X Privacy & Cookies This site uses cookies. By continuing, you agree to their use. Learn more, including how to control cookies. Got It!

Advertisements

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” ~Julian Assange

Anguish. Agony. Extreme torment. Misery. Woe. Grief. Heartbreak. Fear.

Many of the words I find myself using when I discuss the current situation of Julian Assange. Many of the words I am sure he is feeling as well. Judge Vanessa Baraitser has shown such prejudice and bias towards this man terror is also another word we can use as it becomes more and more evident she intends to make a name for herself in this case.

Speaking of which, I attempted to look at this woman’s background online. Surely, I would find something about her before the trial. You would think only a respected, well known judge who was known for justice would be put on such a profound, public case but there is nothing. I mean nothing. There are no pictures, no articles, nothing. She appears out of thin air to be put on the most prolific case in this century. Of course, she is just a subordinate of Judge Emma Arbuthnot, Lady Arbuthnot or Edom, married to the Baron of Edom, who is a Senior District Judge in England and Wales. It is obvious that Baraitser takes her orders from Arbuthnot on everything. It even makes me wonder if she doesn’t wear a hidden ear piece for such instructions during the trial.

Many have the belief that Arbuthnot is no longer over the Assange case but she is. She just put a junior judge in her place once her conflict of interest was exposed. Somehow, I guess she thought this would hide the fact she is in control. The woman has good reason to hide in the shadows of this case. Her conflict of interest is deep. When it was brought to light by independent media, including myself, last year, she refused to recuse herself instead putting Baraitser in control. What is the big deal you ask? Why is she a conflict of interest? Well, let me explain.

According to the “Guide of Judicial Conduct” in England, seen here”

“Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our system of government in a democratic society and a safeguard of the freedom and rights of the citizen under the rule of law. The judiciary must be seen to be independent of the legislative and executive arms of government both as individuals and as a whole.”

What does that have to do with this case? Plenty.

In an article by WSWS, from last July, (seen here):

Her husband, James Norwich Arbuthnot, is a Conservative member of the House of Lords. He is intimately connected with the British armed forces and security services, whose criminal operations were exposed by WikiLeaks. As a Tory MP, Lord Arbuthnot was between 2005 and 2014 the chair of the Defence Select Committee, the body overseeing the Ministry of Defence and Britain’s armed forces. His watch covered ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the wars for regime change in Libya and Syria. He is currently co-chair of the UK advisory board for defence manufacturer Thales and is an advisory board member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI). Lord Arbuthnot is also a former director at security and intelligence consultancy firm SC Strategy, where he worked for two years alongside co-directors Lord Carlile and Sir John Scarlett. As Assange’s legal team and UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer have argued, this “strong conflict of interest” requires Lady Arbuthnot to stand down from Assange’s case. Her husband’s entire political life has been dedicated to crushing the sort of transparency and accountability advocated by WikiLeaks. The “Guide to Judicial Conduct” explicitly states, “Where a close member of a judge’s family is politically active, the judge needs to bear in mind the possibility that, in some proceedings, that political activity might raise concerns about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process and should act accordingly.” Furthermore, “personal animosity towards a party is also a compelling reason for disqualification.” Arbuthnot’s animosity toward Assange is on public record.

But there is more.

There is new evidence which shows that Arbuthnot received funds from the U.K. foreign office prior to her appointment. According to the Daily Maverick, the husband of the judge guiding the proceedings, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, has “financial links to the British military establishment, including institutions and individuals exposed by WikiLeaks.”

As well as the following:

According to the British Parliament data, the judge and her husband in 2014 accepted a gift from Bechtel Management Company, an arm of major US military corporation Bechtel – also a British Defense Ministry contractor in a deal worth £215 million. The gift came in the shape of tickets to the Chelsea Flower Show worth £1,250.

The Daily Maverick, in its article seen here, also exposes her son’s link to an anti-data link established by the U.K. government and staffed by officials employed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Alexander Arbuthnot’s employer, the private equity firm Vitruvian Partners, has a multimillion-pound investment in Darktrace, a cyber-security company which is also staffed by officials recruited directly from the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). These intelligence agencies are behind the US government’s prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing secret documents. Darktrace has also had access to two former UK prime ministers and former US President Barack Obama. The revelations raise further concerns about potential conflicts of interests and appearance of bias concerning Lady Arbuthnot and the ties of her family members to the UK and US military and intelligence establishments. Lady Arbuthnot’s husband is Lord James Arbuthnot, a former UK defence minister who has extensive links to the UK military community. As far as is known, Lady Arbuthnot has failed to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in her role overseeing Assange’s case. However, UK legal guidance states that “any conflict of interest in a litigious situation must be declared.”

Why is the U.K. judicial system allowing this woman to oversee this case and guide a subordinate on how to handle it? Anyone who wants justice sees how wrong this is.

If you care about justice in any way or are a supporter of Julian Assange, please write to

the United Kingdom magistrates complaint department at:

LondonACConduct@justice.gov.uk

or call them directly at:

Telephone number: 0203 126 3390