• Flattr FoI: 
Falkvinge &Co. on Infopolicy
Falkvinge on Infopolicy - Home

LIVE: Detention Lift Hearings For Assange, Stockholm District Court




At 13:00 July 16, hearings were held in the Stockholm District Court whether to lift the almost-four-year-old detention in absentia for Julian Assange. This has been live reporting from the court hearings, which were followed by a press conference at the District Court.

(Entries are bottom to top with the newest entry first.)

Jul 16 18:52 - According to Associated Press, Assange’s lawyers (Thomas Olsson and Per E Samuelsson) will appeal today’s verdict.

Jul 16 18:41 - The official verdict from the Stockholm District Court, in English, is here.

Jul 16 18:39 - (No more news from today’s hearing. Liveblog ends.)

Jul 16 18:14 - It would increasingly appear as though Julian Assange’s actual crime was “pissing off the United States”, just like the operators of The Pirate Bay. The Defense was walking all over the Prosecution in this hearing, literally quoting chapter and verse to show on the record that they are – and I am not exaggerating – criminally lazy on the job.

Jul 16 18:08 - VERDICT: Julian Assange is to REMAIN in detention in absentia. Just announced.

Jul 16 17:28 - According to side-channels from the Court to Swedish media, the verdict will probably be further delayed: “18:00 at earliest”. This is, of course, just a qualified guess.

Jul 16 17:20 - It’s also important to remember that a lifted detention in absentia does not, repeat not, mean a closed or dismissed case. It does, however, mean that the Prosecution will have to deal respectfully with Assange without being able to restrict his movement in the continued investigation. If there is any.

Jul 16 17:18 - The press conference has still not started, despite being announced to start at 17:00.

Jul 16 17:17 - It’s been my consistent impression that the Defense was just steamrolling all over the Prosecution in this hearing. But this is a political trial, and I’ve seen those before. In those, common sense don’t apply, and the victor can be predetermined and therefore spit gibberish in the hearings if they like, they’ll still win.

Jul 16 17:14 - Regardless of appeals, if this court lifts its previous detention in absentia, it’s undoubtedly a brighter picture even on appeal. Still waiting for a verdict.

Jul 16 17:12 - It’s unclear whether and how this verdict (continued or discontinued detention) can be appealed, considering the Stockholm District Court issued the detention in absentia in the first place. If the same court lifts its previous order, how can that be appealed, and what are the precise mechanisms? Unsure.

Jul 16 17:08 - Press conference in Stockholm District Court, announcing the verdict, is about to start.

Jul 16 16:48 - Hearings are over [as of about 16:20]. The court closes its doors for deliberations.

Jul 16 16:48 - Prosecution, final statement: “The European Arrest Warrant did in no way prevent Assange from coming to Sweden. Quite the opposite, it would have made sure he traveled to Sweden. While this may have been a question of form and comfort rather than actual destination, the EAW did not prevent Assange from traveling to Sweden as such.”

Jul 16 16:46 - Defense: “This case also breaks three other Swedish judicial principles. One, use of force must not only be necessary and in the public interest. Two, it must also be effective, and the use of force must cease when it is no longer effective. In this case, the rules say, the detention shall – shall – be lifted. There’s also the question whether a continued detention is even legal. The court approved a detention because of a flight risk, which was a legitimate reason. However, we know now that this is no longer valid. It cannot be effectuated. The only reason for the Prosecution to keep him detained at this point is to pressure him into abandoning his right to asylum – and this is not legal. Detention may never be used against a defendant to force them into admitting guilt or to make them surrender rights. Third, the proportionality principle: no matter what happens, a continued detention has no positive effects for the Swedish state nor for this case, but it has enormous negative effects for Assange.”

Jul 16 16:46 - Defense plays back clips from Fox News and other channels with political commentators stating Assange should be assassinated, calling him a terrorist, an enemy of the state, his organization a “weapon of mass destruction”, illustrating a clear and present danger to his person justifying political asylum. Defense argues that this shows clearly that Assange needs to exercise his political asylum, without that action being motivated by evading Swedish law. [UPDATED: Added link to video shown by Defense]

Jul 16 16:46 - Defense: “I’d like to play back this clip.” / Court: “That’s not possible. There’s a sound cable missing. Defense didn’t inform they’d be playing sound, just video.” Court starts digging through drawers looking for a sound cable for several minutes.

