himself to be the grandfather of the children whom Stella Morris presents to the press as being those of Julian Assange?

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9NZCdfO8P4&fbclid=IwAR0MmFlvwHhlOgOw2q_bj_8wKcmUh0zZqabIyvKX3zW5d12BYSI45e9yuz0;

I, for one, would believe Mrs. Morris’ story only if Julian Assange were to speak freely in public. It’s his right to express himself on his own behalf. No one should talk about his personal and intimate life in public.

The organizations that protect Stella Morris

Stella Morris claims that she did not act to save her companion for fear of the American government’s attacks on her children. This is rather ridiculous if one thinks that children born in London are necessarily declared to the Registrar of Births and Marriages, especially if they are normally endowed with the British nationality passed on by their mother, so the British government was perfectly aware of the existence of these children and therefore, in all probability, passed the information on to its American counterparts.

The fear of the political prisoner’s girlfriend, who has waited six years to act, is all the more incomprehensible as she is protected as a collaborator of the famous Baltazar Garzon, former judge of the Spanish Chamber of Investigation -Audiencia National 5.

Having been able to observe at the Westminster Magistrate Court the links that Stella Morris had with representatives of other powerful structures, I conclude that she was logically protected by these institutions and was in no way the fragile and solitary single mother she presents herself to be. I am speaking here of the Courage Foundation or officially « Courage Corp, domestic businessentity », based in New York and directed by Nathan Fuller, residing at 2790 Brodway apartment. 4D, New York 10025 [4] On its website, Courage Corp. presents itself as the Courage Foundation whose Board of Directors is filled with whistleblowers, journalists, former agents of the CIA, NSA, MI5, all more famous than the others. Stella Morris is friends with Naomi Colvin (which I saw with my own eyes from December 2019 to February 2020), who succeeds Sarah Harrison at the head of the Courage « Foundation » in Europe. Stella Morris is also friends with Renata Avila, a member of the Board of Diem 25 and close friend of the Greco-Australian politician active in Berlin Yanis Varoufakis. It is easy to see this by attending the hearings of the trial of Julian Assange.

In addition, these people, like Naomi Colvin and Renata Avila, work with the Centre d’Investigation du Journalisme, a private British journalism school whose founder Gavin MacFadyen was a friend and supervisor of Julian Assange. CIJ[5] organizes training sessions funded by wealthy private American (Reva and David Logan Foundation) British (Lorana SullivanFoundation, Joseph Rowntree Trust) and South African (David Potter Foundation and Ellen Potter Foundation…[6]) foundations, the most important of which is the Bertha Foundation[7].

5. https://www.facebook.com/CIJournalism

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Gavin MacFadyen, and Julien Assange (left to right) of WikiLeaks, before a Media press conference at a south London Hotel, where they talked about the Iraq body count, this morning. (Photo by John Stillwell/PA Images via Getty Images)

6. http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1118602&SubsidiaryNumber=0

Julian Assange the Gathering citizen | Le Club de Mediapart

7. Home – Bertha Foundation

The Bertha Foundation was established by South African billionaire Tony Tabasnik[8] who owns the country’s largest generic drug company[9].the late Julian Assange’s former lawyer Michael Ratner was a friend of Tony Tabasnik[10].

Tony Tabaznik The Team | Amynepharma

Some of the events of the Centre for Investigative Journalism are funded directly by the most famous foundation, the Open Society Foundation of George Soros[11]. 11] La Bertha Foundation is also linked by the partnership with the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union in George Soros. 12] But it is not surprising that these foundations of the largest oligarchs in the Western world work together. The network of Goerges Soros structures forms a global enterprise that is present in almost all countries of the world[13].

8. https://keywiki.org/Tony_Tabatznik

9. https://www.caglobalint.com/recruitmentafrica/blog/2019/08/05/south-african-billionaires-on-the-uk-rich-list-2019/

10. https://berthafoundation.org/michael-ratner-we-stand-on-your-shoulders/

11. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3144581135608584&t

12. https://berthafoundation.org/bertha-justice-network-welcomes-new-partners/

13.   https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are

On the German side, the Wau Holland Foundation is the owner of the brand « Project 04 Wikileaks ».Julian Assange was employed by this structure as project manager in 2010-2012, already under the responsibility of the current boss Andy Müller Maguhn. Andy Müller Maguhn is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Courage Foundation[14], a New York-based structure that collects the money that bona fide Europeans believe they are paying for the defense of Julian Assange. Andy Müller Maghun is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Centre for Investigative Journalism [15].

14. https://www.couragefound.org/advisory-board#andy      

Andy Müller-Maguhn

15.           Annual Report of the Centre for Investigative Journalism Limited, Company no. 05471322

Charity no. 1118602, Report of the Trustees and Financial Statements 30 November 2018

The last activity report of the German Wau Holland Foundation was published in 2016, the reports for 2017, 2018 and 2019 have not been published although they should legally be available to the public. According to this document[16], the Wau Holland Foundation will donate from 2014 [17] a (unspecified) part of this money for the provision of the « Freedom of Expression Project », another name for « Wikileaks » to the private Icelandic company Sunshine Press Production headed by deputy directors Kristinn Hrafnsson and Inga Ragnar Ingasson, since Julian Assange, who is in prison, obviously cannot manage this company[18].

16. http://www.wauland.de/media/2016-12-31_jahresbericht.pdf

17. http://www.wauland.de/media/2014_Jahresbericht.pdf

18.

Gavin McFadyen, the company’s third director, having died, could not manage the company either. Stella Morris is in a friendly relationship with Kristinn Hrafnsson, which I have seen for myself and which seems to go without saying. Finally, let us add that Stella Morris is friends with Jennifer Robinson, director at the Bertha Foundation, a tool of influence for the South African billionaire Tabaznik. 19]

19 https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/jennifer-robinson/

She is also the founder of the legal branch of the Bertha Foundation, the Bertha Justice Initiative, which is in a position to make grants[20] in 2019 500,000 dollars to an important and former organization defending the rights of minorities in the United States, the Center for Constitutional Rights. These organizations, led or influenced by Stella Morris’ friend and Assange’s lawyer, are therefore not small militant structures.

20. https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/01/Audit-Report-06-30-2019.pdf

https://berthafoundation.org/introducing-bertha-justice-initiative-staff/

They are private agencies, a tool for influencing the interests of Anglo-Saxon billionaires and leading German companies. As such, these structures and their decision-makers are of course known to the intelligence agencies CIA and BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst). As the analyses quoted below show, the head of Julian Assange’s legal team, Geoffrey Robertson, is a friend of Tony Blair, Georges Soros and works with the World Bank and is the mentor of Jennifer Robinson[21].

Assange’s Judges & Lawyers Associates | Le Club de Mediapart

The ghost lawyers of Julian Assange – Long version | Le Club de Mediapart

Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer and friend of Robertson’s, is known to have defended both the legalization of torture and the extremely wealthy paedophile and child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein[22].

Assange – Feudal regression in the United Kingdom | Le Club de Mediapart

L’homme Julian Assange trahi par ses avocats | Le Club de Mediapart

Dougthy Street Chambers, Robertson’s law firm, defended the United States in the Browder-Magnistky case, and Mark Summers, Julian Assange’s lawyer at Matrix Chambers, has also argued in favour of American interests[23].

Assange Lawyers – Conflict of Interest Scandal spreads up to the United States | Le Club de Mediapart

Gareth Peirce, a solicitor on the front line of the trial, has been defending her client, a victim of torture visible to public witnesses, for nine months now in a very weak defence[24]. Baltazar Garzon is accused of torture by the Basque and Catalan opposition in Spain, among other crimes as a judge[25]

Assange Tortured – Gareth Peirce turns blind eyes | Le Club de Mediapart

Former judge and « torturer » Garzón escorts Assange | Le Club de Mediapart

Meanwhile the administrators of the current Wikileaks do not hesitate to entrust the interests of their structure to communication agencies linked to the American policies that are the first enemies of Julian Assange[26].

Assange away, does WikiLeaks remain trustworthy ? | Le Club de Mediapart

Assange – Amnesty International se mue en International Guilty | Le Club de Mediapart

Inserted in such a dense network of powerful relations whose interests are very much in line with those of the American state system, Stella Morris should not fear being kidnapped by the CIA. How is it that she fears this when we human rights activists are doing our duty to defend Julian Assange publicly when we are far less protected than she is from attacks by British and American secret services?

Lies, silences and inconsistencies

In an August 29, 2018 article in Abc news, Jennifer Robinson claims that JulianAssange would be in total isolation at 3 Hans Crescent Street, forbidden to visit and use the internet (27) Today, it would be good for her to admit that she lied, since Stella Morris claims to have prepared, at that time, the arrival of her second child conceived with the political prisoner in the same place.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/isolation-intensifies-wikileaks-julian-assange-faces-threat-eviction/story?id=57475632

Once these lies have been established, how can we, as grassroots activists, trust these two women who claim to be also Julian Assange’s lawyers? The image of Julian Assange crying on the balcony of the apartment on 19 May 2017 and brandishing the UN Ruling, forcefully asserting the violations of rights he is suffering, remains in our memory. Having suffered a first internet blackout and total isolation since October 2016, Assange is in visible suffering. Today, Stella Morris tells us that it is the birth of their first child…

We are troubled by these contradictions that force us to ask ourselves the question « what is true, and when is it true »? A man who is a happy father and supported by his girlfriend cannot bear so much suffering, cannot send an SOS to strangers. It is also maconviction after having seen Julian Assange in « real life » and having witnessed first hand the marks of sadness and the feeling of being betrayed and abandoned on his face during the hearings of October 21, 2019, January 13, 2020, February 24, 25, 26 and 26.

