Jude Fleming
51 min readJun 28, 2021

--

Preface: Don’t shoot the messenger. Don’t shoot the researcher who seeks answers. This is a good news story. It is a litmus test for loyalty. It may prompt more public outcry and prevent potential internal sabotage of Assange’s defence and Wikileaks’ future. It also serves as a performance appraisal of Kristin Hrafnsson, current Editor in Chief of Wikileaks. To any critics of my timing this post I emphasize that I did not delay in reporting on full documents I found on the UK FOIA site 3 years ago but colleagues and supporters have.

In process of hunting down and publishing facts, journalists and publishers expose themselves to criticism for either not disclosing more documents or over-redacting them or not redacting them enough. Some publishers disclose documents in batches over a longer time period, others disclose full data sets at once. Award winning journalist Glenn Greenwald faced criticism for his handling of the Snowden documents. He handled the criticism professionally, even when it came from Assange. It is an arm wrestle but it is not libel.

This post won’t make me popular, but siding with truth is not a popularity contest. I will face more gaslighting, insults and potentially a lawsuit, but it may expose some important factions just prior to Assange’s extradition case. The subtext of this article is GaslightingJude. To some Assange/ Wikileaks supporters, I’m already ostracized, and my motives have been questioned but to others, it will raise alarm bells. I cast a wider net for scrutinising all persons who possessed knowledge in the public interest but suppressed it or deflected attention from it. For anyone to attack me for wanting more answers is to call attention to their own questionable motives or lack of appetite for the truth. Those with prominence hold the greatest responsibility for transparency and accountability. Anyone with a public platform that does not take the findings of UK corruption in the Assange case seriously is betraying Assange personally. Silence is complicity. Despite my willingness to walk my position backwards over the past 7 months, to be less confrontational I must persist in my calls for accountability on behalf of Julian Assange. I found the “SMOKING GUN”, showed it to those I considered allies, but they dismissed it, continue to deflect attention from it and have reacted aggressively toward me. Their derision alarms me. It should alarm others. A miscarriage of justice occurred. Key evidence was not disclosed to the victim of this injustice. There is a murder in progress. We must stop it immediately. I reiterated my demand for Wikileaks to post the FULL DOCs on its twitter platform to 5.6 million followers today with a poll. I republished an article “Frenemies in the Time of Revolution”.

“I am up against a SuperPower with unlimited resources…” ~Julian Assange, (October 2019), Caged journalist in a maximum security prison, with two weeks until a US Extradition request is fought in a UK court, without limited access to lawyers, paperwork, or adequate technology, cut off from the public and unable unable to adequately prepare for his own defence.

With only 1 week left prior to Season 2 of the Assange US extradition case in the UK, it is urgent that the UK’s judiciary is put under the microscope and its coordination of grave injustices is exposed internationally. For a detailed analysis of the legal irregularities, dangers and corruption please read this Open Letter written by over 152 lawyers (@Lawyer4Assange):

The timing of this post is outside of my control in so far as I am not responsible for others’ refusal to disclose full documents pertaining to his case or offer logical explanations for such negligence. Their delay serves to amplify my concerns and might actually trip a massive “Streisand Effect” of the suppressed evidence. Don’t blame me for the timing. The resistance to public coverage and amplification of the findings is the cause of the bad timing, not me.

From a compassionate vantage, it’s possible that medical issues have delayed Hrafnsson andor Maurizi in highlighting explosive evidence of UK corruption. If either is ill, under personal family pressure or managing private crises which have not been made public, I wish them good health and recovery.

If either has actively stashed or blocked information in the public interest, that is a different matter. To put it in a positive light, had either journalist covered the UK corruption story based on even Annex 15 of the FOIA disclosures, Assange would likely have been freed and compensated for the arbitrary detention and torture he’s endured and he would be better able to defend himself against US prosecution. They had the full documents on Feb. 1, 2020 well before the pandemic outbreak and weeks prior to Season 1 of the Assange US extradition hearing (Feb. 24–28, 2020) where he was displayed like a political trophy in a fishtank of Woolwich court room. Feb 1st is a benchmark date because I communicated via twitter and phone to Hrafnsson directly along with tweeps on Twitter regarding my findings.

Another benchmark date is Aug. 3, 2017 when Maurizi confirms she obtained Annex 15, the first of multiple FOIA releases from the Crown Prosecution Service (UK). Had she shared full documents directly with Assange at that time, false UK narratives (GaslightingAssange), a lot of torture, privacy raids and illegal spying could have been prevented. Assange would certainly not be in custody and the United Nations would have had irrefutable evidence that Assange is/was/will be arbitrarily detained. In fact the past 3 years of GaslightingAssange could have been mitigated or reversed.An interrogation on behalf of Julian Assange: Who knew what; when? What did they do with the information after obtaining it? Why? If it is in the public interest, why wasn’t it circulated more widely among my supporters? Who are the “Early-Know-it-Alls” and why did they exclude others from knowing, despite respectful and persistent inquiries? Is there any excuse for this negligence?

My intention is to adopt the voice of Julian Assange who is, at this moment, caged in a COVID infested jail cell in maximum security, traumatised, separated from his fiancee and kids, without access to the internet, legal documents or lawyers. It must be terrifying. This post is written with the intention of asking questions Assange himself might want to ask if he had the freedom to do so. My motivation and priority is preserving the life and securing the freedom of Julian Assange.

Wikileaks Mission: Wikileaks mission is to expose injustice and to publish information of historical, political or social justice importance which would otherwise be censored. To borrow a phrase from Edward Snowden, it “works for the public”, on public donations in the public interest. It has a well earned reputation for being the publisher of last resort because most media organisations are limited in what they are allowed to publish based on corporate or government pressures. Wikileaks has always had a policy of disclosing full documents with the least amount of redactions within a context of harm minimisation. As of today, it has not done this.

Timeline: Feb 1, 2020 I stumbled upon UK FOIA results (545 pgs) and focussed most of my attention on Annex 15. I . HAVE. BEEN. CALLING. ATTENTION. TO. THIS. SINCE. FEB 1, 2020 AND BEEN GASLIT EVER SINCE. I read details which I had never before known. Annex 15 from an FOIA release directly from the UK government. If you haven’t read all 336 pgs already, make it a priority), which had not been made public concerning the Assange case, conducted due diligence to determine this, forwarded links to Wikileaks, phoned the Wikileaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, contacted Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, tweeted my findings, then wrote a blog to update an earlier blog I wrote outlining the Assange Exclusion Clause and the Assange Policy. I even did a teaching video about it. There was some backlash from Maurizi, no response from Hrafnsson, some accusatory tweets from concerned supporters and some affirmations of my concerns. This post aims to calcify my concerns, despite the threat of being sued for potential libel of Maurizi or Hrafnsson who together have a Twitter audience of almost 6 million followers.

If you had evidence of corruption proving exactly what the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UN WGAD) determined, wouldn’t you want to leverage that evidence to free Julian Assange? Even if you were the one to initially obtain the information back in August 2017 (3 yrs ago) but did not realize the legal or political significance of it at the time, wouldn’t you at least post a link to it or another writer’s conclusions based on the facts? If you are Maurizi or Hrafnsson, the answer is “no”. That also includes any person in possession of Annex 15, an ability to read and connect the dots and an public audience in support of Julian Assange. For the remainder of this post, I will group all persons with a prominent or public role in the defence of Julian Assange who also possessed Annex 15 + other FOIA releases into a set called: “Early-Know-it-Alls”, even though there is more unknown evidence which was deleted by the UK. It includes Hrafnsson, Maurizi, defence lawyers, well-known supporters, other journalists, Wikileaks staffers, non-profit human rights/press freedom group members and anyone else who had access to and knowledge of Annex 15, (plus other FOIA releases).

