(Since we haven't heard triumphant Crowing from The Julian Assange Celebrity Anarchist Cult Devotees, I'm guessing that an IMMENSE Throng -- of almost NOBODY -- showed up ... ???) ...
Was there a "Rally" in Stockholm, demanding that Julian Assange to extradited to Sweden for Trial ... ???
Julian's legal team applied for the overturning of the UK Supreme Court's decision to reject his appeal against extradition.
The Assange argument is that the Vienna Convention is not applicable to an EU decision, because such a decision isn’t a treaty between states. It makes a potentially key point that the European Court of Justice distinguishes between internal EU decisions and treaties, and interprets each according to different principles
“… not only does Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT not apply to the internal Community legal order, but neither does the principle of customary international law that is expressed in that sub-article. As far as Community law is concerned, and certainly where the provisions of the EC Treaty are concerned, the ECJ does not accept arguments of subsequent practice at all.”
It also argues the Vienna Convention only applies to states, rather than a supranational body such as the EU, that some EU states haven’t ratified the convention. It then goes on to argue that in any event, regardless of applicability generally, Article 31(3)(b) of the convention can’t apply in the Assange case because the test of “subsequent practice” isn’t met: not all states have shown their agreement through subsequent practice (a point made by dissenting judge Lady Hale), and the UK Parliament has specifically indicated its own, differing, “subsequent practice” by stating that “judicial authority” is confined to courts and judges.
“The Appellant will therefore submit that Lady Hale’s analysis is correct. The meaning of the FD is unclear and cannot be ascertained from subsequent State practice. Moreover, the ECJ would not have regard to subsequent State practice under Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT or customary international law in construing the FD (and both the majority and Lord Mance are wrong to assume otherwise). There is thus no clear answer to Lord Phillips’ ‘critical question’ of the proper interpretation of the term ‘judicial authority’ under the FD. As Lady Hale and Lord Mance both held, the Court should in these circumstances determine the meaning of the 2003 Act by ascertaining and applying the intention of the United Kingdom legislature (whether with the assistance of Hansard or otherwise).”
The application also seeks a stay on the implementation of the EAW on Assange and a further eight-week period for reconsideration in detail of the Article 31(3)(b) issue and a day of oral hearings. The Supreme Court’s initial decision will be whether to allow the application, and then the process for further hearings and submissions if it does so.
It seems that Julian Assange is havng a WONDERFUL Time in Britain, lolling around a 3,000 Acre Estate, dining sumptuously at others' Expense ... Who WOULDN'T want to delay Extradition to a Swedish Jail as long as possible ... ???
Julian's legal team applied for the overturning of the UK Supreme Court's decision to reject his appeal against extradition.
The Assange argument is that the Vienna Convention is not applicable to an EU decision, because such a decision isn’t a treaty between states. It makes a potentially key point that the European Court of Justice distinguishes between internal EU decisions and treaties, and interprets each according to different principles
“… not only does Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT not apply to the internal Community legal order, but neither does the principle of customary international law that is expressed in that sub-article. As far as Community law is concerned, and certainly where the provisions of the EC Treaty are concerned, the ECJ does not accept arguments of subsequent practice at all.”
It also argues the Vienna Convention only applies to states, rather than a supranational body such as the EU, that some EU states haven’t ratified the convention. It then goes on to argue that in any event, regardless of applicability generally, Article 31(3)(b) of the convention can’t apply in the Assange case because the test of “subsequent practice” isn’t met: not all states have shown their agreement through subsequent practice (a point made by dissenting judge Lady Hale), and the UK Parliament has specifically indicated its own, differing, “subsequent practice” by stating that “judicial authority” is confined to courts and judges.
“The Appellant will therefore submit that Lady Hale’s analysis is correct. The meaning of the FD is unclear and cannot be ascertained from subsequent State practice. Moreover, the ECJ would not have regard to subsequent State practice under Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT or customary international law in construing the FD (and both the majority and Lord Mance are wrong to assume otherwise). There is thus no clear answer to Lord Phillips’ ‘critical question’ of the proper interpretation of the term ‘judicial authority’ under the FD. As Lady Hale and Lord Mance both held, the Court should in these circumstances determine the meaning of the 2003 Act by ascertaining and applying the intention of the United Kingdom legislature (whether with the assistance of Hansard or otherwise).”
The application also seeks a stay on the implementation of the EAW on Assange and a further eight-week period for reconsideration in detail of the Article 31(3)(b) issue and a day of oral hearings. The Supreme Court’s initial decision will be whether to allow the application, and then the process for further hearings and submissions if it does so.