Jul 16 16:45 - Defense: “In an excerpt from Ecuador’s granting of asylum … it becomes clear that Ecuador is protecting Assange from Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Australia, from persecution in the United States. This has absolutely nothing to do with a Swedish legal case. The conclusion is that the assertion from the Prosecution that Assange only has himself to blame is nonsense on a pure legal basis; there are good reasons for political asylum which Ecuador has listed.”

Jul 16 16:45 - Defense: “In the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it’s clear that political asylum is not just a right to apply for, but also a right to enjoy and exercise, once granted. It’s absolutely clear that Prosecution’s points are in complete violation with international law.”

Jul 16 16:45 - Defense: “Applying for political asylum – is this even something reasonably encompassed in the concept of flight risk? First, you have to separate the application for asylum, and it actually being granted. If somebody is actively evading the law on their own, that’s one thing, but this is not what’s happened here. Assange can’t give himself this asylum. Prosecution is plain wrong in saying Assange did this on his own. He applied for political asylum, but a sovereign country granted it to him. That’s a legitimate mechanism. Granting somebody asylum can’t with any reason be construed to aid and abet a fugitive, of being a flight risk in the legal sense. International law requires respect for the institution of political asylum.”

Jul 16 16:44 - Defense: “Then what legal relevance does it have where the fingers are pointed? Prosecution is pointing at Assange, who applied for political asylum. We’re pointing at the Prosecution. It’s the Prosecution who have a duty under law to be active in an investigation, and not the defendant.

Jul 16 16:44 - Defense: “By staying in the embassy, Assange has evaded British police and prevented effecutation of the detention, claims the Prosecution. He has chosen to stay in the embassy, they say. I’m not yet at that point, at proportionality. Rather, does the Prosecution have a legal right to stay passive? The answer, legally, is no. Prosecution is breaking the law in their handling of this case.”

Jul 16 16:44 - Defense: “The prosecution is actively choosing to refrain from completing the investigation, with the justification that “Assange must come to Sweden for a trial or jail anyway” — this is a behavior that’s disgraceful for the Prosecution. This is not up the Prosecution. A sentence is communicated by a Court, and not by the Prosecution.”

Jul 16 16:44 - Defense: “Since Assange has been granted political asylum, force can no longer be applied. The Court must lift the detention, and thereby force the Prosecution to move ahead with the investigation as a case where the defendant has freedom to roam.”

Jul 16 16:43 - Defense: “What else? Well, this weakens the Defense, too. Björn Hurtig asked for hearings in London in fall 2010. We asked the same July 4 2012 in a mail, and repeated it in an in-person meeting. If the Prosecution had done what they were legally obliged to do all along, we [the Defense] would also be able to see the entire case by now. The behavior of the Prosecution is damaging the ability for Assange to mount a legal defense, which is his right. Passivity on the behalf of the Prosecution is not acceptable.”

Jul 16 16:43 - Defense: “Hearings must be held in a time and place which brings the least inconvenience to the heard, unless there is significant danger to the investigation. This is a hard and fast law, and it is no secret at all where Assange is located. Prosecution is choosing to break this law.”

Jul 16 16:43 - Defense: “This investigation is in the exact same state today, in 2014, as it was four years ago, in 2010. This can lead to one or more hearings. But it’s not a complex investigation. After this hearing, it’s time for the Prosecution to decide whether to press charges or not. The fact that this has not moved at all in four years is due to the facts that Attorney Olsson [the other defense attorney] just enumerated: detention for one and a half years, and a political asylum with deadlock for two years. We are at a de-facto deadlock. The only action Prosecution intends to take is to wait out the arrest warrant and wait for Assange to be brought to Sweden. My question to this court: is the Prosecution even formally allowed to just sit down and wait, doing nothing? The response is a clear and resounding NO: This kind of passiveness is not allowed beacuse of actions on behalf of the defendant, in particular not within their legal rights. What duty does the Proseuction have to drive the investigation forward, rather than staying passive, offering nothing but a continued deadlock? Who bears the responsibility? The Court must carry this responsibility, for the Prosecution has shown no intention whatsoever to execute anything but passiveness in this case. The basic fault in the thought process with the Prosecution is that they’re just pointing fingers and find it possible to sit down and do absolutely nothing, which is in violation of the right to a speedy trial [“skyndsamhetskrav”] in the law.”