In view of Hrafnsson’s prominent role as Editor in Chief of Wikileaks, Maurizi’s initial custody of the documents, the urgency of Assange’s defence and the solidarity required by supporters to defend Assange, I urgently call upon everyone to investigate, teach, report and expose the criminal behaviour of UK authorities. I call upon everyone to investigate, crowdsource and publicize this crime to the last detail — and do so in full transparency. Those responsible must be identified and held accountable.

The Early-Know-it-Alls have had evidence of UK corruption and collusion with Sweden to arbitrarily detain and consequently torture and legally handicap Assange and his defence team for over 3 years but have suppressed it. I specifically requested that Hrafnsson publish the documents on Wikileaks, with indexing, press releases and explanatory articles. I was indirectly told, through other tweeps, that I was out of line and that Hrafnsson knew better. It’s been years since I personally spoke with him by phone and still, the information is suppressed. This does not fit the mission of Wikileaks or the personal welfare of its founder, Julian Assange.

My tweet below summates my confusion;

Background: Exculpatory Information was Suppressed.

I have researched the Assange case closely for a decade. Not much gets by me. On Feb. 1, 2020 I stumbled upon multiple caches of documents, many of which I had never before seen. I was stunned. I queried Twitter (accounts and general posts) as to whether or not they had been previously reported. I shared the link for crowdsourcing efforts then wrote a blog proving Britain cheated Assange. It’s plain as day. To the best of my knowledge I am the only journalist to have reported on this specific finding.

It might make me unpopular, but journalism is not a popularity contest.

What would Julian Assange have done? What would Assange do now?

Put yourself in the dark COVID place where Assange currently resides, emotionally and physically. Now rewind to August 2017 before he was placed under intense surveillance at Ecuador’s embassy in London and disconnected from the internet.

Would he have withheld any in whole or in part? Would he have indexed and published them for easier access and referencing for journalists and bloggers (eg. Podesta and Stratfor email releases)? Would he, as Editor in Chief of Wikileaks at the time, deem the emails to be insignificant from an historical, political or ethical standard? Wikileaks is the publisher of last resort, not bound by publication bans, that releases information of historical, diplomatic, ethical and political value. It appears, from this tweet below, that in Nov. 2017 he did not have the full annexes of FOIA results obtained by Maurizi on Aug. 3, 2017.

If anyone had and has a right to immediate access to Annex 15, it’s Assange. If he had these documents 3 yrs ago, he would have fought to reopen an Appeal to the UK Supreme Court and asked the United Nations to reiterate its ruling that he has been unjustly arbitrarily detained based on Annex 15 evidence.

Full docs or it didn’t happen: If Wikileaks refuses to publish the emails, or tweet the link to 5.6 million followers, or issue a press release and/or generally handle the evidence of UK corruption with indifference, the logical conclusions are problematic. There is essentially no where else to go unless another courageous publisher decides to publish it.

If I were Assange, I would be livid. I would sue Hrafnsson, Maurizi and any defence lawyers who either overlooked or withheld information obtained 3 yrs ago then suppressed it from the public historical record. He cannot confront them himself.

Did he have the evidence when it was initially obtained in Aug. 2017? If not, why not? Who else had early access to Annex 15 and the other released batches? Select “grassroots supporters” like Emmy Butlin, but not me? Lawyers? Did the entire legal team have access or just a selected few lawyers? Which lawyers had access (if any) and how did the legal points I raised get past them?

I’m furious about it. Assange is separated from his own sons and wife without access to a functional computer, legal documents and a normal living situation. This could have been prevented had the “Know-it-Alls” done their jobs by focussing the world’s attention on emails that were released by the UK government, but they didn’t.

Assange’s Access to the full FOIA document cache (545 pgs):

It is clear from this tweet in November 2017 that Assange himself had access to less than one percent of the documents obtained by Maurizi. Even though she received them August 3, 2017 Assange’s tweet (left) 3 months later confirms that he did not have the initial cache, Annex 15. It is not plausible that he would have overlooked emails which referenced him by name or the words “back log, abeyance and adjourned pending the outcome of Assange.”

Maurizi had Annex 15 many years ago and confirms receipt in this tweet:

The mystery is why she didn’t share the 336 pgs. with Assange, his lawyers, other journalists or crowdsource it on Twitter/ Reddit / Social media. I personally followed up with her numerous times via tweets and DM’s to request more documents and cross reference other email collections I researched and found as due diligence, but she was not cooperative or helpful. I am unsure whether Assange’s lawyers had access to the full 336 pgs and have not had responses when I have queried. It is puzzling that his legal team would have reviewed Annex 15 and overlooked key terms.

Her reporting on Annex 15 was preliminary and incomplete though it received good media coverage. She missed key evidence. To add irony to her drip of the information, she tweeted this:

Credit where credit is due:

Thanks to the sleuth work of Stefania Maurizi who filed FOIA requests across multiple jurisdictions of countries, we have knowledge of parts of the Assange case we would not have otherwise known. (5 links 1. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/disclosure_15_1.pdf … 2. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/disclosure_15_annex_0.pdf … 3. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Disclosure-22-Assange-CPS-correspondence-with-Swedish-Prosecuting-Authority-09-11.pdf … 4. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Disclosure-23-Assange-CPS-correspondence-with-Swedish-Prosecuting-Authority-17-11.PDF … 5. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Disclosure-24-Assange-CPS-correspondence-with-Swedish-Prosecuting-Authority-20-12.pdf … )

Her investigation into more information from US departments is ongoing and I wish her the best of luck. I eagerly await the full results of any FOIA that she receives in the public interest. She has done more than her duty and deserves credit for her tenacity in the pursuit of more information on this case. I’m grateful. My complaint is that the source materials were not made readily available or linked for readers to scan directly. If she had access to all of the annexes, why didn’t she inform the public fully? Why start a court case to get more information and lead supporters to think that the only information she received from FOIA requests is the content upon which she alone reported? It was misleading.

I am grateful that Maurizi pursued and obtained the documents. I am, however, justifiably critical of her handling of it and will persist in my due diligence. She in turn is defensive and unwilling to explain herself. She has stated that she a. already reported on information (partially true, but not on what I unearthed), b. her litigation is ongoing (true, but does not explain her indifference to key facts I disclosed but she did not) and c. she threatened me with a libel lawsuit. The job of a good journalist or researcher is to ask questions, seek answers and report findings. That is what I am doing and she partially did. Any libel suit she might launch would necessitate legal counsel. I am curious who she might retain to represent her. It would be interesting if she might hire a lawyer from Doughty Street Chamber which is closley associated with the very person who orchestrated the perverted miscarriage of justice against Assange in the first place, then Director of Public Prosecutions (UK DPP), Sir Kier Starmer. Why would one journalist threaten to sue a supposed ally for doing the work she should have done and continues to neglect?

It would be interesting if any of Assange’s current defence team would defend the indefensible negligence of Maurizi and/or Hrafnsson. It would certainly unmask any schisms or disloyalties.

The reaction was over-the-top, unreasonable and definitely not the expected cooperation from an ally in the fight to free Julian Assange. It signalled to me that something was amiss and made me more wary of Maurizi than I was before. Clearly Maurizi did not interpret my due diligence as the habit of a thorough researcher. She felt offended by it and went on the offense to intimidate me from examining the unfolding of both information and events. It felt like I touched a nerve, unintentionally and the reaction was meant to censor me.

Around the same time, I had tweeps defending Maurizi and Hrafnsson by accusing me of victimising them. I pointed out that in the arena of victim evaluations, Assange “wins” the victim competition and continues to be tortured, possibly due to their neglect of full reportage.

I was accused of having a vendetta, undermining Assange’s sole ally within journalism, having questionable motives and was threatened with a libel lawsuit.

I have persisted in my calls for transparency and explanations for over 7 months with none provided. Instead, I have faced backlash, been threatened with a lawsuit, called obsessive, crazy and my motivations have been mischaracterised as a vendetta or an attempt to undermine support for Assange or his colleagues Kristinn Hrafnsson and Stefania Maurizi.

Over the past months, I now recognize Hrafnsson and Maurizi’s behaviour as “Gaslighting”, so Just as UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer was ignored by mainstream media, governments who are culpable of arbitary detention and torture of Assange and his reports were suppressed, I too have experienced backlash, unmerited ostracization and my work has been ignored by the two journalists whom I considered allies and colleagues. If gaslighting tactics are deployed against Assange to destroy him, so too, gaslighting tactics will be deployed against his truest allies and advocates. It is happening to the Assange defence team with vehemence.

Irrespective of Hrafnsson or Maurizi’s personal opinion of me, the release of the full documents is and was critical in the defence of Julian Assange. Had The Early-Know-it-Alls tweeted, written blogs/articles or press releases or conducted interviews on the findings and education I have provided, it is certain that Assange could have been rescued from the hell, theft and medical emergencies he has undergone. The story needs legs but inaction or deflection from the facts have handicapped it.

Did you do enough? Did you do your best? Could a different decision on your part have made a difference in Assange’s case? Have you used the Wikileaks platform to advertise documents that many knew very little about? There is still time to act, use the WL platform and educate others to Free Assange.

Facts, History, Context:

First, look at this tweet Assange posted Nov. 11, 2017 prior to his censorship on/from the Internet and during a time when Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) claimed to have deleted all files related to his case. It appears that Assange did not have access to the full document cache obtained by Maurizi beginning Aug. 3 2017 through to December 2017. She obtained 5 sets of FOIA results which totalled 545 pages, available on the UK’s CPS site. Assange had access to the “tip of the iceberg”, not the full set of documents as they were released. The tweet below was posted 3 months after the release of Annex 15 of the FOIA results.

Urgent Need to Amplify Facts Exposed rather than Ignore or Bury Them.

This post pertains to a murder in progress, which can be prevented by wider public awareness of the UK’s dirty tricks in the Assange case. Britain is getting away with torturing and asphixiating Assange. It’s been a decade. Anyone with a firing cerebral neuron understands it’s about exposing things the UK and US don’t want to be exposed. It’s not that the UK is naive or ignorant about torture. It has signed international treaties concerning the absolute prohibition of torture and the UN Rapporteur Nils Melzer on Torture has challenged it to investigate Assange’s case in detail. That was a year ago. To date, despite having agreed to the protocols for being a signatory of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), it has stonewalled Nils Melzer by refusing to conduct a thorough investigation or even cease it’s torture.

Torture for Dummies: With every day of torture, the risk of death and irreversible damage increases. Every hour, every minute, every meal or not-meal, every second of sleep deprivation, negative media story and now the ominous presence of COVID19 all concentrate the torture of Assange exponentially. There is an immediate requirement to investigate the torture claims, cease the torture, then grant Assange freedom and compensation.

In this context, I’ll state the obvious: to delay reporting of UK corruption in the Assange case is complicity in torture. Time is of the essence. To be passive is to be complicit. Any prolongation of torture is cruel, and inhumane. Any extension compounds his serious mental and physical health conditions. Prolongation of Assange’s arbitrary detention in a Covid infested jail increases the risk of him dying. I am gravely concerned for Assange’s welfare.

My questions remain unanswered

I continue to be alarmed over the suppression of information from a UK government site which could have been a game-changer in the Assange Case by both the Editor in Chief of Wikileaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson and a respected journalist Stefania Maurizi, as well as any Early-Know-it-Alls. I have sought answers and action for over 7 months but have not received any rational or appropriate follow up. Based on four FOIA annexes (posts of UK documents online), Assange should be free. When information is of historic, diplomatic, ethical or political value, it is crucial to disclose it with maximum exposure across the world. Timing is important in this case as it could have precluded years of arbitrary detention, torture and the impending prospect of US extradition.

His case is precedent setting for press freedom around the world.

It’s been almost 7 months since I posted the link to the FOIA results. To date, neither Hrafnsson (at the helm of Wikileaks), nor Wikileaks, nor Maurizi have reposted the link nor the article I wrote which explains their relevance. That translates into 190 days of Assange’s arbitrary detention, torture, lack of legal access and exposure to Covid19. Both journalists have large social media platforms and influence. Wikileaks has over 5.5 million followers on Twitter; Maurizi has 22 thousand followers (combined 6 million). It’s shocking that the Full Docs haven’t been posted by either online: not on twitter handles, not in Wikileaks press releases, not in any of Maurizi’s articles. Full Docs. There has only been a drip of information and over 95 percent of it has been swept under the carpet. That is why I thought I had discovered new information when I stumbled upon the UK government’s link to FOIA requests that were responsive to “Assange”. I took the information, reviewed it immediately, tweeted the link and crowdsourced with tweeps on Feb. 1st, 2020 and produced a blog here which brought light to portions of the emails which had previously been unpublished. I had never seen much of the content before. The turn-around time was less than 24 hours.

I have had some feedback concerning this link (inserted FOIA annexes), which reportedly was widely available in the public domain. I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I am a thorough researcher and had never seen these annexes until Feb. 1, 2020. It’s interesting that there is a “revisionist” effort unfolding which is meant to label it as “old news”. My question is this: Why was it not widely reported upon? There were a few articles by Maurizi and the Guardian but for the most part, much of the content was not reported on. I stand by my assertion that this was shocking new information. I do not accept that every single search engine I’ve used for over 9 yrs did not yield the apparently obvious, widely public annex results. It reminds me of “nothing to see here” talking points in strategic incapacitation operations. It is also reminiscent of the hacker culture of “pawning” and claiming to have been the first one to hack something… which I did not do. It was pure research].

There is no vendetta. I have offered objective feedback based on empirical facts and there has been push-back for me to self-censor.

In my view, Maurizi dropped the ball, should have shared the full set of documents with the wider public and taken a team approach to reporting them. She mishandled the Assange case information received from the UK’s Information Commissioners Office (ICO). She received over 445 pgs (Annex 15, 22 and others) but disclosed less than 2 percent in linked pdf’s which she posted online. Over the years I have made direct, polite requests for clarification and links to the FOIA information she held but she rejected them. It was like pulling teeth. She disclosed a small fraction of the data she obtained.

My findings and reporting are good news in the Assange saga. The withholding of documents from the public, under the guise of an aggressive pursuit of documents is troubling. You would think that the “Know-it-Alls” would treat me as an ally, rather than an enemy, and do everything possible to amplify the findings, not bury them or attack me.

It is implausible that I overlooked search results. If someone had tweeted, “ICYMI” here is a link to a some minimally redacted Assange case content” that would have been more plausible. But that never happened. I found the link to the UK government site on my own after almost a decade of research. For someone to claim that I “missed it” or accuse me of being a poor researcher is highly suspect and implausible. That would mean Assange himself missed it.