The silence of Stella Morris and her absence during the dramatic events of 2019 prevents me from totally believing the story she tells us in the Daily Mail of April 11, 2020. On April 11, 2019, when her companion, the man of her life, the father of her children, was brutally kidnapped by the British secret service and placed in prison before being tried in haste on May 1 and 2, Stella Morris was absent and silent. She is no more talkative during the two agonizing months that follow: May 9, 2019 Nils Melzer says in his report on torture to have visited JulianAssange and noted the deterioration of his health. The few visitors admitted to Belmarsh (Ai Wewei, Pamela Anderson, JohnShipton) claim that Julian Assange has lost 15 kilos and can therefore die at any moment. The video leaked in June, probably from Wandsworth Prison where Assange stayed from April 11 to May 2, shows a man emaciated and thinned out.

It is now on the internet and many activists are mobilising in Europe to organise demonstrations in front of English courts and Belmarsh prison, including the French Gilets Jaunes. Stella Morris, who now claims to have visited Julian Assange in June 2019, as part of the family visits normally granted in British prisons, was in prison at the time and does not give us any information about the reality of the health of the political prisoner. This is incomprehensible and disrespectful to the thousands of activists who are devoting their energy and resources to saving his companion and who are worried about his fate.

It’s criminal for Julian Assange. An intervention by Stella Morris talking about children would have mobilized public opinion and would have supported the 10 (sic!) demands for release made by Wikijustice Julian Assangedsince October 2019.

But the most astonishing thing is that Stella Morris allows the slanderous campaign to take hold and continue, portraying her companion as a rapist of women deserving of this judicial relentlessness. The slander campaign has been going on since 2010 and has been propagated by the same media that now tell the « story » of the beloved father and his devoted wife. This aggressive and pervasive campaign was precisely what made it very difficult for left-wing activists to convince feminists, communist and environmentalist parties and radical left-wing militants of Julian Assange’s innocence and good faith. Why has Stella Morris, allegedly a lawyer specializing in Swedish law, never deconstructed the case file written by police officer Irmeli Krans, which is riddled with inconsistencies, implausibilities and collusion of interests between the complainants, police officer, lawyers and prosecutor, all members of the same socialist political party and all pursuing the same political and electoral goals? Why did she never seek to help the activists who were working to demonstrate the political flaws in the case?

Why did we have to be alone with this complicated task when all we needed was for her to say what she says today, a year too late: Assange is a calm, gentle, respectful man, not at all the neurotic unbalanced man capable of the worst with women that we have been portrayed so many times in the media. Having read Julian Assange’s statement against Anna Ardin’s accusations of August 30, 2010, I became convinced early on that Assange is more a victim than an offender, but the testimony of a supposedly loving companion and mother of the children would have helped a lot to mobilize European left-wing circles. I am therefore obliged to point out that the absence of Mrs Morris on the front line of the struggle did not help us.

The absence and inaction of Stella Morris on the front line of the struggle to save her companion reaches its peak in the summer of 2019. No one spoke of Julian Assange for two months. The official media are silent or continue to slander him. Activists of the « Extradite Assange », « Defend Wikileaks » or « Unity4J » campaign on Twitter did not provide crucial information about an important hearing on 31 July during which the extradition procedure was decided. (It should be noted that the choice of Twitter as a tool to campaign for the release of a European political prisoner is strange. How can we explain the complexity of a judicial procedure that lasts 10 years in 3 sentences on Twitter when thousands of young activists don’t even know who Julian Assange is, 10 years having passed since the exploits of « Wikileaks »)?

Jennifer Robinson and John Shipton were in Australia at the time. No one visits Julian Assange any more and there are increasing calls for the United Kingdom to provide ‘proof of life’ from a political prisoner last seen alive in mid-June. European activists are anxiously awaiting the very few letters that reach the public: 3 in all from 20 June to 31 August as thousands of people from all over Europe are encouraged to write and are indeed writing to Julian Assange at the Belmarsh prison address.

The case of prisoners number

Julian Assange’s official defence sites such as Defend Wikileaks, the Courage Foundation, Unity4J etc. all called in the summer of 2019 to write to the political prisoner in Belmarsh WITHOUT his prison number A9379AY. However, having found this number through an « old-fashioned » internet search to request a visit to Belmarsh, Wikijustice quickly obtained the information that this number is necessary [28] for the mail to reach the addressee. Without the prisoner’s number, the letter is not delivered to him. However, when we published this information, « official » activists publicly denigrated us. Our first trip to Belmarsh, on 21 September 2019, confirmed that we were right: the prisoner number is essential if the mail is to reach Julian Assange. Why did the « relatives », the official networks of Wikileaks, hide this information, and worse, misinform the activists, and only when it was no longer possible to hide it, did they finally make Julian Assange’s prisoners number public, in October 2019, through the voice of John Shipton?

28. Julian Assange the Gathering citizen | Le Club de Mediapart

Wikijustice Julian Assange’s actions

Among these letters, a French Wikijustice activist receives on August 17 the incredible letter that we have since been acting intensely for her liberation. Three sentences like the verses of a poem written in a handwriting that resembles the different signatures we could find on various documents signed by Julian Assange and published on the internet: « Thanks B for fithing for me, I am in a very Dark place presently. Light up de night until victory! J.A. ». On the back of the sheet the same hand has traced Julian Assange’s nut number A9379AY overwritten with the SOS code in Morse code. SOS, a call for help.

Wikijustice immediately contacted by twitter, Facebook and email John Shipton, Christine Assange, Kristinn Hrafnsson, and by mail Jennifer Robinson, Gareth Peirce, Mark Summers and Geoffrey Robertson asking them to authenticate the letter through handwriting analysis. We have received no response. Mrs. Morris has also been silent all summer. How could we believe that she was present alongside Julian Assange in those dramatic moments when he sent an SOS letter like a bottle thrown into the sea? Only a desperate and lonely man would send an SOS to strangers.

We then had the intuition that « very dark place » was not a literary metaphor as some well-meaning people wanted us to believe. « Dark place » is the name of the secret and legal prisons located in vassal countries that the United States used to imprison and torture their opponents after abducting them illegally (« extraordinary rendition »). People were thus detained and tortured from 2001 to 2006 in Poland, Lithuania, Morocco, Thailand, Egypt… In Europe, British airports were used as departure points for « secret flights » of tortured prisoners to CIA death centres in the countries mentioned[29].

29.             https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikijustice-julian-assange/les-extraditions-extraordinaires-et-illégales-de-la-cia/358323091470678

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2015.1044772

https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/flights/index.html

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=760248

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/121219/assange-regression-feodale-au-royaume-uni

We had good reason to believe that Julian Assange could be detained and tortured in one of these centers. In Poland, for example, there are not only several official US military bases, but also secret structures and centres, as we know from Polish political activists opposed to the submission of their country to the United States and repressed for leuropinions by the judiciary and the police.

This is how we have amplified the questions and demanded that Great Britain give proof of Julian Assange’s life. We were only somewhat relieved when Donald Trump inexplicably cancelled, at the last minute, his important visit to Westerplatte in Poland scheduled for September 1, 2019, for the commemoration ceremonies of the beginning of World War II. Indeed, a powerful American armada was then in the military port of Gdansk and it was not forbidden to imagine that the delivery of a political prisoner could be made from a secret prison to one of these ships. It is better to imagine the worst and prevent it than to let the worst happen under the pretext that imagining the worst would be « plotting » or stupid.

From the beginning of August, we made requests to visit Julian Assange on the site « visit aprisonner » [30]. These requests did not meet with a refusal but with the cryptic response that Julian Assange « is not available ». Is he there or is he not there? We contacted Belmarsh Prison by email, letter, complaint document, and physically went to the « Visitors’ Centre » on 21 September and 10 October 2019. We were told that the prisoner has a « visitor list » and that we must ask him by email or mail to be included in this list if we wish to visit him. But how do we know that Julian Assange receives our mail, when the packet we sent him have obviously never been given to him (with proof from the post office, the packet remain at the post office and are not delivered to the prison…), that the undelivered letters are not returned to us, when it is the law and there is no proof that he received our emails and even the money sent via the prison’s website? Our actions are described in several of our articles.

30. https://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/belmarsh/visiting-information

Exif_JPEG_420

We have repeatedly published Julian Assange’s SOS letter. It is curious that this letter never moved Stella Morris. She has never considered it important, useful for the struggle, to explain to us where her companion really is, to give proof of his life and health, while thousands of European activists spent summer months in anguish and acting with all their strength to shed light on the « dark place ». Until today, we have received no explanation from Stella Morris as to whether or not Julian Assange receives the letters and packets sent to him by many activists. It seems to me, however, that these disinterested actions deserve respect and that it is also beneficial to the struggle that the relatives of a political prisoner have a continuing relationship with the activists.