Jul 16 16:43 - Court has resumed [at 15:20]. Because of connectivity issues in the courtroom, the timestamps won’t match – they’re spread out from 15:20 onward, in reality. They’re posted after recess because the courtroom prevented mobile phone signals.

Jul 16 14:59 - The court takes a twenty-minute break.

Jul 16 14:59 - Defense repeats earlier points that Prosecution must have understood that Assange can’t stay in Sweden forever, and that Assange can be hard to reach, and hammers home the point that absolutely nothing in this justifies the use of force that Prosecution has applied.

Jul 16 14:58 - Defense: “There’s a completely unreasonable dragging-out of time here, causing significant harm to Assange. It has been in everybody’s interest to just go there and hear him, but this hasn’t even been tried.”

Jul 16 14:57 - Defense accuses Prosecution of being plain lazy in not going to London to hear Assange. “It’s too much work.”

Jul 16 14:56 - Defense compares to a case where somebody was suspected of genocide, a much more serious crime, and had been detained for three years. This had been appealed to the European Court of Justice, and after three years, the case was dropped because the defendant had not had a speedy trial. This case has now dragged on for three and a half years. “If he hadn’t complained to the ECJ, he wouldn’t have been detained for three years, so it’s his own fault”, by the Prosecution’s logic. However, the Supreme Court is brutal in its verdict that a person exhausting their legal options cannot and must not be held against them.

Jul 16 14:52 - Defense: “Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador on August 16, 2012. There has been a clear and present danger in the form of threats from the United States, ranging from extradition to plain assassination and execution. The United Kingdom is bound to respect Ecuador’s asylum. Assange has been on the Ecuadorian embassy since June 19, 2012, which has cost the British [enormous amount] and which the British is starting to consider Sweden liable for. In all this time, Assange has not even been able to go outdoors, something normally considered a human right – even detainees in jail are given outdoors time. However, since Assange has shown no intention of surrendering his asylum, there is no purpose to continued detention: it serves no purpose and must therefore be lifted. Assange has a full legal right to maintain his political asylum, and therefore, the detention serves no further purpose. This has now dragged on for three years and six months. In this time, in all this time, Assange has been restrained in various ways, everything from jail to something resembling a permanent house arrest.”

Jul 16 14:47 - Defense: “During these one and a half years, Assange has not been able to maintain a normal life. This is not a British citizen but an Australian citizen. He has been unable to have an income, unable to keep in touch with his family. He has been trapped in a foreign country, unable to fulfill professional or social obligations. Prosecution has used very unusual force in locking Assange in London in this way.”

Jul 16 14:45 - Defense: “During these one and a half years, Assange’s freedom was severely restricted: he was unable to travel, unable to see his family, and unable to have an income, and this was solely use to Prosecution’s actions and use of force. It is clear to the Defense that the Prosecution has been obligated to go to London and hear him: Assange has been unable to travel to Sweden because of Prosecution’s very actions. Defense refers to a case where the prosecution says it’s “impractical” to hear a defendent abroad, coming across as plain lazy. This case was struck down by the Supreme Court for the specific reason that the defendant had repeatedly invited Prosecution to hear him on location. Defense draws clear and direct parallels to this case, except this case is much more serious with disproportionate effects.

Jul 16 14:41 - Defense: “On December 7, Assange was apprehended and detained in London. From December 16, he was electronically shackled with an obligation to report daily to a police station. He was in partial house arrest. He had had his passport rescinded, and had been ordered by a court to not acquire travel documents. So from December 7, 2010, until June 14, 2012, Assange had no practical possibility of coming to Sweden for a hearing. Prosecution’s argument that Julian could have let himself be arrested is nonsense; an accused always has a right to exhaust their legal options, and this must never be held against them.”

Jul 16 14:39 - Defense: “There has never ever been a statement from Assange to refuse a hearing.”