Maurizi only posted a fraction of the documents or abbreviated versions. She merely quoted a number of emails in her articles but often did not provide links or pdf’s to the actual document. To date, I have not seen Wikileaks or Maurizi post a link to the full caches of documents. Perhaps they don’t appreciate my demand that they do so. Ego aside, the documents are worthy of reposting and reposting. My audience is far smaller than theirs.

Maurizi filed requests for information, wrote articles (example) and has ongoing FOIA requests. She has, as any journalist, functioned as a monkey-in-the-middle between government and the public. She has stated that the documents she’s obtained thus far in the Assange case are but the tip of the iceberg. Given that, I still cannot understand why she has withheld, denied access and only dripped out the results of the FOIA request. Afterall the information is definitely in the public interest and she has an international team of lawyers fighting on her behalf to access more information on the Assange case in the public interest. That has been the basis of her ongoing litigation: she wants information which is in the public’s interest. She is mediating an important process.

To date, I have not had answers to any of the questions I posed to her other than to evade my questions. That is, if I got a reply from her to a question I asked, it didn’t answer the question; it evaded it or became a defensive attack on me or threat toward me. That type of response is hostile, unprofessional and divisive. It does not promote a collegial team-approach to the problem of not having access to documents in the Assange case. I have always considered myself an ally to both Hrafnsson and Maurizi. I always understood that I was on the same team as them and wanting more transparency in the Assange case. Clearly I was mistaken. It is my earnest hope that we will be able to “iron out our differences” and once again get back on the same team to free Julian Assange at this urgent point in his lifespan.

My frustration at this process rests in the urgency of saving Julian Assange but the ongoing deflections whenever I wanted clarity about the documents. In response to the question of why she did not disclose the full annexes, her response is that she is still litigating the FOIA case. That does not answer the question of possible mishandling of the information she already possessed.

As for Maurizi, I am grateful for her initiative and tenacity in the pursuit of documents pertaining to the Assange case. I stand by primary complaint of insufficient disclosure of her FOIA results and urge her to take a different approach with any new information she obtains. I am certain other journalists, Assange supporters, his family and Assange himself would agree.

Maurizi may not have published the FOIA annexes found here for a number of potential reasons.

Was there a publication ban? This would not make sense given that the UK government itself published the information and the information directly pertains to and names the Wikileaks founder.

After reviewing the entire cache of documents, she did not notice the portions which I have highlighted, nor understood the legal ramifications, and therefore published or quoted from selected documents which she deemed to be important. She felt no need to consult or crowdsource because she is highly familiar with the case, spent time with Assange in person numerous times and she did all of the legwork. If she did the legwork, she would get the lede. She chose to disclose partial emails or partial quotes because she felt competent in her custodial role in obtaining and holding the documents and would edit or publish them independent of others. She did not feel the need to share the information with a wider body of persons online or in person. (I respectfully disagree).

Did she have legal advice to prune the disclosures down to less than 1% of the FOIA results? Why didn’t she give the full story? She still could, but she hasn’t. Where do her loyalties lie? Does she have a side-hustle with the US Department of Justice, CIA or FBI?

Ego? It’s possible that Maurizi wanted to break “exclusive” stories to maintain an income, write a book on the Assange case, or to promote herself. There may be some ego issues at play.

I’m left to make conclusions about the “Know-it-Alls” that may stir consternation but reflect the viewpoint of Assange himself, family, children and long time supporters.

Context:

Maurizi published/reported on a fraction of documents she obtained from the UK government beginning Aug. 2017. She has refused to list the documents she published/reported upon for comparison despite my repeated, polite requests. My due diligence was mischaracterized as “harassment”. Her integrity as an ally of Assange depends on her transparency in this matter.

Any journalist worth their salt would have uncovered the information and shared it virally. Neither Maurizi nor Hrafnsson did so.

After much research and crowdsourcing I found a 26 pg. pdf not linked in a L’Espresso article so I converted it to a link here. The final page is one sentence. As it stands she released 34 pgs which amounts to less than one percent (1%) of the total. Why cherrypick? Why didn’t she just post the link directly from the UK site as I did? It would have been extremely helpful to have had access to these 3 years ago and definitely could have changed the course of history had they been in the public domain much sooner.

Did you share the full set of undeleted emails with the legal team, international experts (eg. law professor and UN torture expert Nils Melzer) or groups of journalists who protect press freedom and human rights? Did you mention the key words “abeyance”, “scores” and “cases are being adjourned regularly”? Did Professor Melzer know these annexes of documents existed? I didn’t. Which lawyers had access to these documents and when? How could they have missed the legal points I outlined in the Assange Exclusion Clause posts? I’m not even a lawyer and it was obvious to me. Assange was mentioned by name numerous times. If any of Assange’s legal defense team had full access to even Annex 15 for the past 3 yrs and did not draw the same conclusions, in my view, they are/were incompetent, negligent or wilfully blind to the facts, for a plethora of possible reasons, some of them corrupt. If there is corruption within the legal team or disloyalty to Assange’s welfare, might it have been rooted out early by a simple “conflict of interest” clearance? For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions during the time of Assange’s legal battles up to the UK Supreme Court was Kier Starmer who also worked with Doughty Chambers Law Firm in London UK where Jennifer Robinson, Estelle Dehon and Amal Clooney work. Does this constitute a conflict legally? I’m not sure; I’m not a lawyer. How can I, a non-lawyer, find the facts so telling and obvious yet none of his lawyers have discussed the points publicly, (independent of my article or teaching of the legal points)? It should have been and should be a top priority for his defence team and Wikileaks’ Editor in Chief, media partners and staff.

To date, I have not had a reply from Hrafnsson. The link to my complete article which explains the significance of the not-deleted emails has not been posted on his, nor Wikileaks, nor Maurizi’s twitter accounts. I have requested feedback but received none. It’s almost like I didn’t write it. My reach is 4 thousand followers. Wikileak’s reach is 5.5 million. Maurizi’s reach is 22 thousand.

I requested Maurizi’s feedback on my article a few times but was ignored. Curiously even Emmy Butlin, a long time Assange supporter, has not offered feedback on my Assange Exclusion Clause post but gone out of her way to scold me for calling out the inaction of Hrafnsson and Maurizi.

Why Hide the Smoking Gun?

I found evidence that proves, irrefutably, that the UK engineered a legal loophole, manipulated the ordering of EAW cases, fast tracking a negative outcome of the Assange case, revised its extradition law then excluded Assange, by name, with prejudice. It is criminal in the truest sense of the word, but neither has reported on it or shared the links. So it is troubling. To date I have not received satisfactory input from either which would help me understand the delay in the publication of Annex 15, 22 etc.. In the absence of a constructive reply, I must draw these conclusions:

Both journalists were in possession information which could have changed the course of Assange’s case. Maurizi had the information for about 3 years. Hrafnsson may have had it for the same length of time, but I’m only certain he obtained the information directly from me on Feb. 1 and 2, 2020. I requested that the information be indexed and published on Wikileaks for easier research and wider engagement of journalists, lawyers and activists who have followed the case.

I challenged Hrafnsson on his handling of the FOIA annexes which he possessed on Feb. 1, 2020 (via twitter and a voicemail) and also Feb. 2, 2020 when I DM’d him the links. I spoke with him directly by phone as he was entering Belmarsh to visit face-to-face with Julian Assange. He had the opportunity to tell him about the full set of emails. How can he justify his inaction? Has he traded his integrity for immunity from US prosecution? Valid questions. In my opinion, he has not met the standards of baseline expectations for the Editor in Chief of Wikileaks. Performance appraisal fail. He’s had the opportunity to help get Assange out of the blackhole of Belmarsh. It should have been his top priority. Instead, he has ignored evidence with inherent power to free him. He has acted in his own interest, not that of his employer (Assange and Wikileaks) nor of the public. In my view, it is John Shipton who has been the most effective advocate for preserving the life of his son and doing the work of Wikileaks’ leader, not Hrafnsson. Shipton has taken on a full time role which should be done by Hrafnsson, who by my measure is working on a casual part time basis on behalf of Assange, from the comfort of his home or vacation home with internet access.