I'm watching a video interview of Senator Scott Ludlam. It mentions strengthening US military ties with Australia. Unfortunately Australia is subservient in that relationship. But US extradition of Julian will be politically unpopular. Prior to unsealing the indictment, Senator Ludlam expects media disinformation to be run. Julian is popular on-line. Senator Ludlam complains of the Greens' minority status. He compares Australian and American political environments. The interviewer is Alexa O'Brien. The senator says that journalists are sympathetic to the publisher! So Julian won the Walkley award.
Julian's lawyers state that the judges ruled against him on a legal point not argued in court!
Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have formally asked the supreme court to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes. Their 18-page submission states that a majority of justices ruled against him on the basis of a legal point not argued in court. The highly unusual procedure revolves around the applicability of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties and whether a European arrest warrant can be issued by a prosecutor. The supreme court confirmed that it had received the application by Dinah Rose QC, Assange's barrister.
Being free and independent Nation States, both The United States of America and Australia can reasonably be expected to act in what THEY perceive to be THEIR National Interests, yes ... ???
I'm watching a video interview of Senator Scott Ludlam. It mentions strengthening US military ties with Australia. Unfortunately Australia is subservient in that relationship. But US extradition of Julian will be politically unpopular. Prior to unsealing the indictment, Senator Ludlam expects media disinformation to be run. Julian is popular on-line. Senator Ludlam complains of the Greens' minority status. He compares Australian and American political environments. The interviewer is Alexa O'Brien. The senator says that journalists are sympathetic to the publisher! So Julian won the Walkley award.
Julian's lawyers state that the judges ruled against him on a legal point not argued in court!
Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have formally asked the supreme court to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes. Their 18-page submission states that a majority of justices ruled against him on the basis of a legal point not argued in court. The highly unusual procedure revolves around the applicability of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties and whether a European arrest warrant can be issued by a prosecutor. The supreme court confirmed that it had received the application by Dinah Rose QC, Assange's barrister.
Assange would seem to confirm that there is little or no margin between the domestic presumption and the Pupino duty: the conclusion that ‘judicial authority’ in the 2003 Act had the same broad meaning as the expression in the EAW Framework Decision was reached on the basis of the domestic rule alone, without recourse to Pupino. Indeed, though Lord Kerr recognises (at [112]) thatPupino has stronger ‘injunctive force’, their Lordships indicate with varying degrees of certainty that, without Pupino, ‘the general presumption that the UK legislates in compliance with international obligations would produce the same result’ (at [98], per Lord Brown; see also [10], per Lord Phillips PSC, [112], per Lord Kerr and [121]-[122], per Lord Dyson).
So the UK courts will not necessarily take a narrower view of the 2003 Act nowPupino is unavailable. However, Lord Mance’s speech at least clarifies what rule applies. It also clarifies the UK’s excessively complex and ambiguous position in relation to EU crime and policing law. Sadly, this comes only shortly before the UK’s big 2014 decision, when the position will change again. But for the next two years at least, we know where we stand.
After downing 10 bourbons and a gram of the bolivian marching powder Danny got himself kicked out of Academy around 5am.
Fortunately he’d met a young lass who rather fancied him and she came outside with him, agreed to go down a laneway and got naked with him.
So far very Saturday night until Danny had a bit of a freak out, repeatedly tried and failed to enter her back passage, repeatedly hit her, tripped her over as she tried to flee, and then took a wee over her.
The moral of the story girls; is if you meet a guy on Saturday night who gets thrown out of a club few good things will come of pursuing it, but at most give him your number and get a taxi home.
Danny’s been on very strict bail since and will be supervised for some time and completing community service, but has been spared prison.
The Assange Sexual Predator Case DOES provide a Golden Opportunity for British Law Courts to clarify British Interest in protecting the Human Rights of Crime Vicims in other Countries ...
Assange would seem to confirm that there is little or no margin between the domestic presumption and the Pupino duty: the conclusion that ‘judicial authority’ in the 2003 Act had the same broad meaning as the expression in the EAW Framework Decision was reached on the basis of the domestic rule alone, without recourse to Pupino. Indeed, though Lord Kerr recognises (at [112]) thatPupino has stronger ‘injunctive force’, their Lordships indicate with varying degrees of certainty that, without Pupino, ‘the general presumption that the UK legislates in compliance with international obligations would produce the same result’ (at [98], per Lord Brown; see also [10], per Lord Phillips PSC, [112], per Lord Kerr and [121]-[122], per Lord Dyson).
So the UK courts will not necessarily take a narrower view of the 2003 Act nowPupino is unavailable. However, Lord Mance’s speech at least clarifies what rule applies. It also clarifies the UK’s excessively complex and ambiguous position in relation to EU crime and policing law. Sadly, this comes only shortly before the UK’s big 2014 decision, when the position will change again. But for the next two years at least, we know where we stand.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