Jul 16 14:37 - Defense: “It’s easy to see, looking at the time frame leading up to September 27, that Assange has showed up to a hearing, has stayed in Sweden, has asked the prosecution whether there would be a problem leaving Sweden, and that Assange could not stay in Sweden indefinitely waiting for whatever the Prosecution was doing. Nowhere here is there anything constituting anything resembling a flight risk (in the legal sense). Also, there was nothing preventing Prosecution and Assange to agree on a date for a hearing, and there was a tentative date set in October. It’s correct that it was hard to reach Assange. But this was a PRACTICAL matter, which does never constitute a flight risk. Flight risk must be based on intent of flight, not practical difficulties.

Jul 16 14:34 - Defense: “Assange leaving Sweden on September 27, 2010 was planned well in advance and was based on a planned keynote in Berlin, and was not related to this case or any imaginary flight risk.”

Jul 16 14:33 - Defense enumerates the threat situations against Assange, and shows an article from [UPDATED:] Washington Times with the headline “Assassinate Assange”, with his face against a target with blood spilling out the back of his head. Defense argues that it’s beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a clear and present danger against Assange’s person, and that he has reason to fear being abducted to the United States and fear for his health, liberty, and even life. By reason of this, Defense argues, Assange has a good and valid reason to be careful to announce his whereabouts at all times, and that this had absolutely nothing to do with this case. [UPDATED: Clarified “American media” to “Washington Times”, which was named in hearing and stated to be a well-known publication; linked to article and its graphics; and added “blood out the back of his head” describing graphic, which was said in hearings but not initially noted here]

Jul 16 14:30 - Defense: “One can clearly see that when these charges were filed, including when the decision was made to re-open some dismissed charges, Assange was visiting Sweden. He’s an Australian citizen and well known; it comes to a surprise to no one that he does a lot of travel and works internationally. Therefore, it’s unreasonable to assume that Assange had no need whatsoever to leave the country to do ordinary work. Still, Assange deliberately chose to stay in Sweden and showed up to the first hearing on August 30 [2010]. He shows no flight tendencies whatsoever. After that point, Assange stayed in Sweden until September 27. There were a few contacts between Prosecution and Defense in this time frame, when Defense asked if there was anything preventing Assange from leaving the country. Therefore, Prosecution was well aware that Assange had an interest in international travel.”

Jul 16 14:27 - Defense: “Prosecution hasn’t taken any action that would indicate this is a matter of a serious nature. Even if there would be a public interest to theoretically move ahead with all charges ever filed, the nature of this case clearly shows that the ends can’t justify the means.”

Jul 16 14:25 - Defense: “As for how these allegations were originally filed, there are considerable irregularities. The intention of the original accusers were NOT to press charges but something completely different, and there is considerable doubt whether the alleged actions even constitute a criminal act.”

Jul 16 14:24 - Defense: “As for the flight risk: this may be acceptable as an argument in the general case. However, in this case specifically, there are several facts talking against a public interest of allowing any means imaginable to conduct this investigation, in particular the unacceptable time elapsed. First, the allegations are not one of the more serious crimes in the Swedish Law. We’re not talking about murder, genocide or terrorism. The Court must consider that the severity of the alleged crimes presented by the Prosecution is limited, and can’t justify any arbitrary use of force against a suspect.”

Jul 16 14:21 - Defense: “The third principle is the principle of expedience, saying that any accused has the right to a speedy trial. These three principles are pillars in a democratic state. Putting a suspect in detention during the entire investigation would be considered by many to be considerably more use of force than sentencing somebody to jail following a trial – and, importantly: detention is only allowed to be used as an exceptional tool. It is not allowed to be used to be used by Prosecution and Police as a general rule or to get less work.”

Jul 16 14:19 - Defense criticizes Prosecution that any unclarity must speak to the favor of the defendant, rather than in favor of use of more force.

Jul 16 14:18 - Defense criticizes Prosecution that they haven’t justified how a continued detention remains in the public interest (European Convention on Human Rights specifies that a restriction in freedom must be necessary, effective, and proportionate).

Jul 16 14:17 - Defense calls on European Convention on Human Rights point 5.3, the presumtion of innocence.

