Britain’s Chess Game Against Julian Assange in Two Moves: Jump + Bump
My most succinct summary of the Assange Exclusion clause possible.
Two chess moves in the entrapment of Julian Assange within Britain and prove irrefutably that he has been arbitrarily detained.
It’s been a chess game and psychological warfare for at least a decade and there does not seem like the end is in sight unless we bring this to the public’s attention immediately. I’ve written a few pieces on the Assange Exclusion Clause and made a video to explain it as clearly as possible.Preliminary Information:
Assange was wanted on an EAW (European Arrest Warrant) issued by Sweden to Britain for sexual activity he had with women in August 2010.
Britain was a part of the European Union at the time and party to agreements between countries whenever a suspect in one country was located in a different country within the E.U..
Britain (UK) had a number of EAWs for other suspects that it was processing for extradition out of the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the government legal body that processes the EAW’s. A series of 545 pgs of CPS emails obtained in 2017 tells us the backstory of how Assange wound up in Belmarsh prison. The full extent of these emails has been suppressed.
Britain changed its extradition framework /rules for EAW’s in 2014. Assange was excluded from the new framework. How? Two chess moves.
1. JUMP — Britain put the Assange case ahead of other EAW cases by adjourning “scores” of them, thereby generating a backlog of pending EAW cases. It was put at the front of the line. It jumped the queue. It was fast-tracked and processed at break-neck speed in an irregular manner.
Other cases were “being adjourned regularly”, “held in abeyance”, thereby creating a “backlog” of the other EAW cases. The Assange case was processed at “breakneck speed”, the debate had “gone into hyperspace” and the result was a negative outcome for Assange. The EAW against him was deemed “valid” at the Supreme Court on May 30, 2012.
2. BUMP —
Assange was bumped from the queue of EAW’s that would be processed under the revised 2014 extradition framework. His case was bumped to the back of the line after a negative outcome was determined. He did not have equity before the law. His case was handled irregularly. First the UK jumped his case to the front of the line. The EAW was deemed valid (negative outcome) based on the non-revised extradition framework. The framework was revised to be proportionate so that uncharged persons could not be extradited. A clause was added to the framework which stated that EAW’s deemed valid prior to the new framework would not qualify for adjudication under the revised framework. It would not be applicable “retrospectively”.
It means that after Assange was put at the front of the line, ahead of other EAW cases, he was then bumped from the line (queue) for court processing according to the *REVISED*, more proportionate framework and was therefore excluded from the new standard for making decisions about who could be extradited from Britain.
The revised framework/law contained a phrase in it that said it “would not be applied retrospectively” to cases that had already been decided. Assange’s case was jumped to the front, then bumped to the back.
What should happen next?
The Supreme Court must reopen Assange’s S.C. Appeal immediately.
It is a scandal that this happened. The only bright side is that Assange is still alive. We must resist.
We must resist with all of our might. Before Assange dies.