On October 10, 2019, I was assaulted by two Belmarsh guards who wanted to force me out of the Visitor Centre where I came to ask questions on the visitor list. The PACT volunteers stopped them from doing so. We wrote countless complaints and claims to the prison management, resulting in two letters of response from Mr. Harding, direction of communication of Belmarsh Prison[31] . These letters can be summarized in the following sentence: « As no prisoner is kept in isolation at Belmarsh, it is not the prison that is responsible for his condition with symptoms of torture.

Indeed, our intervention in the Westminster Magistrate Court on 20 September 2019, when Julian Assange was absent, and again on 11 October, when he was shown on video in very poor condition, pale, shaggy, emaciated and haggard, led us to demand that the English authorities immediately stop the torture that Julian Assange was apparently undergoing. We also demanded the end of this iniquitous trial and the immediate release of Julian Assange on health grounds, especially since he was no longer convicted but was in pre-trial detention during the extradition procedure.

Meanwhile, Stella Morris, mother of the children and companion of Julian Assange according to her, was silent during the hearings. She also did not initiate an application for bail as the breadwinner. A father has not only the right to see his children but also the obligation to support them. This is precisely the first action taken by lawyers for Polish prisoners awaiting extradition: to request release on the grounds of the breadwinner, as I have seen in several such hearings on 11 and 18 October 2019 in the Westminster Magistrate Court. Maitre Goscinski, Maitre Mastalerz and Maitre Matelska, lawyers defending Poles threatened with extradition, explained to me that this procedure is very simple to carry out and that it can be renewed every 28 days at the hearing to extend pre-trial detention. A detainee can himself apply for release on bail for family reasons by filling in a short form available for example in this guide distributed in prisons[32].

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/pibs/10003E57Polish_pib_08_male.pdf

British judges will grant such release easily provided the prisoner can show a stable address in the United Kingdom, a family and the possibility of reincarceration. Julian Assange is the manager of a film production company, Sunshine Press Production, which did generate some income in 2019[33]. He fully meets the criteria required by so many Ests migrants and is released by the Westminster Court judges, including by Vanessa Baraitser, within a day. Of course, the case of Julian Assange may seem more complicated, but is he so legally different from the other defendants? No. There should be no political prisoners in a democracy. Or we’re not in a democracy anymore.

33. Annual Report of the Sunshine Press Production Compagny 29.09.2019 – Julian Assange in prison and Gavin MacFadyen passed away, something is wrong

At least it would be politically interesting to use this possibility offered by the law to relentlessly demand his release every month. Julian Assange’s relatives, here John Shipton and especially Stella Morris did not use this possibility even though the status of British citizen Mrs Morris and mother of children I presume recognized by Julian Assange gave her the ability to grant the stable address in Great Britain that had been lacking to Assange in 2010-2011. Moreover, it is quite possible to marry while in prison and marriage would give the non-British citizen Julian Assange the opportunity to acquire residence rights and to stabilise his social situation. Stella Morris did not make use of all these possibilities while Wikijustice was sending a release petition to the Westminster Magistrate Court every month since October 2019.

The absences of Mrs. Stella Morris

Stella Morris was also absent from the hearing on 21 October 2019, which was a first victory for activists demanding the right to physically appear at her own trial, guaranteed by the ECHR and included in Habeas Corpus. Julian Assange appeared there very weakened physically and psychologically[34].

http://monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh/?p=1198

On his face, I read a feeling of great loneliness and distress. He did not greet his lawyers or the people of his former entourage. Impossible to know if he noticed the absence of Stella Morris, it must be said that today it is not he who speaks to the media about his relationship with her, but she speaks about him instead. When he rebelled and spoke despite the judge’s opposition and the lack of support from his lawyers, he found it difficult to finish his sentences and referred to « the theft of his children’s DNA » and « the intrusion of psychologists into his interior ». At the time we thought that « DNA children » could evoke his computer processes because « parents-children » are metaphors used for servers and software.

Stella Morris showed no emotion about these terrible words which were echoed by the press and activists. She did not think it would have been useful and important to make them explicit. In any case, they will be absent from the hearings of 18 November and 13 December during which Julian Assange’s condition deteriorated brutally. Julian Assange is therefore no longer able to pronounce his name and is not in a position to follow the court’s debates. Wikijustice analyses his suffering as a result of the latorture. We call for his immediate release, access to health care outside the UK or any other country under the control of the United States, and a halt to the extradition process. Swiss activists are mobilizing to initiate the procedure for a humanitarian visa for Julian Assange. The President of Mexico called for his immediate release.

Did tell Stella Morris see her companion’s health deteriorate? If she couldn’t visit him again, she could at least have attended the hearings. She appeared in court on December 19 and 20, in public, as the accompanist of the young MCMcGrath. On 20 December, when Julian Assange is due to appear physically in Westminster Court as a witness or victim and not as an accused under the European Investigation Order (EIO) procedure, she prepares this appearance in a consultation room with MC McGrath and Fidel Narvaez.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est FB_IMG_1581680585118.jpg.

Finally, the hearing is held in camera and the activists are prevented from attending. We, Wikijustice activists, could only catch a glimpse of Julian Assange surrounded by security agents in room 4. During the hours of waiting we spent in court, we tried to ask Mrs Morris, who was present in the stairs and corridors of the court, if she had any more information about this strange procedure. She ignored us with a cold and casual wave of her hand. It is a strange way of fighting for the release of one’s companion that the contempt shown for people who spend so much effort to make injustice recede. We are not mere placard bearers. The struggle for justice requires all our resources and intelligence. It would be good if they were respected by the woman who today claims to be closest to Julian Assange.

On January 13, 2020, the court allows Julian Assange to appear physically for a second time. This is an important moment that allows us to communicate with him by gestures rather than words, since our letters no longer reach him and we have proof of this through postal follow-up. Ms. Morris is in the courtroom with the strange « lawyers » who are not pleading – MC McGrath and Jennifer Robinson. She does not greet Julian Assange, does not wave to him even when he tries to speak, does not even encourage him in any way, and generally remains in a cold and impersonal attitude. The testimony of the journalist Véronique Pidancet Barrière, who is present opposite Julian Assange among the journalists, gives a good account of the atmosphere in the courtroom and the attitude of the lawyers and the public[35].

LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hearing-13012020-face-julian-assange-pidancet-barrière-véronique/

Julian Assange appears there more than ever as a lonely and hopeless man, a man who struggles in intense inner suffering and who is looking for a contact with a friend. He comes to life and regains hope thanks to this visual communication with Véronique Pidancet Barrière, the only one watching him among all the journalists sitting inside the courtroom.

Impossible to believe in observing his suffering, which I was able to do, being also present in the public[36], that he would be a man fulfilled and sustained by the presence of two sons who are surrounded by the love of a mother and a beloved and loving companion. It is then said that he is no longer placed in isolation, an isolation that is illegal. Family visits are a basic right and should have been granted according to British prison regulations[37].

36. Bringing the Dark Place back to light – Julian Assange facing the political and judicial system, hearing of 13 January 2020 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

37. https://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/belmarsh/visiting-information

Moreover, Stella Morris was not present among the activists who, on 13 January 2020, blocked the van carrying Julian Assange from the court after the hearing. This rare moment tolerated by the British police was crucial to show the people’s solidarity with Julian Assange. The activists were able to show him through the window words written on signs, make signs of support with their hands resting on the window, shout slogans and words of encouragement at this rare moment when he can hear them with certainty. The photos of Julian Assange taken by the photographers at the time show a man whose eyes are coming back to life. It is through this « French activism » as one of the security guards admiring the combativeness of the Yellow Vests) that we have breathed life and hope into a man who saw himself dying alone in a « dark place ».

Stella Morris at the trial last February.

On January 23rd and February 19th, while Julian Assange appeared in still video, prostrate and as absentee (possibly drugged), Stella Morris participated in the trial in the courtroom, in the back row of the room, next to MC McGrath who was then described as a « scholar », student or trainee by the court secretary. MC McGrath, a computer scientist and hacker, actually has no right to be in this position since he is not a lawyer. Stella Morris does not seem any more overwhelmed by the emotion at the sight of Julien Assange than she was before on December 19th in the public. No sign of disconcertion, no smile…

Trial or sacrificial ceremony? -Julian Assange’s trial on January 23, 2020 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

His professional discretion continued during the long and trying hours of the « full extradition hearing » « final extradition trial » on 24, 25, 26 and 27 February 2020, in Room 2 inside theoolwich Crown Court adjacent to Thameside and Belmarsh Prisons. Sitting just in front of Julian Assange in the back row of the courtroom (the defendants’ box is at the back of the room here while he is left of the room in Westminter Court), Stella Morris accompanied Baltazar Garzon and MCMcGrath on the first two days of the trial. On the third day she sits in the same seat to the right of the Spanish-speaking lawyer Aitor Martinez and on the fourth day Jennifer Robinson reappears and accompanies her.(38)

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)

Procès de Wikileaks ou procès de Julian Assange? Mardi 25 février 2020 – Violences en réunion – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

Stella Morris doesn’t turn to Julian Assange when he enters the box and when the emotion in the audience’s gallery is at its peak. She doesn’t bother to get up and shake his hand during the breaks, as Baltazar Garzon does twice. She simply takes the small papers he hands her and passes them to the front row to Gareth Peirce and Edward Hamilton Fitzgerald. I have watched her face as I watch everyone in the audience to get a good grasp of who is who and who is doing what in this show. I found him impassive like the other players in the game and as he had been in previous games.