Jul 16 14:17 - Defense: “There are three principles here. The necessity and proportionality principles, being applicable on the detention themselves, but also on the effectuation of this detention. Defense argues that you can’t effecutate a detention by any means available [letting the ends justify the means] but must evaluate whether the means applied must be evaluated whether they are proportionate to the presumed gains.”

Jul 16 14:15 - Defense: “We claim this detention must be lifted. Is it reasonable to keep Assange detained given these circumstances? Prosecution brings up three issues, and in combination, Defense means they lead to unreasonable consequences. The first is the time passed. In Assange’s case, it’s the lack of progress in the case that has the real effect [and not an arbitrary day count in jail]. The second is the effects to Assange’s personal situation and the restrictions on his freedom, in real effect. The third is how the case has been handled by the Prosecution, and specificially, the Prosecution’s refusal to go to London to hear Assange.

Jul 16 14:12 - Defense opens.

Jul 16 14:12 - Prosecution compares to other cases which appear peripheral to the argumentation. Prosecution closes: “There are no reasons whatsoever to re-evaluate this detention. There is a clear and present flight risk and we don’t consider a continued detention disproportionate.”

Jul 16 14:11 - Prosecution: “We do not consider a continued detention disproportionate. Assange has not been formally detained more than ten days; he has chosen to restrict his own freedom over and above in Ecuador’s embassy in London, but we argue that the time detained should count as the ten days in British jail. His time in the embassy is not a restriction of freedom effected and under control of the State.”

Jul 16 14:09 - Prosecution: “We have tried the question of hearing Assange in London and dismissed the idea as not effective.”

Jul 16 14:08 - Prosecution: “We would not be able to conduct a secure and just investigation, were we to go to London to conduct the hearings.” Prosecution compares to a case where they did go abroad, which was a case concerning economic crime.

Jul 16 14:06 - Prosecution: “There are several reasons we haven’t made hearings in London. This kind of allegation don’t work well for leaving public defenders or prosecutors on foreign soil, and we can’t apply force for taking DNA samples and similar if we consider it necessary. Besides, we can’t hold a trial in London. We’ve re-evaluated this continuously.”

Jul 16 14:04 - Prosecution: “We have exhausted everything speaking in favor of the defendant. There’s nothing we’re withholding from his lawyers in that regard.”

Jul 16 14:02 - Prosecution appears trying to define political asylum as a “flight risk”.

Jul 16 14:02 - Prosecution: “We are arguing that Assange has deliberately refused to come to Sweden for this hearing … and have learned that Assange has no intention of coming to Sweden to such a hearing … which we consider to fill the definition of a flight risk.” Prosecution handwaves and tries to diminish a point of proportionality, which the defense will probably pounce on.

Jul 16 14:00 - Prosecution talks about the possibility of traveling to London to hear Julian Assange. “We didn’t know where he was until December. We also tried repeated attempts to contact Assange through his lawyer, Björn Hurtig. This led to prosecutor Marianne Ny detaining Assange in absentia on Sep 27 2010.” … “These statements that the Prosecution has failed trying to hear Assange are forcefully refuted.” … “Detaining in absentia appeared as the only way to proceed with the investigation.”

Jul 16 13:57 - Prosecution begins talking about “risk of flight”.

Jul 16 13:57 - “The negotiations are now public again.” We are let back into the room. Guards remind us that no recording of sound or video is permitted.

Jul 16 13:56 - It’s been over 30 minutes since the doors closed when the defense wanted to show something on-screen, after the first few minutes where the court just exchanged opening pleasantries. The effect of today’s proceedings remains uncertain: if the detention in absentia in Sweden is lifted, that’s one thing, but what’s keeping Julian Assange locked into a room in an Ecuadorian embassy is an Interpol Red Notice. In other words, the internation arrest warrant must be revoked, which is a separate step from lifting the Swedish detention. Will the Prosecution do that if they lose today’s proceedings? They would be supposed to.