I cannot trust Maurizi nor Hrafnsson until they provide a coherent justification for not making this information public at their earliest opportunity or using their 6 million + social media platforms for maximum impact of the documents. It should have been a top priority. But it wasn’t and still is not. This should enrage Assange and his supporters.

On Feb. 1, I tweeted the link, requested @wikileaks index the documents (after verification) and follow publication process. If it had done that MANY bloggers, journalists and media orgs would have reported it. Britain must be held accountable. @khrafnsson must be accountable.

It shows how the UK judiciary was weaponized against a journalist, by the UK creating a legal loophole designed to entrap, kettle, mob, torture, and decimate the reputation of Assange. It signals what will happen to other journalists. It is compulsory reading.

The US overthrows governments. If it could overthrow @Wikileaks, that would be the best coup of the century.

I DM’d this link, tweeted specific pages, phoned, spoke with @khrafnsson alerting him directly: cps.gov.uk/publication/fr…

On Sun. Feb 2, 2020, 8:46 am I spoke by phone with Hrafnsson just prior to his Belmarsh visit with Julian and his father John Shipton. I explained my findings in brief emphasizing the the words “in abeyance, adjourning pending outcome in Assange, back log…”. I urged him to check my twitter feed and stay tuned for a blog article I would be writing to summarize. I was hopeful, eager and seriously thought he would follow up, but he didn’t. He ignored me. He has done no work to promote the full set of emails or their crucial details.

Had they shared the full cache of documents with Assange, the Internet, his lawyers or other English speaking supporters I am certain that my findings would have been discovered and reported long before he was abducted from Ecuador’s embassy, had everything stolen and then detained in a maximum security prison, infested with COVID19.

What next:

It’s August 27th and Wikileaks still has not published a link to the emails which are the “smoking gun” proving the political and procedural abuse of the CPS. I am calling for the resignation of Wikileaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, who was in possession of a full cache of multiple FOIA Annexes (545 pgs in total) concerning the Assange case, directly from the UK government website, but did not publish, disclose or index that information in early Feb. 2020. Had Wikileaks published or posted the links, it would have / will go viral — as it should.

Wikileaks board of directors must conduct an investigation, follow fair human resources protocols, give him an opportunity to defend his actions or inaction, then decide on his ability to fulfil the role of Editor in Chief. The priority must be to free Assange even in the midst of a human resources dispute.

Give Hrafnsson an ultimatum: Publish or perish. Post the link to Annex 15 with a brief press release explaining the significance of the emails contained therein, or resign. Thus far Hrafnsson buried, dismissed, ignored the facts of Assange’s case. If he refuses to publish or draw attention to the full annex of UK corruption it is clear he is not an ally of Assange. If I were Assange, I would not even want his bloated body taking up space in the courtroom in September. Let a true ally, journalist, family member or supporter occupy the courtroom.

Analysis:

As a publisher of last resort, I would assume that Wikileaks was not under any D-notice or publication ban with respect to these annexes and even if it were, it would publish it in order to advance his defence against US extradition. Publish or perish and all that. It’s an implicit part of Hrafnsson’s job description to defend Julian Assange and expose the obvious corruption with mere days before a critical US extradition hearing. If he does not want to do this, then he should not have his job. Period. Let someone else take over as Editor in Chief of Wikileaks who is willing and able to fulfil the fundamental role description. At best, it is sloppy, lazy or an oversight. At worst, it is collusion and attempted cover up. There may be an effort to infiltrate and sabotage Wikileaks mission and legacy. The US overthrows governments. If it could overthrow @Wikileaks, that would be the coup of the century. Conspiracies cannot be ruled out; Assange is the target of international mobbing and the “gloves are off” to shut him and Wikileaks down.

A crisis of faith in Hrafnsson is better to happen now while Assange is still alive than after Assange dies. It might preserve his life. That is, if Assange regrets handing the reins over to Hrafnsson, survives torture and arbitrary detention and avoids US Extradition, he will be in a position to resume his role as Editor-in-Chief of Wikileaks. No coup required. Otherwise, if Hrafnsson is the wrong guy to lead Wikileaks now, he may permanently destroy Wikileaks source protection, 100% reputation for accuracy and historical legacy. Information wants to be free, not corralled into a corner of the internet, inert and not actively being used to free Julian Assange.

The best case scenario is that Hrafnsson has no intent to harm Assange but was overwhelmed, incompetent, managing a personal crisis which interfered with his ability to verify the documents or complete a fact check of the the information I drew to his attention. It was poor judgement. An oversight. Lack of confidence. The worst case scenario is he knowingly or unknowingly cooperated in a plan to take down Wikileaks and Assange. That he is under threat or being coerced into colluding with US interests to have Assange delivered to US soil. It’s possible that he would be acting out of protectiveness for his family and loved ones as well as perhaps earning immunity from prosecution himself in exchange for his cooperation.

Sharing is caring:

If I were Assange, I would say: “Time’s up Stefania and Kristinn. You’ve had 3 years to explain yourselves, publish the information on your own media platforms and on Wikileaks’ sites but you didn’t. You denied me crucial data and you betrayed me.”

Whatever the reasons, the fact that Wikileaks has not published Annex 15 of Assange case emails is a betrayal of Assange who is caged and dying. It is passive indifference which serves the purpose of passive censorship. It endangers Assange who opposes censorship. It has created a crisis of faith in leadership. I no longer trust Hrafnsson at the helm of Wikileaks. Not now and not if Assange dies.

“One person’s trash is another person’s treasure”

People who Knew-it-All relegated the FOIA documents to the dustbin, hoping no one would notice key facts contained therein. My articles explaining the Assange Exclusion Clause have been rejected by the Know-it-Alls but are worth wider reporting. Coherent, logical honest explanations are required.

How dare I confront Hrafnsson for his inaction. How dare I challenge Maurizi for her partial drips, selective reporting and shunning of more substantial facts I uncovered. How dare I challenge their integrity. How dare I question their sloppiness, incompetence, lack of courage or potential cooperation in the US prosecution and persecution of Assange or the erosion of Wikileaks’ legacy. These colleagues of Assange are the possibly the future leadership of Wikileaks. How dare I speak out.

If the Editor in Chief is ignoring substantial, primary source documents that were supposedly scrubbed by the UK government then either I am making a mountain out of a molehill, or the information is so explosive that even Wikileaks is afraid to publish it. Streisand Effect?

The public needs to be aware of the Assange Exclusion Clause. The documents need wider public attention.

I would still like the documents to be archived, indexed and searchable. It would be embarassing if a media organization, other than Wikileaks, took the initiative to do this. Dead or alive, Assange deserves our ongoing attention to the perversions of justice to which he has been subjected.

Conclusion:

If Assange could speak out about this situation what might he say? “This Could Have Been Prevented”

Dear Stefania, Why didn’t you give me all the documents immediately after receiving them? Why didn’t you crowdsource them, or make them available to all of my supporters and lawyers? You dropped the ball and I am dying. Why aren’t you continuing your reporting on my case with specific references to the full set of emails? It’s been over 3 years now. Why are you threatening to sue a reporter who is trying to inform the public about UK corruption in my case and challenging the way you withheld the bulk of the FOIA results? Why are you trying to minimise their significance? Stefania, thank you for obtaining the emails. Keep up the fight for more information on my case, whether I live or die in the next few months. Going forward crowdsource the documents, write comprehensive articles and use your platform to advance press freedom and my case. You mishandled the Annex 15 information but I’m confident you will do better going forward. Keep writing more articles based the UK disclosures and retweet others’ articles that advance my case.

Dear Kristinn, Why didn’t you publish the full documents, with indexing, a press release and interviews for wider public attention? You have a huge platform via Wikileaks and you squandered it. You saw me in Belmarsh on Feb. 2nd right after Jude called you to tell you about her explosive findings. You dropped the ball. Why haven’t you defended me with all of your might, partnered with other journalists and lawyers or even tweeted the links? You are the Editor-in-Chief of a free speech/free press, anti-censorship media organisation so why are you trying to vilify a reporter who is trying to inform the public about UK corruption in my case? Where does your loyalty lie? Do you have a side-hustle with the CIA, FBI or UCGlobal? How hard could it be to just retweet the link to our 5.6 million followers? You are supposed to be a friend and an ally but you have not behaved as either one. If you refuse to amplify the full documents which demonstrate UK corruption, what else are you sitting on from the Wikileaks dropbox? Are you censoring other massive leaks or news? Where is your editorial judgement? Kristinn, you must resign from Wikileaks. There is absolutely no excuse for your passivity. Let your conscience and integrity guide you to do the right thing.

To both of you: Explain yourselves. Don’t you realise that since August 2017 I have endured increasingly harsh torture, been disconnected from the internet and my lawyers, lost my public voice, my name has been dragged through the mud in media accounts, I was arrested, robbed of my belongings, prevented from marrying Stella or being a dad for Gabriel and Max, been denied contact with my family, exposed to a killer virus, humiliated in court, dragged out of the embassy, had my Ecuadorean citizenship and asylum revoked and am now facing the press freedom fight of the century but am unable to defend myself. How could you have buried the very documents that could have changed all of this or prevented it from happening to me? It is either a gross oversight or a bitter betrayal. You owe me explanations. You owe my family, lawyers and global supporters an explanation. How could you do this to me? Are you trying to kill me? Your inaction is sabotaging Wikileaks. Your inaction is enabling my ongoing torture. Whose side are you on? I’m caged in Belmarsh prison unable to convey my frustration and rage at your indifference to me. Annex 15 could still be leveraged to free me or at least help me achieve justice. If I die today, you are culpable in different degrees. You could have done something but you did not. I may not survive the damage your oversight or betrayal has caused. I am in the custody of my greatest adversary, the US, because you did not publish the full set of documents which could have saved me. Don’t pretend to be friend, ally or a champions of press freedom as long as you refuse to draw more public attention to the evidence of UK corruption. You are frauds. Ditto to the others who knew of the emails but did not crowdsource. How can you even call yourselves investigative journalists when you did not investigate the emails on my behalf or discarded them to the trash bin?

I was arrested on a ruse of bail breach, publicly humiliated by Ecuador’s lies, then arrested on behalf of the US. I was put in the equivalent of a fish tank in a court room as a prisoner in Category A prison, strip searched, had my documents confiscated, prevented in court room dynamics and repeatedly insulted by UK judges. Legal defence funds have been squandered because if these documents were widely published, in full with indexing, with comprehensive reporting, press releases, media interviews and crowdsourced, I would not be here in Belmarsh. This is a nightmare. This could have been prevented.

Court appearances have been a cruel extension of torture for me and given Britain the stage to gaslight, deride and obstruct justice. They have provided narrative cover to justify the stonewalling of the United Nations WGAD and Nils Melzer who came to evaluate me a year ago. I was dehumanized and subjugated unnecessarily.

Almost all of my resources have been drained: financially, emotionally, legally and access to my lawyers has been obstructed. Any person who had access or possession of the FOIA annexes concerning me but did not make that information public is complicit in my torture, arbitrary detention and possibly my death. Failure to publish this information may lead to US extradition, which amounts to a death sentence any way you slice it.

Your indifference, incompetence or likely collusion with my adversaries is not just a betrayal of me, but Stella, John, Christine, my children, friends, all publishers/journalists, the United Nations and global supporters who have fought for my freedom.

I am at death’s door. I’ve gone through hell and continue to go through hell every second of every day. What prompted you to tuck the information into an abyss, away from international scrutiny? Silence is complicity. . Your refusal to amplify the full documents or the importance of the previously unreported findings has maximised the harm done against me and put me on the precipice of being handed over to my enemy.

Explain yourselves in writing, in public. Until you do so, you are not welcome into my court hearing and I do not want you to speak on my behalf. Move aside. Publish or perish. Publish or resign. Publish or get out of the way of others who have the courage to publish.

“This could have been prevented.”

Assange’s Hell and the U.S.’s Heist

Ecuador’s UK Ambassador Gave DW a tour of the London Embassy following the kidnapping of Julian Assange.medium.com

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

Yes, Julian Assange. This could have been prevented. As the “Early-Know-it-Alls” why they didn’t let others know?

Let’s get to work, write articles, press releases, podcasts and interviews and retweet articles that shine a light on facts that could free Assange. Does Streisand still have her magical effect?

Despite the constant gaslighting, I will persist in challenging the decisions to publish or withhold documents, cover the Assange Exclusion Clause or not, retweet links or not. That which you resists, persists. So I will persist. It’s not “obsession”, it is an adherence to the truth and the demand for Assange’s freedom, the collapse of US prosecution and full compensation for his decade of suffering.

It’s been 3 years since Britain released documents concerning the Assange case but only dribbles of news stories have been reported. In hindsight, it would be understandable if Assange were outraged at the handling of the FOIA data results.

In conclusion, here is a morose mantra looping the mind of a man entrapped. He longs for freedom. He longs for justice.

“This Could Have Been Prevented.”

“I don’t belong here in Belmarsh.”

“This Could Have Been Prevented.”

“This Could Have Been Prevented”

Assange’s partner Stella Moris has to visit her partner with their kids in a British maximum security prison. Why? Because documents were not fully shared when they were obtained.

Summary: Could an earlier full release of the 445 pgs. of documents and broad strategy of media partnership spared Assange of psychological torture, mobbing and possible US extradition? Yes. Those who possessed and hoarded the emails (Early Know-it-Alls) personally owe Assange a serious explanation.

Pick a side. Are you going to aid and abet the UK /US “Assange Policy” and participate in the ongoing GaslightingAssange or will you educate the public about the historic injustices of the case?

Going forward, share Annex 15 widely. Demand explanations from the Early-Know-it-Alls (Maurizi, Hrafnsson, Butlin, defence lawyer(s) and et.al.).

Demand for more transparency, teaching, answers to the questions I’ve posed above and international reporting on the emails released by the UK government, particularly Annex 15 in order to Free Julian Assange now. Demand that Assange’s Supreme Court ruling be overturned and the historical record corrected. Do it now before Assange dies, before the US Extradition trial begins, before he is handed over to his enemy and entombed in a US prison for the remainder of his natural life. Stop the murder-in-progress. Contact your UK Member of Parliament, talk about this online, in podcasts and inform other Assange supporters before it’s too late. Donate to Assange’s legal defence fund.

“THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED”

An interrogation of colleagues in persona Julian Assange.

Preface:

My tweet below summates my confusion;

I was shocked to discover these documents, many previously unseen.

