http://jantervonen.com/rip-world-travellers-peter-root-mary-thompson
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
The Pirate Bay - Away From Keyboard TPB - AFK
http://jantervonen.com/the-pirate-bay-away-from-keyboard-tpb-afk
Sunday, May 27, 2012
What will happen to Assange on Wednesday?
Wednesday marks an important day this week. That is when the Supreme Court hands down its judgment in the now infamous case of Mr Julian Assange. Now people are asking: what will happen in this case? If the Supreme Court rules in Assange’s favour, where will he go? On the other hand, if Assange loses, will he be immediately extradited to Sweden?
This is what most likely will happen:
In the case of winning, Mr Assange will immediately board a flight to Australia. This is because even if he wins it doesn’t necessarily mean that Sweden will withdraw the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) on him. If the EAW remains in force, Assange would face the risk of arrest if entering any other European country. On the other hand, Assange is more than afraid of an extradition request by the USA being filed. Australia, his homeland, would be the best bet for him. However, by no means is Australia to be considered a safe haven for Assange, although his strategy appears to have been to create a favourable atmosphere for him over there. Indeed, if USA would file an extradition request to Australia, the seriousness of the allegations would most likely place Mr Assange into prison for years. As it turns out, in Australia a fully exhausted appeal path against extradition could drag on for approximately 7 years. While bail is always a possibility, it is rarely used due to a very difficult applicable test commonly referred to as Cabal.
On the other hand, if Assange loses, his legal team will file an urgent application for interim measures under Rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent his extradition pending appeal. Based on Assange’s behaviour so far, it is reasonable to expect that he will appeal to the ECHR. While Rule 39 is commonly used in deportation and extradition cases to prevent irreversible damage, it is never used lightly. If ECHR would grant the sought measures, it could stop Assange’s extradition until the final judgment in his appeal is handed down. In Abu Hamza’s case the use of Rule 39 caused a delay of 2 years.
http://jantervonen.com/what-will-happen-to-assange-on-wednesdaySaturday, March 3, 2012
Julian Assange's homegrown hardnosed lawyer Jennifer Robinson
Legal adviser for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Jennifer Robinson is back at Sydney University to lecture in public interest law for a few months. Picture: Renee Nowytarger
Source: The Australian
AS we approached the group of Oxford graduates milling outside the ersatz grandeur of St Paul's college dining hall, the chatter subsided a little.
All eyes were on my companion, Jennifer Robinson. She always had a habit of making an impact. But from our days at Balliol College I never expected her to attain international legal stardom, at least not so quickly.
Robinson, 31, became a legal adviser to Julian Assange in October 2010, a month before he burst into global consciousness. The "world's first stateless media organisation", as Robinson terms WikiLeaks, had released thousands of classified American diplomatic cables into the public domain, embarrassing and infuriating the US government.
"Julian Assange should be feted as Australia's most decorated contributor to journalism," Robinson says, "yet he is vilified for uncovering gross abuses of state power." My friend has traipsed the globe advocating for Assange's rights both at law and in principle, in the process becoming one of the most recognisable faces of WikiLeaks.
This week leaked emails from a US private intelligence firm suggested Assange might soon face further charges in the US, possibly under the Espionage Act. "We have long been concerned about the risk of US extradition," Robinson says. "I expect they are waiting for the outcome of the Swedish extradition."
Assange has been stuck in Britain fighting extradition to Sweden for alleged sexual assault, which the Supreme Court is due to resolve any day now.
Robinson is passionate about human rights, free speech and journalistic freedom, as well as the need for greater transparency in government.
Now full-time with the Bertha Foundation, a South African NGO that sponsors individuals uniquely placed to prompt social and economic change, Robinson has returned to Sydney for a few months to take up an adjunct lectureship in public interest law at the University of Sydney.
At the annual Oxford alumni dinner in Sydney this month we swapped some memories from our time at the university and after the main course the event organiser convinced her to make an impromptu speech.
I've always found remarkable Robinson's ability to switch from an effervescent companion on the social circuit to hardnosed interlocutor.
"May you be involved in a lawsuit in which you are right," she said, opening her speech with the old legal proverb.