Woolwich Court the 24 february 2020

On Wednesday 26 February, the third day of the trial, Julian Assange’s health worsened. He was pale and prostrate in the morning, livid and on the verge of collapse in the early afternoon. I was able to describe the events in the heat of the moment and to publish the information that same evening [39]. In the late afternoon, the prisoner suddenly revolted. He stood up and spoke, gesticulated and demanded three times that the judge listen to him. Then the lawyers panic, go out to confer with the judge’s authorization, the security guard who is watching the public runs away allowing us to let our emotions and our stupor run free… Stella Morris sitting just in front of the man of her life does not encourage him in his revolt or even comfort him when she is one meter away from him.

39. https://lepcf.fr/Revolte-a-la-Woolwich-Court

Révolte à la Woolwich Court le 26 et 27 février 2020 – Liberté pour Julian Assange – Monika Karbowska (monika-karbowska-liberte-pour-julian-assange.ovh)

Certainly, her erasure is such that I cannot be certain today that I have observed all her gestures, my attention was then absorbed by Julian Assange. But it is obvious that she played no role in the decision taken by the lawyers to accept the proposal for bail that the judge Baraitser made to prevent the prisoner from collapsing live in front of the witnesses, thus placing her in a very uncomfortable position. We published the news the same evening by sending yet another request for release from Wikijustice. We are very disappointed when Fitzgerald makes no mention of his client’s release on bail the next day, February 27, 2020, the last day of the trial.

When Julian assuages his torpor and the atmosphere of collective hypnosis fades, at the end of the audience, Stella Morris is one of the first to come to him, at last, but she is only one among others. She is not the one Julian Assange speaks to first, nor is she the one to whom he gives the ultimate salute before leaving the room.

For what all these communications have in common, the one in the Easter Saturday Daily Mail, as they have since been circulated, is that Julian Assange does NOT speak publicly, nor does he introduce his fiancée or his family. It is once again someone else who speaks for him, as if he is too ill to speak under guardianship and unable to present his interests and dialogue with his audience. Alas, in an atmosphere exacerbated by stories of all kinds told through and through, I will only believe this story if Julian Assange, free of all pressure, presents it himself. Preferably live and not in a video that can be easily tricked.

Julian Assange and children’s rights

I can already see those who will reproach me for my disbelief in the incessant about-turns of Julian Assange’s « relatives » coming. Why would it be so uncomfortable to accept the idea of Julian Assange as the father of two children? Actually, I don’t have a problem with that hypothesis.

I know that Julian Assange has always been moved by the plight of children and has denounced the crime and abuse that too many children are victims of. Presenting the film « Collateral Murder » and the documents relating to the US crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan for which he is accused, he has always stressed, in his lectures from April to October 2010, the revolting fate of children.

It is indeed he who had the 1100 pages of Belgian police documents on the violence committed against children by pedocriminal mafia networks published in the framework of the investigation on Marc Dutroux[40]. Knowing that the paper versions of the minutes of hearings of victims and witnesses of human trafficking from Eastern Europe to Western countries, from 1996 to 2001, have strangely burned in the archives of the Belgian police, there is only one version that remains: the one that Julian Assange saved on « Wikileaks » and made available to our knowledge so that citizens can finish the work of the too slow or too corrupt justice.

40. https://file.wikileaks.org/file/dutroux-dossier-summary-2005.pdf

Finally, we must also mention the role of the publication of the e-mails of John Podesta, for which Julian Assange received sharp criticism even in his own camp in 2016: these e-mails were the beginning of a citizen’s investigation that led to the downfall of Jeffrey Epstein, the criminal provider of children for sale to the American and British jet set. Julian Assange and some of his relatives who helped him in the isolation of the3 Hans Crescent have always defended children. (41)

41.           Look in the database of Wikileaks with « Jeffrey Epstein » :

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27438

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27842

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2077

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/29315

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/20/2053540_-os-uk-econ-uk-s-prince-andrew-to-quit-as-trade-envoy-.html

For lack of believing the story of a warm but clandestine family life, I look at the photos that Stella Morris provided to the media of Julian Assange carrying babies in her arms as a metaphor for his true commitment to the rights and freedoms of the smallest among us.

We will not give up the fight to free him and all those who suffer and struggle, and we will not allow ourselves to be trapped in sickness or panic. Human rights are universal and the collective struggle will lead us to victory. We will not let ourselves be hypnotized by fear and repression, and if we fall, others will come out in our place. We are many and our thoughts are more united than ever in our actions for freedom and justice.

Julian Assange is not alone and we are always at his side.

1.             https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8210957/WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-fathered-two-children-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-lawyer.html

2.              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/julian-assange-ecuador-london-embassy-how-he-became-unwelcome-guest

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9NZCdfO8P4&fbclid=IwAR0MmFlvwHhlOgOw2q_bj_8wKcmUh0zZqabIyvKX3zW5d12BYSI45e9yuz0; minute  38 :23

John Shipton told also that Wikileaks was created in France, published in France and had a trial in France. We couldnt find any prouve of an NGO called Wikileaks in the french Préfecture databse.

4.             Voir le site de NYS Department of State, Division of Corporation, Entity Information. La Courage Corp a été crée le 30 Mai 2017, numéro DOS 5145362

https://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus_entity_search.html

5. https://www.facebook.com/CIJournalism

6. http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1118602&SubsidiaryNumber=0

7.             https://berthafoundation.org/

8.             https://keywiki.org/Tony_Tabatznik

9.             https://www.caglobalint.com/recruitmentafrica/blog/2019/08/05/south-african-billionaires-on-the-uk-rich-list-2019/

10.           https://berthafoundation.org/michael-ratner-we-stand-on-your-shoulders/

11.           https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3144581135608584&type=3

12            https://berthafoundation.org/bertha-justice-network-welcomes-new-partners/

13.           https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are

14.           https://www.couragefound.org/advisory-board#andy           ²

15.           Voir le rapport d’activité Centre for Investigative Journalism Limited, Company no. 05471322

Charity no. 1118602, Report of the Trustees and Financial Statements 30 November 2018

16. http://www.wauland.de/media/2016-12-31_jahresbericht.pdf

17.  « 5 Projekt 04 – Informationsfreiheit Im Projektbereich 04 wurden die Aktivitäten umstrukturiert, so dass eine Abstimmung mit und eine Kontrolle der Aktivitäten durch den Vorstand einfacher wurden. Mit der Medienfirma Sunshine Press Productions EHF (SPP, Island) wurde ein Rahmenvertrag für journalistische Dienstleistungen geschlossen. Seitdem werden konkrete Projekte beauftragt und nach Arbeitsfortschritt abgerechnet. Die Dienstleistungen umfassen: Projektkoordination, technische Aufbereitung der Materialien zum Schutz von Whistleblowern und Dritten (Entfernen der Metainformationen), Review und Kontextualisierung der Materialien, Aufbereitung für die Veröffentlichung im Internet sowie Kommunikation mit Medienpartnern. 2014 wurde auch der Internetauftritt von wikileaks.org grundlegend überarbeitet mit neuer Submission-Platform und verbesserter Dokumentensuche » – extrait du rapport d’activité de la Wau Holland en 2014

http://www.wauland.de/media/2014_Jahresbericht.pdf

18            Certificat d’enregistrement de Sunshine Press Production : « – Register of Enterprises – Laugavegi 166, 150 Reyk javík , Iceland – Tel: +354 442-1250, Fax: +354 442-1279 Certificate of Registration

               Sunshine Press Productions ehf c/o Ingi Ragnar Ingason Postal Address: Klapparhlíð 30 270 Mosfellsbær

               ID-nr: 611010-0280 Domicile: Klapparhlíð 30 270 Mosfellsbær

               Issued: 15.1.2020 Date of Articles of Association: 8.10.2010

               Company’s Board of Directors according to a meeting on: 8.10.2010: 030771-3039 Julian Paul Assange, Ástralía, Chairman 250662-5219 Kristinn Hrafnsson, Miklubraut 68, 105 Reykjav ík, Director 250571-2919 Ingi Ragnar Ingason, Klapparhlíð 18, 270 Mosfellsbær, Director 010140-2269 Gavin Hall Macfadyen, Bretland, Reserve Director »

19            https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/jennifer-robinson/

20 https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2020/01/Audit-Report-06-30-2019.pdf

https://berthafoundation.org/introducing-bertha-justice-initiative-staff/

21. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/220819/les-avocats-fantomes-de-julian-assange

22. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/201019/lhomme-julian-assange-trahi-par-ses-avocats-0

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/121219/assange-regression-feodale-au-royaume-uni

23. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/201119/avocats-d-assange-le-scandale-des-conflits-d-interets-se-repand-j

24. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/261219/assange-torture-gareth-peirce-detourne-le-regard

25. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/140220/le-juge-dechu-et-tortionnaire-garzon-escorte-assange

26. https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/090819/sans-assange-wikileaks-reste-t-il-digne-de-confiance

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/201119/assange-amnesty-international-moves-international-guilty

27            https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/isolation-intensifies-wikileaks-julian-assange-faces-threat-eviction/story?id=57475632

28.           https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/090919/la-fibre-federatrice-de-julian-assange

29.             https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikijustice-julian-assange/les-extraditions-extraordinaires-et-illégales-de-la-cia/358323091470678

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2015.1044772

https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/flights/index.html

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=760248

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/liberez-assange-ethiques-et-medias/article/121219/assange-regression-feodale-au-royaume-uni

30 https://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/belmarsh/visiting-information

31 . https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3156585994408098&set=a.3156589991074365

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3156586414408056&set=a.3156589991074365

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3156608564405841&set=a.3156589991074365

32.             http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/pibs/10003E57Polish_pib_08_male.pdf

33.       Annual report of the Sunshine Press Production 29 August 2919 – Icelands tax administration: Ríkisskattstjóri Reykjavík, Internal Revenue, Main Office Reykjavík

               « Upplýsingar með ársreikningi Kennitala: Nafn: 611010-0280 Sunshine Press Productions ehf Reikningsár: Reikningstegund: Dagsetning aðalfundar: Ársverk 2018 Ársreikningur 29.8.2019 0,50 Stjórnarmenn Kennitala Nafn 030771-3039 Julian Paul Assange 250571-2919 Ingi Ragnar Ingason 250662-5219 Kristinn Hrafnsson

               Endurskoðendur/skoðunarmenn Kennitala Nafn 0604593049 Theodór Siemsen Sigurbergsson 4301901999 Grant Thornton endurskoðun ehf. Tíu stærstu hluthafar Kennitala Nafn Hlutur % Hlutafé 030771-3039 Julian Paul Assange 94 470.000 250662-5219 Kristinn Hrafnsson 2 10.000 250571-2919 Ingi Ragnar Ingason 2 10.000 010140-2269 Gav in Hall Macfadyen 2 10.000 » ,

34.           http://www.defenddemocracy.press/comment-traverser-les-murs-de-la-dark-place-a-une-rencontre-incroyable/

35.           https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikijustice-julian-assange/audience-du-13012020-face-à-face-avec-julian-assange/490463704923282

36            http://amitie-entre-les-peuples.org/Remonter-de-la-Dark-Place-a-la-lumiere-Julian-Assange-face-au-systeme-politique

37.           https://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/belmarsh/visiting-information

38.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikijustice-julian-assange/procès-de-wikileaks-ou-procès-de-julian-assange-/505746903394962

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikijustice-julian-assange/procès-de-wikileaks-ou-procès-de-julian-assange-/505740943395558

http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=28226

39. https://lepcf.fr/Revolte-a-la-Woolwich-Court

40.           https://file.wikileaks.org/file/dutroux-dossier-summary-2005.pdf

41.           Look in the database of Wikileaks with « Jeffrey Epstein » :

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27438

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27842

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2077

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/29315

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/20/2053540_-os-uk-econ-uk-s-prince-andrew-to-quit-as-trade-envoy-.html

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1929

               Epstein : https://www.marianne.net/monde/affaire-epstein-une-enigme-nommee-bill-clinton

https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_affaire-epstein-d-autres-personnalites-impliquees?id=10301044

https://www.lesoir.be/241887/article/2019-08-13/trump-clinton-et-le-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-avait-de-nombreux-liens-avec

The University of Assas forbids a human rights association to enter a public conference

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assas-Morris-et-Vey-1-1024x664.png.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est billeterie-Tribune-Assas-1024x543.png.

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? « 

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assas-dialogue-31.05.2021-1024x519.png.

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 ».

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_1172-1024x768.jpg.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_1180-1024x768.jpg.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_1171-1024x768.jpg.

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. »

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_1176-1024x768.jpg.

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.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_1173-1024x768.jpg.

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?

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est 20070125a_kenya_0275-570x379-2.jpg.

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.

Trial of Wikileaks or trial of Julian Assange? Monday, February 24, 2020, the court of who is the strongest wins

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG-20200224-WA0000001-575x1024.jpg.
Woolwich Court, courtroom 2. Original picture taken the 24 of February 2020

Julian Assange on trial from 24 to 27 February 2020

Monika Karbowska

Introduction: this article was finished just before the current events. Therefore, it does not contain any allusion, except unintentional, to the crisis we are experiencing. I decided to publish it because the repressive system is not suspended: those whose rights are violated need us more than ever. As it is forbidden to take pictures inside the court, I made the drawings to show the place.

For the Wikijustice association, since its creation, there is no « unimportant » hearing in contrast with an « important trial ». That’s why we didn’t focus on these days of the end of February announced with great pomp by the media as « the extradition trial of the century ». On the contrary, for the past six months we have been making every effort to be present at all the Westminter Magistrate Court hearings, which was not easy – getting reliable information in time, overcoming obstacles to attend the hearings at 181 Marylbone Avenue. Every brief encounter with Julian Assange, live or on video, was a proof of life for us and an opportunity to testify about his health and situation. After all this hard work since last August, I was relieved to know that he was alive, but I was also happy to know that I would be able to see him for 4 days, to give him our support and sympathy and maybe to communicate with him and transmit a message from him. All our efforts are aimed at his full and complete liberation, we would so much like him to know it and to be ready for this moment which we do not doubt is imminent.

So I was able to attend the trial for 4 days in the courtroom next to Belmarsh prison, in the London suburb of Thamesmead, and I was able to see Julian Assange for 5 to 6 hours each day.

Rare happy days: Julian Assange journalist for RT, 2012

But first I had to get into the premises. I could only take the subway and the bus from the London suburbs at 5:30 am and arrive on site at 6:45 am. Right away I noticed the camping of tents in the small park adjacent to the prison gate and yard. In France, the police would never have allowed activists to camp in front of the walls of a prison. England never ceases to amaze me with its lax system on certain points, tolerating passes, discrimination, violence and encouraging the violation of rules, procedures and rights in other circumstances. Precisely the « first come first served » rule for which we fought so hard at the Westminster court is about to be violated again: There are 14 people in the queue in front of the gate and Greekemmy has already created an illegal list on which she registers people after having duly torn off their names under the threat of not being able to get in despite waiting. Right in front of me are Christophe Deloire, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, Christian Mihr, his counterpart from the German branch and Rebecca Vincent, head of the RSF office in Great Britain. I protest loudly against the appearance of the list. I know from experience that new people who arrived later will be added to the list and that I will not be able to enter because of this free ride. Greekemmy rushes towards me, raises his voice, threatens me with expulsion from the court. I take Christophe Deloire as a witness, in French. He seems to support Greekemmy’s list while I tell him that he would certainly not tolerate this kind of situation in France, that an ordinary person takes the names of people in the public space and decides who has the right to enter a court, so why does he accept this in the context of Julian Assange’s trial. He doesn’t answer me, but when other people who arrived later pass by us, an American woman living in France, who is standing behind us, also decides not to let herself be taken in. We stayed for an hour discussing the cultural aspects of our adventure while Edward Hamilton Fitzgerald, Gareth Peirce, and many journalists and cameramen arrived and entered the building after presenting a press card to the security guards. However, not all press cards are equal, as Wikijustice members who show theirs are turned away. Police officers, probably municipal ones, also arrive and greet Greekemmy and his relatives with a relaxed look. They just ask a young man behind us to remove his Anonymous mask and point out that there will only be 18 seats for the public.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est 20200224_071606-1024x576.jpg.
Fidel Narvaez, Patrick Henningsen, Greekemmy, Christian Mihr, Rebecca Vincent, Christophe Deloire and myself… in front of the Woolwich Court entrance on February 24, 2020

The atmosphere becomes tense, however, when the security guards take us into the garden and park us in front of the building’s door between two rows of security barriers. There are already 30 of us in line as supposed journalists break through our group to get to the front. Journalists also enter easily through the right-hand line delimited by two other security barriers. There will be more than 100 journalists entering and leaving the court at any given time, 26 will have a seat directly in the courtroom. This is the moment that Greekemmy chooses to attack me again with insults while filming me with her cell phone while I protest against her behavior. I see especially that she gives herself for mission to divert the attention of the free ride of a very young girl who arrives from behind and brutally pushes my comrades to put herself in front of us. We protest but when I touch her arm to incite her to stop she starts to shout « don’t touch me » with a cynical arrogance which plunges us into stupor. She is seconded by her companion, the boy in the Anonymous mask, while Greekemmy continues to verbally assault me. The tone and violence rises in the line, the security guards do nothing to defuse the conflict but when I turn to the policemen who are watching us from 1 meter away, so that they bring some order, I am amazed to see that seeing people fighting to enter a court makes them laugh. They seem to be waiting for the strongest to win. Obviously the English system will never stop annoying me. I explain to my companions in misfortune that when one starts by finding normal the rights and violence in a queue in front of the court, one should not be surprised that one ends up getting used to the violations of rights and the defects of procedures by the same court of which Julian Assange is victim since several years.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Woolwich1-1024x576.jpg.
Violent mob in front of Woolwich Court under the impassive and mocking eye of police and security guards
L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est causelistWoolwich24.02-1024x576.png.
Julian Assange’s name does not appear on the Woolwich Court work schedule and room 2 appears to be unoccupied. Why?

The organization of the court could not be stranger either. The sign hanging over the entrance gate reads « HMCS », « Her Majesty Court Services ». On a metal sign in front of the building before the security gates it says « Woolwich Crown Court », but when I stand in front of the door on the left where the security guards are directing us, I see a simple A4 sheet of paper stuck on it with an arrow to the left and the words « Belmarsh Magistrate Court. On the right door, through which other users enter, a similar sheet of paper reads « Woolwich Crow court ».  While the trial of Julian Assange is taking place in the left wing, life goes on in the right wing of the building where the real Woolwich Crown Court works. Moreover, in the left wing of the building we will find almost all the staff we know from the Westminster Magistrate Court. So where are we really? The « Belmarsh Magistrate Court » seems to have only a very formal existence: the website of the British Ministry of Justice gives its address as 1 London Road in Bromley[1], a suburb of South London, while the Law pages gives it as 4 Belmarsh road in Thamesmead[2]. However on the map of Thamesmead 4 Belmarsh Road is not found, the number 2 being the address of the Woolwich Court, that is to say the building in front of which we are, whereas at 1 London Road in Bromley is in fact the Bromley Magistrate Cour[3]t.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est 20200224_073324-1024x576.jpg.
The entrance to the Woolwich Court complex. Impossible to determine in which court Julian Assange’s trial is taking place

We are exhausted when finally a young security guard, distraught and overwhelmed, unlocks the door and pushes us to prevent the crowd behind us from rushing in. He demands IDs from us and only lets 6 people in at a time. Indeed, when I came the two previous times for information, the Woolwich Crown Court had only one metal detector, obviously sufficient for the rather sparse activity of the institution. Today, another metal detector is installed for the users of the Woolwich Crown Court on the right side of the entrance, while tables are set up on the left side to manage the control of the visitors of Julian Assange’s trial in a rather artisanal way. On the tables are small plastic lockers in which to put the computer, coats and scarves, belts, shoes … it looks very « airport ». In all the overflow, the two young free riders from behind are obviously in front of us. I run as fast as I can to the floor, I get information from two security guards, because the Assange trial is not indicated anywhere, neither on the screen that displays the hearings of the day, nor on the information panel on the left of the hall.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Woolwich4-1024x532.jpg.
file in the front of the Woolwich Crown Court, 24 february 2020

I rush into a corridor, then into a space equipped with armchairs like a waiting room, then into a kind of narrow corridor, I arrive in another antechamber and there I see the door of the courtroom. I enter, and I could have stayed there because nobody asks me anything, but as I am not sure that I have the right to stay, I prefer to look for my comrades and to wait with the public not to lose the precious place. The place where someone told them to wait turns out to be this tiny hallway between two corridors, where we are soon squeezed together in front of a locked door and a small plastic sign marked « public gallery » with an arrow. The violent free-riding continues because there are 25 of us, the security guards have let in far more than the 18 places provided. Worse, when a very small agent tries to coax the crowd, he will have to shout loudly to announce that 6 places must be reserved for the family…

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_9799-1024x768.jpg.
Drawing of the airlock in which the public is stored before going backwards up a fire escape whose door is locked – what fire safety rules violated during the trial of Julian Assange!

The tension is such that I only notice two days later that the « hose » where we are going to spend a lot of time waiting is in fact an airlock, that the 25 people stored inside prevent the release of the CHC (Common Horizontal Circulation) and their presence blocks the RIA (Armed Fire Faucet) locked in a shaft – this situation violates the fire safety standards commonly accepted, in Great Britain as in France. Worse, I soon noticed that the locked door we were waiting in front of was a… fire exit! An emergency exit leading to a fire escape should never be locked because in case of fire we will not be able to evacuate and we may simply die[4]. Just before 10 o’clock, the security guard unlocks the emergency exit and makes us enter a staircase which is obviously a fire escape. We have to go up this way to get to a landing where we pass a fire door, we find ourselves in an anteroom where there are women’s toilets on the right and men’s toilets on the left, and from where two corridors lead on the right to « courtroom 3 » and on the left to « courtroom 2 ». Ours is Courtroom 2, we have to enter another space where there are two doors that are probably the accesses to the gallery in normal time. Another security guard, a tall, severe redhead, opens a third door and shows us the seats to occupy. Behind a glass window, overlooking the courtroom by at least 10 meters, is the public gallery with 18 seats arranged in two rows. At the back is another locked door.

I don’t have time to think about the strange layout of the place on this first day of the trial: just as the agent opens the emergency exit, a portly Mediterranean man who was in the front of the line with Greekemmy stops me by taking my arm and tells me to leave my seat « to the Courage Foundation » which has just arrived. Stunned, I answer without hesitation « no » and when the man, in a threatening tone, says to me « how dare I refuse my place to the famous Courage Foundation », I answer that I also have the right to be there. Then I run up the stairs without asking for anything else and when I arrive in the gallery, I can only sit in a central place in the second row from where I can only see Julian Assange from a distance. However, the two members of the Courage Corp, a young man with red hair and a beard, perhaps Nathan Fuller, the manager of the New York company as can be verified on the NYS Department of State Division of Corporation website[5], and a 60 year old woman, took their seats just to the left of our group. The woman will take several pictures of Julian without the security guard worrying her. Similarly, the arrogant young woman who pushed everyone this morning took a seat next to her companion, but she slipped out of the room all morning and in the afternoon she took several pictures of Julian. The security guard finally kicked her out after the fourth photo.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est CourageCorp-New-York-576x1024.png.

Today I am still surprised that the man who wanted to kick me out of the court was Patrick Henningsen, a journalist from Russia Today International. The declared hostility of this journalist to my person surprises me all the more as I am seeing him for the first time and members of Wikijustice are working without problems with Russia Today, one of the journalists of RT France is going to interview me here later.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Agresseur-du-25.02-1024x1024.jpg.
Patrick Henningsen, journalist at RT International, my attacker on February 24, 2020. Photo from 2019 in front of Westminster Court

The best seats in the front row are occupied by the representatives of RSF sitting next to Kristinn Hrafnsson and Fidel Narvaez. After the break, the members of the German left-wing party die Linke Sevim Dagdelen and Heike Hänsel will arrive and two young people will give up their seats. Angela Richter, the German theater woman, will be seated in the 5th place in the front row from the left. On the right in the front row we are told that Julian Assange’s family is present: John Shipton, his son Gabriel Shipton, a tall, well-built older man, a 55-year-old woman with long, curly brown hair, and a young, dark-haired man with a pointed nose. I ask around – I hear it’s John Shipton’s brother, the brother’s wife and their son. At the far right Craig Murray is sitting with the family. What struck me was that throughout the hearing none of these people showed any emotion, except maybe a little Murray. Julian did not greet these people who call themselves « his family », he had no sign of collusion with them, no gesture, not even with Shipton. When Julian Assange turned his head toward this part of the gallery, it was as if he were seeing strangers. There were some rather unpleasant « I’m watching a show » aspects to their behavior. Some members of the family could not help but be on their phone despite the formal prohibition stated by the supervisor.

Below, I see the entire staff of the Westminster Court as we have known it since September. I see Rosie Sylvester, the manager, one of the clerks I’ve seen before. I see Prosecutor Lewis but the team of « Americans » and Clair Dobbin are by the gallery balcony as they sit at the far end of their bench on the right, in the front row. On the left side of this bench sit Edward Hamilton Fitzgerald and Mark Summers. Gareth Peirce is sitting behind them with his two assistants and Alistar Lyon. Finally, as a surprise because I did not know that a lawyer from another European bar could participate in a trial in Great Britain (what European directive makes this possible?), I note the presence of Baltazar Garzon in the back row, next to him Jimenez Martinez, Stella Morris and the young Mc McGrath. Jennifer Robinson is sitting with three men on a bench perpendicular to the lawyers, just in front of the rows where the 26 journalists who are lucky enough to have been admitted to the courtroom are seated. The long dock with its bay window is just behind Baltazar Garzon, who will be the only lawyer to greet Julian Assange twice, to shake his hand in the joint of the windows. Similarly, when Julian Assange tries to communicate with Gareth Peirce, he will first pass small handwritten papers to Baltazar Garzon for him to give to the lawyer. The former judge will appear nervous during the reading of the indictment and will leave the room several times. Baraitser will be seated behind a long table on a platform facing the room. Heavy files of documents will be scattered on the desks as the hearings progress, next to stabilizers and computers, documents will fall to the floor, but some lawyers will also spend time on their cell phones, which can be seen very well from above.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est IMG_9800-1024x768.jpg.
My drawing of the courtroom 2

