I agree with Assange in one aspect

The rule of law is breaking down because English lawyers use the law to make political decisions. It is woefully inadequate how the publication laws are unable to stop secret material to be published because the Freedom of Expression gives everybody a right to spill the beans on government secrets.

I think Assange must answer claims of the sexual nature that he has been accused of but the law should never use another reason to enforce those Swedish claims.

I noticed it during my own case that there is a disturbing mix of sexual harassment and political agitation going on and that always needs victims, unfortunately I may add. Yet the English courts are terribly indecisive and do not want to upset freedom of expression at any cost, which is too expensive really.

I have experienced myself how high-court judges put a political goal before the stark reality of the evidence in the case before them. In fact I think of trying a complaint in that nationalist emotions have lead a judge to make a ruling that is not supported by the actual evidence and that evidence has been bent to fit the case as desired. That is a crime.

But has it not always been like that with show-cases and show-trials. It doesn’t matter what you say or put before the court, they are determined to find one party guilty and that is set outcome. Are we any better? No!

Is there ever a chance to get justice from a justice system that is bent?

6 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Johanna Kaschke
    Nov 02, 2011 @ 09:31:01

    It is Osler who wanted the judge to accept the case based on his recollection. and the judge always accepted his recollection when he needed it to fit the desired outcome but refused to accept my recollection when it didn’t fit the desired outcome.

  2. Johanna Kaschke
    Nov 02, 2011 @ 09:28:45

    No, the defendant wanted use evidence he could not proof existed. The court refused to accept that it was the Defendant who published a translation of Der Spiegel article in the English language, that I had supplied to a lawyer and which was made public. The court did ignore that in favour of the Defendant. The Defendant wanted to rely on evidence he did not produce and what he produced was not proven to come from me.

  3. Johanna Kaschke
    Nov 02, 2011 @ 09:14:33

    My case wasn’t weak I was just refused any type of affordable legal support. Whilst the defendants got free support from lawyers, right, left and centre I was left without any assistance. that shows that it is the English making sure I lose a case against English publishers. that is all that is to that. It was a wholly corrupt show trial.

    • Johanna Kaschke
      Nov 02, 2011 @ 09:22:00

      The order for disclosure of documents was made and evidence provided but the court accepted evidence in favour of the defendants. It was clear that all evidence on publication was printed on the same printer, and that was the printer of the lawyer of the defendants. The court accepted that evidence for the defendants but refused to allow me to answer to it. I was allowed to answer but the court ignored that answer in favour of the defendants. In any case the court refused to accept that people without lawyers tend to admit to things they would not admit to without lawyers. It is not acceptable that the evidence of people who have no legal support is taken at face value.

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits