Professors blogg received on the 30 November 2013 an updated version of a letter to the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association, Ms. Anne Ramberg, concerning issues in the "Swedish case VS Julian Assange". The cover letter soliciting the publication of the document in Professors blogg is signed by Rafik Saley, general secretary African Committee for Sustainable Development - Sweden [See all signatories of the letter to Ms. Anne Ramberg, at the bottom of the missive]. Mr Saley mentions also that he personally delivered this updated version of the letter, ensuing certain formalities that were requested by the SBA. A previous version of this document was published here on the 24 of November - with my comments added. /MFN.
Dear Anne Ramberg,
We the undersigned are lodging a formal complaint against lawyer Ms. Elisabeth Massi Fritz to the Swedish Bar Association. It concerns her dealings with the press in the Julian Assange case. Elizabeth Massi Fritz represents the complainant Sofia Wilen. Ms. Massi Fritz has made two conflicting statements one to the international press and one to the Swedish press which are outlined in the last link contained in this email.
An article published on her official company website seeks to blacken the character of Julian Assange and it contains potentially libellous and certainly incorrect statements made by James Ball, a former and disgruntled employee of Wikileaks. Despite contesting that her motives, and those of the prosecution service, are not political, Ms. Massi Fritz published a false political statement on her company´s website to the detriment of Julian Assange under the heading “Fallet Julian Assange”.
http://www.advokatfritz.com/?page_id=684
We
find it objectionable at the very least that a professional versed in
legal matters can try to influence public opinion against someone who
has not been charged with any crime. We query whether such behaviour is
legal in Sweden and whether it adheres to the ethical stipulations of
the Swedish Bar Association. The following link brings up the article by
Mr. Ball which she includes on her website.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html
There
are glaring errors in the article which are prejudicial to Mr Assange.
Mr Ball stresses that during a John Humphrey's interview Julian Assange
initiated an assault on the characters of the two accusers, when in
actual fact Assange said quite the opposite:
“It's a matter of
public record as far as the courts are concerned but I'm not going to be
exposing other people's lives or my own more than is absolutely
necessary. That is not what a gentleman does. We don't know precisely
what pressures they [the women] have been under, exactly. There are
powerful interests that have incentives to promote these smears. That
does not mean that they got in there at the very beginning and
fabricated them.”
Ball also selectively misquoted Assange taking
what Assange said in the Humphreys' interview out of context. Ball
claimed Assange said: “I'm not saying it was a honey trap. I'm not
saying it was not a honey trap” when what Assange actually told
Humphreys came in a series of questions and answers which are reproduced
here.
"Q: So you're not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were
somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don't buy into that idea
because your lawyer's suggested that that's the case.
JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a
honey-trap.
Q: You don't believe it?
JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I'm not accusing
anyone until I have proof."
The
interview in full is available in two parts here. The second part
contains the above misquote starting at around 1 minute 15 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFAAIsk9t90
and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjXaTxH8AI
Ms.
Massi Fritz has also issued two separate statements, one to the
domestic and one to the international press. There are tangible
differences in these separate press releases and they contradict
information released to Mr. Assange´s defence team in the available
police protocol.
Contained in this link are the press statements from the office of Elizabeth Massi Fritz:
http://rixstep.com/1/20130614,01.shtml
The
first released statement is the one to the right, containing the
information that Sofia Wilen herself reported a rape. The statement to
the left is released later (June 4th) is ante-dated to May 21st and no
longer claims that Sofia Wilen herself reported rape to the police.
We
suspect political motives because, firstly, the government of Ecuador
has repeatedly offered the use of its embassy premises in London for the
Swedish prosecutor or prosecution officials to question Mr. Assange.
Secondly, it is internationally known there are no known obstacles in
Swedish legal procedures to prohibit questioning of a suspect abroad,
because there are precedents. In April, the senior Swedish Supreme Court
judge, Stefan Lindskog, delivered a public lecture at Adelaide
university - Australia. He made it perfectly clear that pending legal
obstacles any final decision on an extradition request by the United
States government rests with the Swedish government. He also made it
clear that there is absolutely no hindrance to questioning Mr. Assange
in London. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to go to England to
question Assange, despite the issue of questioning being the only
objective of the European Arrest Warrant.
Lastly, by exclusively
blaming the government of Ecuador for the legal stalemate that has
arisen Ms. Massi Fritz has been unfair to Ms Wilen, as well as Mr.
Assange, through deliberately protracting the case. She has published
two separate statements using her position as a legal representative on
behalf of her client, the named accuser mentioned above. Because she is
fully aware – as well as any other informed person – that the deadlock
could be broken if the Swedish prosecution service were to interview
Julian Assange in London, as outlined above, or to guarantee that Mr.
Assange would not be extradited to the United States. Her refusal to
take either of these initiatives demonstrates that there are political
motives, rather than legal representation, underlying her actions.
We
respect the integrity of your office and call upon you to investigate
the professional behaviour of lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz regarding the
human rights of Mr. Julian Assange to see whether discliplinary action
is appropriate under the Swedish Bar Association´s regulations.
Yours sincerely
Okoth Osewe - journalist and author - Kenya and Sweden
Rafik Saley - general secretary African Committee for Sustainable Development - Sweden
John Goss - writer and researcher - United Kingdom
Dr. Selim Y Gool - retired, ex-teacher / academic, Norway
No comments:
Post a Comment