Assange’s Access to the full FOIA document cache (445 pgs):

It is clear from this tweet in November 2017 that Assange himself had access to less than one percent of the documents obtained by Maurizi. Even though she received them August 3, 2017 Assange’s tweet 3 months later confirms that he did not have the initial cache, Annex 15. It is not plausible that he would have overlooked emails which referenced him by name or the words “back log, abeyance and adjourned pending the outcome of Assange.”

Her reporting on Annex 15 was preliminary and incomplete though it received good media coverage. She missed key evidence. To add irony to her drip of the information, she tweeted this:

Is there a reason why Maurizi handled the FOIA results in this manner? She has not offered any explanation to me and took a litigious tone instead and treated my due diligence as harassment.

In this context, I’ll state the obvious: to delay reporting of UK corruption in the Assange case is complicity in torture. Time is of the essence. To be passive is to be complicit. Any prolongation of torture is cruel, and inhumane. Any extension compounds his serious mental and physicalhealth conditions. Prolongation of Assange’s arbitrary detention in a Covid infested jail increases the risk of him dying. I am gravely concerned for Assange’s welfare.

The “SMOKING GUN”.

Background: Exculpatory Information was Suppressed.

It’s been 3 full years since I posted the link to the FOIA results. To date, neither Hrafnsson (Wikileaks Editor) nor Maurizi have reposted the link nor the article I wrote which explains their relevance. That translates into 190 days of Assange’s arbitrary detention, torture, lack of legal access and exposure to Covid19. Both journalists have large social media platforms and influence. Wikileaks has over 5.5 million followers on Twitter; Maurizi has 22 thousand followers. The Twitter responses I got from both Hrafnsson and Maurizi were disappointing. It’s shocking that the information has not been shared in full by either online: not on twitter handles, not in Wikileaks press releases, not in any of Maurizi’s articles. There has only been a drip of information and over 90 percent of it has been swept under the carpet. That is why I thought I had discovered new information when I stumbled upon the UK government’s link to FOIA requests that were responsive to “Assange”. I took the information, reviewed it immediately, tweeted the link and crowdsourced with tweeps on Feb. 1st, 2020 and produced a blog here which brought light to portions of the emails which had previously been unpublished. I had never seen much of the content before. The turn-around time was less than 24 hours.

Her investigation into more information from US departments is ongoing and I wish her the best of luck. I eagerly await the full results of any FOIA that she receives in the public interest. She has done more than her duty and deserves credit for her tenacity in the pursuit of more information on this case. I’m grateful. My complaint is that the source materials were not made readily available or linked for readers to scan directly. If she had access to all of the annexes, why didn’t she inform the public fully? Why start a court case to get more information and lead supporters to think that the only information she received from FOIA requests is the content upon which she alone reported? It was misleading.

There is no Vendetta. I have offered objective feedback based on empirical facts and there has been push-back for me to self-censor.

My findings and reporting are good news in the Assange saga. The withholding of documents from the public, under the guise of an aggressive pursuit of documents is troubling. You would think that the “Know-it-Alls” would treat me as an ally, rather than an enemy, and do everything possible to amplify the findings, not bury them or attack me.

It is implausible that I overlooked search results. If someone had tweeted, “ICYMI” here is a link to a some minimally redacted Assange case content” that would have been more plausible. But that never happened. I found the link to the UK government site on my own after almost a decade of research. For someone to claim it as an “ICYMI moment” or accuse me of being a poor researcher is highly suspect and implausible. That would mean Assange himself missed it. Note-worthy: The link was not posted by Wikileaks. Maurizi only posted a fraction of the documents or abbreviated versions. She merely quoted a number of emails in her articles but often did not provide links or pdf’s to the actual document. To date, (now May 5th) I have not seen Wikileaks or Maurizi post a link to the full caches of documents. Perhaps they don’t appreciate my demand that they do so. Ego aside, the documents are worthy of reposting and reposting. My audience is far smaller than theirs.

Maurizi filed requests for information, wrote articles (example) and has ongoing FOIA requests. She has, as any journalist, functioned as a monkey-in-the-middle between government and the public. She has stated that the documents she’s obtained thus far in the Assange case are but the tip of the iceberg. Given that, I still cannot understand why she has withheld, denied access and only dripped out the results of the FOIA request. Afterall the information is definitely in the public interest and she has an international team of lawyers fighting on her behalf to access more information on the Assange case in the public interest. That has been the basis of her ongoing litigation: she wants information which is in the public’s interest. She is mediating an important process.

To date, I have not had answers to any of the questions I posed to her other than to evade my questions. That is, if I got a reply from her to a question I asked, it didn’t answer the question; it evaded it or became a defensive attack on me or threat toward me. That type of response is hostile, unprofessional and divisive. It does not promote a collegial team-approach to the problem of not having access to documents in the Assange case. I have always considered myself an ally to both Hrafnsson and Maurizi. I always understood that I was on the same team as them and wanting more transparency in the Assange case. Clearly I was mistaken. It is my earnest hope that we will be able to “iron out our differences” and once again get back on the same team to free Julian Assange at this urgent point in his lifespan.

My frustration at this process rests in the urgency of saving Julian Assange but the ongoing deflections whenever I wanted clarity about the documents. In response to the question of why she did not disclose the full annexes, her response is that she is still litigating the FOIA case. That does not answer the question of possible mishandling of the information she already possessed.

As for Maurizi, I am grateful for her initiative and tenacity in the pursuit of documents pertaining to the Assange case. I stand by primary complaint of insufficient disclosure of her FOIA results and urge her to take a different approach with any new information she obtains. I am certain other journalists, Assange supporters, his family and Assange himself would agree.

Maurizi may not have published the FOIA annexes found here for a number of potential reasons.

Was there a publication ban? This would not make sense given that the UK government itself published the information and the information directly pertains to and names the Wikileaks founder.

After reviewing the entire cache of documents, she did not notice the portions which I have highlighted, nor understood the legal ramifications, and therefore published or quoted from selected documents which she deemed to be important. She felt no need to consult or crowdsource because she is highly familiar with the case, spent time with Assange in person numerous times and she did all of the legwork. If she did the legwork, she would get the lede. She chose to disclose partial emails or partial quotes because she felt competent in her custodial role in obtaining and holding the documents and would edit or publish them independent of others. She did not feel the need to share the information with a wider body of persons online or in person. (I respectfully disagree).

Did she have legal advice to prune the disclosures down to less than 1% of the FOIA results?

She may have conversed directly with Assange (she obtained a large cache of information in 2017 prior to his embassy visits and internet access being cut off), and he may have instructed her to withhold over 90 percent of the findings. I don’t think this is the case.

Ego building? It’s possible that Maurizi wanted to break “exclusive” stories to maintain an income, write a book on the Assange case, or to promote herself. There may be some ego issues at play.

I’m left to make conclusions about Maurizi, Hrafnsson and the “Know-it-Alls” that may stir consternation but reflect the viewpoint of Assange himself, his fiancee, family and children.

Context:

Maurizi published/reported on a fraction of documents she obtained from the UK government beginning Aug. 2017. She has refused to list the documents she published/reported upon for comparison despite my repeated, polite requests. My due diligence was mischaracterized as “harassment”. Her integrity as an ally of Assange depends on her transparency in this matter.

Any journalist worth their salt would have uncovered the information and shared it virally. Neither Maurizi nor Hrafnsson did so.

After much research and crowdsourcing I found a 26 pg. pdf not linked in a L’Espresso article so I converted it to a link here. The final page is one sentence. As it stands she released 34 pgs which amounts to less than one percent (1%) of the total. Why cherrypick? Why didn’t she just post the link directly from the UK site as I did? It would have been extremely helpful to have had access to these 3 years ago and definitely could have changed the course of history had they been in the public domain much sooner.

Did you share the full set of undeleted emails with the legal team, international experts (eg. law professor and UN torture expert Nils Melzer) or groups of journalists who protect press freedom and human rights? Did you mention the key words “abeyance”, “scores” and “cases are being adjourned regularly”? Did Professor Melzer know these annexes of documents existed? I didn’t. Which lawyers had access to these documents and when? How could they have missed the legal points I outlined in the Assange Exclusion Clause posts? I’m not even a lawyer and it was obvious to me. Assange was mentioned by name numerous times. If any of Assange’s legal defense team had full access to even Annex 15 for the past 3 yrs and did not draw the same conclusions, in my view, they are/were incompetent, negligent or wilfully blind to the facts, for a plethora of possible reasons, some of them corrupt. If there is corruption within the legal team or disloyalty to Assange’s welfare, might it have been rooted out early by a simple “conflict of interest” clearance? For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions during the time of Assange’s legal battles up to the UK Supreme Court was Kier Starmer who also worked with Doughty Chambers Law Firm in London UK where Jennifer Robinson, Estelle Dehon and Amal Clooney work. Does this constitute a conflict legally? I’m not sure; I’m not a lawyer. How can I, a non-lawyer, find the facts so telling and obvious yet none of his lawyers have discussed the points publicly, (independent of my article or teaching of the legal points)? It should have been and should be a top priority for his defence team and Wikileaks’ Editor in Chief, media partners and staff.

It appears that both journalists were in possession information which could have changed the course of Assange’s case. Maurizi had the information for about 3 years. Hrafnsson may have had it for the same length of time, but I am only certain he obtained the information directly from me on Feb. 1 and 2, 2020. I requested that the information be indexed and published on Wikileaks for easier research and wider engagement of journalists, lawyers and activists who have followed the case.

I challenged Hrafnsson on his handling of the FOIA annexes which he possessed on Feb. 1, 2020 (via twitter and a voicemail) and also Feb. 2, 2020 when I DM’d him the links. I spoke with him directly by phone as he was entering Belmarsh to visit face-to-face with Julian Assange. He had the opportunity to tell him about my research results. How can he justify his inaction?

I cannot trust Maurizi nor Hrafnsson until they provide a coherent justification for not making this information public at their earliest opportunity or even tweeting the full annexes of documents in their Twitter timelines. That was left to me.

Please don’t insult me by telling me that I should have waited for another journalist to write an article I was perfectly able to write. @wikileaks should have shared it among many reporters so we ALL could have written about it. Maximum impact.

On Feb. 1, I tweeted the link, requested @wikileaks index the documents (after verification) and follow publication process. If it had done that MANY bloggers, journalists and media orgs would have reported it. Britain must be held accountable. @khrafnsson must be accountable.

It should have been a TOP priority. But it wasn’t.

It shows how the UK judiciary was weaponized against a journalist, by the UK creating a legal loophole designed to entrap, kettle, mob, torture, and decimate the reputation of Assange. It signals what will happen to other journalists. It is compulsory reading whether or not I wrote it.

The US overthrows governments. If it could overthrow @Wikileaks, that would be the best coup of the century.

I DM’d this link, tweeted specific pages, phoned, spoke with @khrafnsson alerting him directly: cps.gov.uk/publication/fr…

I called @khrafnsson at 8:46 am while he was about to enter Belmarsh to speak with Julian. I gave a brief explanation of my findings of “deleted” emails.

What next:

It’s August 27th and Wikileaks still has not published a link to the emails which are the “smoking gun” proving the political and procedural abuse of the CPS. I am calling for the resignation of Wikileaks Editor in Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, who was in possession of a full cache of multiple FOIA Annexes (545 pgs in total) concerning the Assange case, directly from the UK government website, but did not publish, disclose or index that information in early Feb. 2020. Had Wikileaks published or posted the links, it would have / will go viral — as it should.

Wikileaks board of directors must conduct an investigation, follow fair human resources protocols, give him an opportunity to defend his actions or inaction, then decide on his ability to fulfil the role of Editor in Chief. The priority must be to free Assange even in the midst of a human resources dispute

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Conclusion:

If Assange could speak out about this situation what might he say?

“This Could Have Been Prevented”

So much suffering could have been prevented. I can hear Assange’s voice saying this over and over and over again: “This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

“This could have been prevented.”

Yes, Julian Assange. This could have been prevented. As the “Early-Know-it-Alls” why they didn’t let others know?

“One person’s trash is another person’s treasure”

It appears that Hrafnsson, Maurizi and others have relegated the FOIA documents to the dustbin, hoping no one would notice important facts contained therein. My articles explaining the Assange Exclusion Clause are worth recyling and wider reporting.

How dare I confront Hrafnsson for his inaction. How dare I challenge Maurizi for her partial drips, selective reporting and shunning of more substantial facts I uncovered. How dare I challenge their integrity. How dare I question their sloppiness, incompetence, lack of courage or potential cooperation in the US prosecution and persecution of Assange or the erosion of Wikileaks legacy. These colleagues of Assange are the possibly the future leadership of Wikileaks. How dare I speak out.

If the Editor in Chief is ignoring substantial, primary source documents that were supposedly scrubbed by the UK government then either I am making a mountain out of a molehill, or the information is so explosive that even Wikileaks is afraid to publish it. Streisand Effect?

Don’t shoot the messenger. Full docs or it didn’t happen. The public needs to be aware of the Assange Exclusion Clause. The documents need wider public attention. My pointed question to Hrafnsson and Maurizi is captioned in the tweet below.

Let’s get to work, write some blogs, press releases, do interviews and retweet articles that shine a light on facts that could free Assange. Does Streisand still have her magical effect?

The salient point is this: If Hrafnsson, Maurizi and Wikileaks had given coverage of the full documents and possibly my analysis, then ASSANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN FREED BACK IN FEBRUARY, EVEN BEFORE “SEASON 1” of the Assange US Extradition hearing on Feb. 24th, 2020. That was over 6 months ago. PRE-COVID. I am using Feb 1, 2020 as my benchmark for communications directly with Hrafnsson regarding my findings.

Worse, had Maurizi shared full documents with Assange in August 2017, a lot of torture, privacy raids and illegal spying could have been prevented. Assange would certainly not be in custody and the United Nations would have had irrefutable evidence that Assange is/was/will be arbitrarily detained. Phillip Hammond would have no basis for GaslightingAssange. In fact the past 3 years of GaslightingAssange could have been mitigated or reversed.

Don’t blame me for the timing. The resistance to public coverage and amplification of the findings is the cause of the bad timing, not me.

Pick a side. Are you going to aid and abet the UK /US “Assange Policy” and participate in the ongoing GaslightingAssange or will you educate the public about the historic injustices of the case?

Despite the constant gaslighting I will persist in challenging the decisions to publish or withhold documents, cover the Assange Exclusion Clause or not, retweet links or not. That which you resists, persists. So I will persist. It’s not “obsession”, it is an adherence to the truth and the demand for Assange’s freedom, the collapse of US prosecution and full compensation for his decade of suffering.

It’s been 3 years since the UK released documents concerning the Assange case but only dribbles of news stories have been reported. It would be understandable if Assange were outraged at the handling of the FOIA data results.

There should be a greater demand for more transparency, teaching, answers to the questions I’ve posed above and international reporting on the emails released by the UK government, particularly Annex 15 in order to Free Julian Assange now. Join me in this demand. FreeAssange. Remove imposters from power. Expose imposters and bullies within the ranks of Assange supporters.

--

--