Given what is ahead it was apt. Robinson fears Assange will be detained for years as a result of US charges, whatever happens with the Swedish case.
"I'm confident a challenge under the first amendment of the US constitution will ultimately see Assange walk free, but we need only look to the treatment of Bradley Manning to know what Julian will suffer in the meantime," she says.
Certainly the plight of Manning, the hapless American soldier on trial, provides a foreboding example. Arrested in May 2010 for allegedly disclosing information to WikiLeaks, he is still incarcerated.
In the week before Christmas Robinson was in Maryland observing the criminal proceedings.
"I can't believe the media's relative lack of interest in the Manning trial," she says. "Here is a man who's been locked up for about 600 days in solitary confinement and conditions amounting to torture, and he's still waiting to be put on trial."
For Robinson , the pursuit of Assange, an Australian citizen, reflects poorly on the federal government too. "Quite aside from wrongfully accusing Assange of illegal conduct, the Australian government's response to WikiLeaks has been incredibly disappointing; what is the point of the US alliance if we can't find out what they are planning to do with one of our own citizens?"
Until Robinson became embroiled in WikiLeaks she was known among her peers for her advocacy for West Papuans. A visit to Indonesia in 2002 while a student at the Australian National University entrenched her interest in human rights.
"I couldn't believe the injustices and violence suffered by the West Papuans under Indonesian rule, only 300km north of our shores, and no one in Australia seems to know what happens there," she says.
"West Papuans have as much right to self-determination as the East Timorese."
"She tempers her idealism with a healthy does of pragmatism," longtime Oxford friend Albert Alla says. At Oxford, Robinson fostered a mix of admiration and envy. "She's is a hard pill to swallow for potential competitors, casting a shadow on most of them," Alla adds.
Robinson 's achievements are bolstered by an impressive resume. But her academic achievements -- university medallist at ANU in law, and a Master of Philosophy in law from Balliol College on a Rhodes Scholarship -- are more interesting in light of her background.
She grew up in Berry on the NSW south coast and attended Bomaderry High School. "From memory about two out of 50 Rhodes scholars at Oxford came from non-selective state schools," she recalls.
"I started a DPhil at Oxford but I'm more of a doer and wanted to get my hands dirty in real cutting-edge legal work."
Part-time work for Geoffrey Robertson throughout her Oxford studies led in 2008 to full-time work at a boutique law firm defending journalists and media organisations -- and also to an introduction to Assange. She became Robertson's instructing solicitor, and worked for clients such as Bloomberg and The New York Times. She intervened on behalf of media defence organisations in the Max Mosley case before the European Court of Human Rights.
"I am patriotically Australian, proud of our country and want to contribute to defending the progressive and reformist political history that has made our country so great," Robinson says.
Like many expatriates, Robinson is torn about whether to return permanently or stay abroad. A glint in her eye suggested to me one vocation would bring her back for sure. When pressed she won't rule out an Australian political career.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Top prosecutor stays mum over 'fiction' accusation
The New South Wales state's senior Crown prosecutor has refused to comment on the appeal judgment that he created a ''fiction'' to mount the case against Gordon Wood.
In the Court of Criminal Appeal, three justices demolished the Crown's prosecution of Mr Wood, saying there had been ''dangerous reasoning'' by Mark Tedeschi, QC, that had been ''entirely without foundation''.
Many in Sydney's legal fraternity had been eagerly anticipating the judgment to see what criticism had been made of Mr Tedeschi, and the Chief Judge at Common Law, Justice Peter McClellan, did not mince words.
Nor did Justice Megan Latham, who sat on the appeal and said: ''Speculation, conjecture and suspicion can never amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt … [moral] certainty was entirely lacking in the Crown case against the applicant.''
When contacted by The Sun-Herald yesterday, Mr Tedeschi said: ''It's not appropriate for me to respond to a judgment in the Court of Criminal Appeal.''
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Lloyd Babb, SC, has also declined to comment.