The emotion is palpable when Julian Assange enters through the back door of the box. He is flanked by two guards, a black man in a Mitie uniform (all the security guards present are employees of the Mitie company) and another, a stout white man in a white shirt and black pants. The latter glances suspiciously at the public in the gallery and will be the one to warn his colleague when one of my colleagues ventures to take a picture of Julian Assange. At first glance, he seems to be quite decent with his prisoner. Julian Assange is wearing a gray suit, with a gray sweater and a white shirt. His hair is cut short, he is clean-shaven and wears two pairs of glasses – one on his forehead and the other he will hold in his hand to use when sometimes he consults the huge file he is placing next to him on the bench. As he sits in the middle of the bench, I can see him from my seat. I can see that he has difficulty moving, even sitting still, because he has to hold on to the back of the bench. Also, when he puts his left leg on his right knee, it seems to me that it is to be able to balance the big file on his knees. Most of the time he remains with his hands clasped, fingers crossed, in an attitude of prostration and resignation. I see his sad face, especially when he looks up at the ceiling, the sky he cannot see, in the attitude of one who wants to escape from here at all costs… He blinks while tilting his head back, repeating this tic every 10 minutes or so. When his gaze sweeps the first row of the gallery, I think I detect in his eyes an expression of anger, disgust, a feeling of betrayal perhaps. Sometimes I see in his features something even more negative, a rictus of pain, perhaps hatred, and fear. Then he nervously rubs his fingers together, the same repetitive gestures that we have seen before and that the Wikijustice doctor has duly analyzed as symptoms of suffering due to torture.

The indictment justifying the extradition – the question of legal responsibility

From the outset Baraitser gave the floor to the prosecutor, and we will be watching the presentation of the indictment all morning. It is important to hear it at last, so many rumors have been circulating about it. Nevertheless, it is painful to hear such harsh assertions that seem monstrous to us. Indeed, the prosecutor immediately details the two charges: Julian Assange is accused of « computer misuse » and « conspiracy » with Chelsea Manning in order to steal classified documents, and then of disseminating these same documents with the names of the people involved, which led to the endangerment of these people, collaborators of the American army in Iraq and Afghanistan, who thus risked death or torture. Clearly, computer intrusion and theft in a meeting… it is very disturbing to hear this. Moreover, the prosecutor curiously relies on the « evidence » given by the media: he cites newspaper articles (El Pais, Le Monde, Guardian…) which at the time in 2010 had accused « Wikileaks » of publishing thousands of « unredacted » documents. This part of the indictment can already be understood as a trial of the press, since it relies on the press to provide evidence for an accusation, without the prosecutor however making explicit the exact role of Julian Assange in the structure or organization « Wikileaks ». The link between « Julian Assange, a man physically present here, and « Wikileaks », which the prosecutor does not specify « what it is » (NGO? company? website? according to the laws of which country?), is not proven other than by the prosecutor’s assertions: Julian Assange would be « Wikileaks founders » or « the puppet master ».

For those of us who have known for some time that John Shipton is the owner of the Wikileaks domain names within the Californian company Dynadot[6] and that Julian Assange was only an employee of the Wau Holland Foundation, which piloted the « 04 Wikileaks » project in Germany, It appears that it is not Julian Assange who is legally responsible for the actions of « Wikileaks » but John Shipton and the leaders of the Wau Holland Foundation such as Andy Müller Maguhn, Bernd Fix, Jens Ohlig, Winfried Motzus and Hendrik Fulda[7]. The prosecutor makes the point by quoting points from his documents… 15, 16 and 17, Julian Assange would have nothing less than facilitated the revenge of the Taliban after having hacked computers and stolen state documents in criminal association. He would therefore not be a journalist. Curiously, however, he is only « charged » with the documents published from September 2010 to November 2011. He is not charged for the film « collateral murder » nor for the « Spy files », those famous documents of widespread spying that so upset Chancellor Merkel when she discovered through them that her personal cell phone was listened to by the CIA.

These documents were so important to the leaders of Wau Holland Siftung that three of them traveled to London to prepare the press conference for the launch of these publications on December 1, 2011[1]. The prosecutor ends the tirade by mocking the media writing about the « 175 years in prison ». According to him the case law would show that the sentences for this type of crime only range from 48 to 65 months in prison. But just after we regain hope, he asserts that in this trial, there is no need for evidence, since it is an extradition trial. The evidence will be presented in the United States when Julian Assange is there.


[1] http://www.wauland.de/media/2011_Jahresbericht.pdf, page 5

We feel like we are witnessing the curtain rising on a horror show. Baraitser raises it, we are chased out of the room. Julian Assange looks resigned but nevertheless raises his fist, without looking at the audience. The security guard chases us out of the fire escape and we find ourselves in the airlock, with the whole crowd. I quickly understand that there is no question of taking advantage of our 10-minute break because we will lose our hard-won seat. So I stay in front of the emergency door, trying to reason with my comrades the young free-rider who continues her asocial and disruptive behavior: she pushes us with her elbow, shouts that she is the most important and must remain so, proudly answers that she is 23 years old when we ask her what makes her think that she is entitled to so many privileges. She seems to be under the influence of substances and it is disconcerting to see someone behave like this in a court of law and to witness the total passivity of the officer in charge of order, who even lets her back in front of everyone in the gallery. Privileged, absolutely. Why, we don’t know then.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Capture-2-1024x662.png.
Surely privileged, the young violent free rider of February 24 may be the daughter of Alicia Castro, former ambassador of Argentina in London. Here photo from before 2019

The hearing resumes as soon as Julian Assange returns, carrying the binder and a notebook in which he will try to write his little words. His face takes on an accusing look when he looks up at the first row of the audience. The prosecutor continues his charge: the thousands of leaked documents are detailed, Julian Assange is accused of having encouraged Manning to steal the documents by helping him to crack a password to access an army intranet. He wanted to undermine the security of the United States, especially since « Wikileaks » on its website « solicits the public to deliver secret documents. To support his claims and to bring a semblance of links between Julian Assange and « Wikileaks » the prosecutor cites the conference of the Chaos Computer Congress in Berlin in late December 2009, where Assange would have presented this project as « the intelligence service of the people ». The Wau Holland Sitftung curiously does not appear in the prosecutor’s tirade, even though it assumes full responsibility for the Wikileaks project in its own activity reports from 2006 to 2014, as if the British state wanted to spare a German institution, in the midst of negotiations with Germany over the Brexit. Manning would have responded to Julian Assange’s requests and would have downloaded the encrypted documents from February until his arrest on 27 May 2010. The link between Manning and Assange would be provided by their communication on the Jabber messenger from November 2009 to April 2010. I am surprised to hear about the relationship between Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. I had been left with Julian Assange’s denials that he had ever been in contact with Private Manning and I had believed that Manning had dropped his information by talking to hacker Adrian Lamo[9] , who was mysteriously murdered in 2016 and that is how the military was able to find his identity. Jabber messaging was also a project of the Wau Holland Foundation since 2008[10] . It will be necessary for the prosecutor to provide technical evidence of the conversations on Jabber, records from Internet service providers, and not Manning’s confessions extracted after torture.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Wau-Holland-real-boss-1024x496.png.
Site of the Wau Holland Stiftung, the real Directeur of Wikileaks

Despite the dramatic situation, John Shipton’s brother falls asleep in his seat. Julian Assange looks at Kristinn Hrafnsson with a resigned but angry expression. The RSF men leave. Garzon looks annoyed. Then the prosecutor moves on: the Taliban in Pakistan would have used the published documents to commit crimes, Julian Assange would have given « useful information to the enemy », he knew he was putting his sources in danger. This is very different from the first phase of the publications which targeted only the Chinese and the Syrians. In short, if Julian Assange knowingly gave information to the enemy, he can be accused of « intelligence with the enemy », thus of espionage. We hear the clamor of the Gilets Jaunes rising. Julian Assange surely hears it too… It’s loud.

He is fidgeting on his bench, looking for a position, writing something, can’t get rid of this tic that makes him blink and look for the light by raising his face upwards, towards us. Now the prosecutor will prove for an hour that the law on « conspiracy » is the same in Great Britain as in the United States, and already refute the arguments of the defense on the « abuse of authorities », i.e. the procedural flaws. Julian Assange seems to be doing better – he writes a short paper to Garzon. Baraitser was obliged to ask the prosecutor for the beginnings of evidence. He explains that if the newspapers helped to disseminate information to the enemy, then yes, they can also be charged. Clearly in « certain circumstances » the extradition treaty does allow for extradition on political grounds, anyone, British or otherwise.