However, Mr Tedeschi may be forced to defend himself if, as has been predicted, Mr Wood makes a complaint to the Legal Services Commission and the Bar Association about his conduct in the trial.
http://jantervonen.com/top-prosecutor-stays-mum-over-fiction-accusat
Wood v R
Now here is the full judgment in which the Criminal Court of Appeal in Sydney NSW finds Mr Gordon Wood innocent. Mr Wood spent 3.5 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. The Court also tells the truth about the original crown case which sent Mr Wood to jail. Justice McClellan went on to say: "My evaluation of the whole of the evidence satisfies me that the jury's verdict cannot be supported. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt." He also said, "The suggested evidence of a motive involving Rivkin is so thin that it should never have been left with the jury."
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SEAT BELT COMMERCIAL EVER SEEN
http://jantervonen.com/the-most-beautiful-seat-belt-commercial-ever-19115
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
'Nuckin Futs' set to go on sale after lawyer argues F-word won't offend
Pod Legal Solicitor Director Jamie White argued that the 'Nuckin Futs' trade mark is not offensive. Picture: Supplied Source: news.com.au
A SNACK called Nuckin Futs will go on sale after a lawyer's successful argument that the word "f..." is a normal part of Australian speech and so cannot be deemed offensive under trademark rules.
The trademark application for "Nuckin Futs" was at first rejected by the register as being scandalous and offensive due to its similarity to the phrase "f...ing nuts".
The Trade Marks Examiner ruled that "Nuckin Futs" was an "obvious spoonerism" and deemed it ineligible for registration under section 42 of the Trade Marks Act.
Under the law such terms must be rejected if likely to be regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to the ordinary person.
But solicitor Jamie White, Director of law firm Pod Legal, who submitted the application on behalf of his Gold Coast client, argued that "Nuckin Futs" was not offensive because it was commonplace in everyday Australian language.
In a five-page legal document, seen by news.com.au, which catalogues the history of controversial product names, Mr White argued the words "f..." or "f...ing" were "now part of the universal discourse of the ordinary Australian".
"We submit that whilst there may be a mere sentimental objection or mere distaste to NUCKIN FUTS, this is not a sufficient ground for rejection of the Trade Mark, particularly since a substantial number of people would not find the words shocking," the submission to the Examiner says.
Mr White told news.com.au: “Over the passage of time, certain words which may have caused major offence in earlier times would now be acceptable as trade marks in certain markets, namely, the Australian market.”
Almost a year after the initial application was rejected, the trademark examiner has agreed to accept the "Nuckin Futs" trademark - on the condition that the owner would not market it to kids.
Mr White assured the Examiner that the product, mostly comprising of edible nuts, would not be marketed to children as his client only intended to sell it in pubs, nightclubs and other entertainment venues.
The trade mark is due for registration in April 2012.
via news.com.au
http://jantervonen.com/nuckin-futs-set-to-go-on-sale-after-lawyer-arIs Wikileaks paying the legal fees for Julian Assange's futile extradition fight?
With great curiosity I’ve been following the extradition battle of Mr. Julian Assange, including everything directly/indirectly related to it. Mr. Assange’s attempt to affect the general opinion about the extradition proceeding he is made subject to is not bordering on surreal anymore. This is because it is surreal.
It appears that Mr. Assange has orchestrated a massive campaign, which is split into two overlapping paths - both lacking any merit. The first one concentrates on the alleged flaws in the extradition proceeding that being the mechanism of the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”). The second one brings up the alleged “conspiracy” behind the request to get him to face rape allegations in Sweden.
1st PATH
Mr. Assanges publicity attack against EAW appears to be mainly based on the fact that he is not “charged of anything” per se. Mr. Assange’s error of judgment is probably in that he is interpreting “charged” under the laws of UK. This is a moot point due to the differences in legal systems within Europe. Mr. Assange must be very well aware of this and so must, at least, all the lawyers supporting him.
Mr. Assange also seem to claim that there is something “wrong” in an extradition mechanism in which the courts of the requested country cannot review the merits of the case presented by the requesting country. Again, Mr. Assange’s argument is empty and is not supported by single authority. Extradition is not about innocence or guilt. The merits of the case are for the requesting country and its courts to determine. Very recently, the Court of Appeals (2nd circuit) in the USA stated among others, “It is not the business of our courts to assume the responsibility for supervising the integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation. Such an assumption would directly conflict with the principle of comity upon which extradition is based.” (citing Jhirad, 536 F.2d at 484–85) and “… U.S. courts are strongly discouraged from reviewing whether the demanding country has complied with its own law and, indeed, it is error to do so except to the limited extent necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable extradition treaty ...” Even though the case cited is not directly a binding authority for Mr. Assange’s process, some analogy (which goes against him) can be drawn from it to his position.
2nd Path
Secondly and unsurprisingly, there is zero evidence of the alleged “conspiracy”. For some unexplained reason it has always been part of Mr. Assange’s defense that the allegations of rape are the first step in a mysterious “conspiracy” steered by some 3-letter American organization which first wants to get him to Sweden. Mr. Assange’s imaginary theory continues that it would then somehow be very easy to get him to America, where in turn he would then be charged, tried and even face the death penalty. This “conspiracy” is a fantasy not born in a rationally thinking brain. While it might be quicker to get someone extradited from Sweden than from UK (due to the differences in the legal systems), it cannot be said that the difference is that great that it would (rationally thinking) make any sense to create the alleged very complex conspiracy with fake allegations of rape and fake EAW’s issued by the Swedish prosecutor.
What the public would like to know is: who is paying for the legal teams fighting for Mr. Assange? Could it be Wikileaks? If yes, why?
http://jantervonen.com/is-wikileaks-paying-the-legal-fees-for-julian
It appears that Mr. Assange has orchestrated a massive campaign, which is split into two overlapping paths - both lacking any merit. The first one concentrates on the alleged flaws in the extradition proceeding that being the mechanism of the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”). The second one brings up the alleged “conspiracy” behind the request to get him to face rape allegations in Sweden.
1st PATH
Mr. Assanges publicity attack against EAW appears to be mainly based on the fact that he is not “charged of anything” per se. Mr. Assange’s error of judgment is probably in that he is interpreting “charged” under the laws of UK. This is a moot point due to the differences in legal systems within Europe. Mr. Assange must be very well aware of this and so must, at least, all the lawyers supporting him.
Mr. Assange also seem to claim that there is something “wrong” in an extradition mechanism in which the courts of the requested country cannot review the merits of the case presented by the requesting country. Again, Mr. Assange’s argument is empty and is not supported by single authority. Extradition is not about innocence or guilt. The merits of the case are for the requesting country and its courts to determine. Very recently, the Court of Appeals (2nd circuit) in the USA stated among others, “It is not the business of our courts to assume the responsibility for supervising the integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation. Such an assumption would directly conflict with the principle of comity upon which extradition is based.” (citing Jhirad, 536 F.2d at 484–85) and “… U.S. courts are strongly discouraged from reviewing whether the demanding country has complied with its own law and, indeed, it is error to do so except to the limited extent necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable extradition treaty ...” Even though the case cited is not directly a binding authority for Mr. Assange’s process, some analogy (which goes against him) can be drawn from it to his position.
2nd Path
Secondly and unsurprisingly, there is zero evidence of the alleged “conspiracy”. For some unexplained reason it has always been part of Mr. Assange’s defense that the allegations of rape are the first step in a mysterious “conspiracy” steered by some 3-letter American organization which first wants to get him to Sweden. Mr. Assange’s imaginary theory continues that it would then somehow be very easy to get him to America, where in turn he would then be charged, tried and even face the death penalty. This “conspiracy” is a fantasy not born in a rationally thinking brain. While it might be quicker to get someone extradited from Sweden than from UK (due to the differences in the legal systems), it cannot be said that the difference is that great that it would (rationally thinking) make any sense to create the alleged very complex conspiracy with fake allegations of rape and fake EAW’s issued by the Swedish prosecutor.
What the public would like to know is: who is paying for the legal teams fighting for Mr. Assange? Could it be Wikileaks? If yes, why?
http://jantervonen.com/is-wikileaks-paying-the-legal-fees-for-julian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)