Then I see Julian Assange raise his head and look at Angela Richter, sitting in the middle of the front row. He gestures to her with his hand, as if he wanted to chase someone away, indicating that he should leave. He clearly points to the door. I get the impression that Richter is embarrassed, she looks around to see if anyone else has figured out what is going on. The prosecutor says he doesn’t need to submit evidence, what he says is « self-sufficient », a curious category of law all the same. At this point Julian Assange looks very tired. He does not even have a glass of water in front of him, unlike the lawyers and journalists. He crosses and uncrosses his fingers, looks at the journalists… then he wants to speak! He stands up, holds his hands together in front of the glass and speaks. Baraitser wants to cut him off, telling him to speak through his lawyers. But he insists and wants to speak himself. We can’t hear what he says, because there is no microphone and we can only hear what is said directly into the microphones. Focusing on his voice muffled by the barriers, we think we hear him complaining about not hearing. And it is certainly not the decided slogans of the Yellow Vests that bother him, contrary to what Baraitser will argue. We do not let him continue to speak. A cardboard box is placed under Fitzgerald’s microphone to increase the volume… Finally, at 1pm Fitzgerald is allowed to start the defense. 20 minutes later Baraitser suspends the session for the lunch break. We are asked to leave the premises via the fire escape.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-Richter.jpeg.
February 24, 2020 Julian Assange’s relationship with Angela Richter is not what it used to be: he tells her to leave with a hand gesture

We only have 45 minutes, the cafeteria is tiny and the line is quickly huge. I am exhausted and I take a coffee at the vending machine before going back to the airlock. My friend who took the picture when Julian Assange spoke was immediately expelled from the building, she does not insist. I try to find out more about what Julian said by asking Fitzgerald in a corridor of the court. I can’t, he remains evasive. I hurry back to the airlock, because even if there are less people in the afternoon, it was predictable that some of them are more interested in their public relations than in the trial, Greekemmy is watching over them to introduce his own.

What exactly is Wikileaks?  Plea of Me Hamilton Fitzgerald

I managed to get back into the gallery without too much damage after waiting in the airlock and going up the fire escape, despite my fear of being pressured again by those present to give up my seat to someone « high up ». The vacated seats were quickly filled: Sevim Dagdelen and Heike Hänsel were seated next to Angela Richter. The young free-rider’s boyfriend blinks from behind me. Julian Assange enters the box at 2 pm. He is as sad as ever, sitting with his hands clasped, not looking at the family, not smiling at anyone… Hamilton Fitzegerald resumes his speech: he wants to rely on Article 10 of the extradition treaty, to present the « abuse of procedures », procedural flaws and to prove « on the basis of the Castillo and Murua jurisprudence » (probably Adgar Castillo against Spain – judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 1998) that Julian Assange had in his action political opinions, that he is therefore being prosecuted for these opinions and that therefore the extradition treaty would be violated if extradition were to apply to his case. Furthermore, his extradition would expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, the risk of suicide, and the risk of the death penalty. Then the lawyer quotes the witnesses who will appear: academics and journalists specialized in espionage and computer data leaks, Jamil Jabber from Columbia University, Michael Tigar, American attorney and professor, and also the very famous Noam Chomsky. Then the lawyer recounts the story of the « Wikileaks » publications: he tells how Bradley Manning said he downloaded the documents himself, contacted the Washington Post, and then decided in February 2010 to give everything to the « Wikileaks » website, including the film of the « air attack on innocent civilians in Iraq » and, on March 8, 2010, the documents relating to the Guantanamo Bay prison, guided by the idea that it was « in the public interest » to publish them. Passing quickly over the fact that it was the Obama administration that initiated the hostilities against Julian Assange, the lawyer charges President Trump by recalling his violent tirades against the journalistic profession. Gareth Peirce then goes to Julian Assange and hands him a document. He gets up with difficulty to take it, sits down and stares in front of him without moving.

Edward Hamilton then paints with a few flattering phrases the « Wikileaks saga » that lasted a few months, a year maximum in 2010 and 2011. In his mouth Julian Assange is mixed with « Wikileaks » without it being clear who decides what. He even credits the site as « catalyst of the Arab revolutions by exposing the corruption of the Ben Ali clan in Tunisia » which makes me smile a little. Through friends of UGET, Redeyef, the Patriotic Democratic Party that I supported in 2011, I know that Tunisians did not need Westerners to realize the violence and corruption of the dictatorship in which they lived. I also know that the real Revolution of December 2010 started from demonstrations launched by activists of the UGET, one of the oldest trade union organizations in Africa, just as the « Kasbah 1 » movement in February 2011 was initiated by two young girls desperate for repression, Zahra and Hawra Khammassi, Zahra being in charge of the UGET union at the Faculty of April 9. I hope one day to be able to get Julian Assange to meet the real protagonists of this story, but for that to happen, he has to get out of this jail. While the lawyer continues to explain the case, I finally see that Julian Assange looks at me firmly, I immediately respond by supporting his gaze. Then he looks more tired and the self-centered and repetitive gestures reappear: he rubs his fingers and again raises his head towards the ceiling as if he had a backache. But then I see even more clearly the look in his eyes that says he is suffering.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Ramy-Tunisie.jpg.
The real revolutionaries of Tunisia: Ramy Sghayer, UGET activist and one of the leaders of Kasbah 1, January 2011

Fitzgerald then makes the trial of the company UnderCover Global, of the spying that it exercised on lawyers like Gareth Peirce, who will also be a witness, how it « poisoned » the relations in the premises of 3 Hans Crescent Street by abusing the good faith of Fidel Narvaez, head of security of the Ecuadorian diplomacy. It is in this context that Fitzgerald places the story he tells: that of Dana Rohrabacher, a senator close to Trump who came in 2016 to promise Julian Assange to let him out of his captivity in exchange for information allegedly given by the Russians. Fitzgerald again condemns the Trump administration as practicing political blackmail, seeking to extort benefits on the back of his client. I think the political narrative is getting a bit off track: for my part I would have liked to know more about the motivations of the Wau Holland Stiftung when it decided in December 2006 to « fördern », i.e. both support and execute, the 04 Wikileaks project[11].

As for Germany, journalists from Spiegel will play an important role as defense witnesses – Fitzgerald cites John Goetz and even Jacob Augstein, the son of Rudolf Augstein, the magazine’s founder, as witnesses who have always claimed that Julian Assange protected his sources and was never involved in hacking classified documents. Unfortunately, while the lawyer portrays a politically committed man, a champion of transparency and anti-imperialist struggle, the flattering praise has no effect on the morale of Julian Assange who seems immobile, locked in his suffering. I too am beginning to feel bad about witnessing his suffering, and it is not Fitzgerald’s words quoting a Chomsky charge about Trump that will give me confidence, as Obama is largely responsible for the « Julian Assange manhunt » as well. Finally, the lawyer addresses the hardest but most obvious: extradition will lead Julian Assange to undergo « degrading and inhumane treatment », the risk of a life sentence is evoked, and the conditions of imprisonment in the United States detailed. Finally, Fitzgerald exposes that his client’s living conditions, the fact of « being exposed with his family as a target », of being « exposed to isolation » has led his client, according to two doctors quoted, Dr. Crosby and Prof. Malon, to a « clinical depression ». Extradition will worsen his « fragile state of health » and lead him to suicide.

The curtain falls. Baraitser adjourns. Julian Assange raises his fist but looks exhausted. I refuse to leave our box until he leaves his. I observe his walk, his gestures, I observe the guards. Nevertheless, I could meet his eyes one last time. When I leave the building, a hundred journalists, some kneeling, are religiously listening to John Shipton. I recognize and greet some of my Yellow Vest friends. It is necessary to debrief and rest, to understand what is happening. Tomorrow I will come back.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Assange-13-janvier.jpg.
Julian Assange, as I saw him in real life on January 13, 2020, room 1 of the Westminster Magistrate Court.

[1] https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/belmarsh-magistrates-court

[2] https://www.thelawpages.com/magistrates-county-crown-court/Belmarsh-Magistrates-Court-106.html

[3] https://searchapplications.bromley.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=L5YN3SBT06500

[4]

https://www.securinorme.com/prevention-au-travail/238-issues-de-secours-et-degagement-sur-les-lieux-de-travail-quelle-est-la-reglementation-

[5] https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_token=72B2BC88F1ABEC29FC17342ED048F90C2CD3180F91B4ABC04CC549D1FF9DBC78DEDF372F0216B3421318E1E20D7C94DF&p_nameid=783838A9DC6C9F54&p_corpid=0DFAEC3F1D70B519&p_captcha=14488&p_captcha_check=72B2BC88F1ABEC29FC17342ED048F90C2CD3180F91B4ABC04CC549D1FF9DBC78250B421436A200E165E9DFBDDBEDCDA1&p_entity_name=%43%6F%75%72%61%67%65%20%43%6F%72%70&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%43%4F%4E%54%41%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

6.

L’attribut alt de cette image est vide, son nom de fichier est Dynadot-John-Shipton-Wikileaks-fevrier-2020-576x1024.png.

[7] http://www.wauland.de/media/2011_Jahresbericht.pdf, report 2011

[8] http://www.wauland.de/media/2011_Jahresbericht.pdf, page 5

[9] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/interviews/adrian-lamo.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/19/760317486/the-mysterious-death-of-the-hacker-who-turned-in-chelsea-manning

[10] http://www.wauland.de/media/2009_Jahresbericht.pdf

[11] http://www.wauland.de/media/2009-12-28_Protokoll.pdf, Report of the Board of Administration of the Wau Holland, 28 december 2009