Jul 16 13:55 - It’s been over 30 minutes since the doors closed when the defense wanted to show something on-screen, after the first few minutes where the court just exchanged opening pleasantries. The effect of today’s proceedings remains uncertain: if the detention in absentia in Sweden is lifted, that’s one thing, but what’s keeping Julian Assange locked into a room in an Ecuadorian embassy is an Interpol Red Notice. In other words, the internation arrest warrant must be revoked, which is a separate step from lifting the Swedish detention. Will the Prosecution do that if they lose today’s proceedings? They would be supposed to.

Jul 16 13:47 - Still waiting. More nothing.

Jul 16 13:39 - We’re still waiting outside of room 27. There are quite a few reporters here talking to members of the public, including from the large news agencies. They’re typing a lot on laptops, despite oxygen-starved standing room only.

Jul 16 13:30 - We’re still standing outside room 27 with no sign of what’s happening behind closed doors.

Jul 16 13:22 - We of the public are standing waiting outside room 27 in the Stockholm District Court.

Jul 16 13:20 - Network is painfully inadequate. (Testing.)

Jul 16 13:19 - Before the doors closed, prosecutor and defender presented their respective stances. No surprises there: Defense; “we call for the detention of Julian Assange to be lifted, effective immediately”. Prosecution: “We object to this motion and call for its dismissal.” After that, the defense wanted to “show something” on-screen, at which point the court closed its doors to the public. This is not unusual for sensitive parts of trials dealing with privacy-sensitive material.

Jul 16 13:14 - Parties greet each other. The court starts off by closing its doors and chasing everybody out, to resume public parts later.

Jul 16 13:10 - Call over the PA system: “Renewed-detention negotiations, Prosecutor v Assange. Parties and representatives are called to room 37″. Room 27 opens; we of the public pour in.

Jul 16 13:04 - It’s almost five past the hour, and the room has still not opened. Rumors in the audience here say that the press conference with the Police afterward won’t be open to the public and is by pre-announced presence only.

Jul 16 13:03 - Some people have asked me why I haven’t taken a clear stance on this issue. The explanation is simple: since I have first-hand observations of the events surrounding the allegations, if this should ever come to trial, I would be a defense witness (and I have left a deposition with the Police to that effect). Therefore, I have refrained from speculating on the case in the media, given that such speculation could burn my testimony, and I consider that to be more valuable than a random voice with opinions. When people have asked me about my opinions anyway, I have pointed to the fact that I’m slated to be a defense witness and asked them if they can draw any conclusions from that, refusing to elaborate further.

Jul 16 13:00 - The room (27) has not opened yet. Maybe 30 people of the public are gathered outside. I recognize many or most of them.

Jul 16 12:58 - Test

Jul 16 12:57 - Only people with media accreditation are being let into the room where the actual court proceedings are held (room 37 in the Stockholm District Court) – the public is only welcome to an audio feed of the proceedings, which is fed to a room on a different floor (room 27). This mirrors the mock trial of The Pirate Bay, which was done the same way, in this very court, actually.


You've read the whole article. Why not subscribe to the RSS flow using your favorite reader, or even have articles delivered by mail?

About The Author: Rick Falkvinge

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.

Liked This?

By participating in the discussion and posting here, you are placing your contribution in the public domain (CC0). If you are quoting somebody else, credit them.

Contributors take own responsibility for their comments.


  1. 1

    RF: Thanks for doing God’s work.

    > Prosecution: “We have tried the question of hearing Assange in London and dismissed the idea as not effective.”

    The effect they were looking for, apparently, was not to get information, but to get DNA samples, and conduct a trial. If they want to collect DNA and conduct a trial, why don’t they just formally charge him?

    This “attempt” to get information is just a ruse, and the Swedish authorities are making lame excuses as to why they can’t just get the information by talking to Assange directly.

    In Sweden, flight risk means being trapped in a tiny room for 2 years. Apparently.

  2. 2

    Just pointing out a spelling mistake. Correct spelling: defence.

  3. 3

    Great job, thank you!

    One thing we’ve seen is that Assange + sex = clicks. Knowing the self-serving MSM as we do, I predict your blog will be highly plagiarized by tomorrow by ‘journalism’s finest’.

  4. 4

    I’m glad the Defense played clips of ‘tough’ commentators, calling for Julian’s murder. If Julian comes out on top here, then perhaps they won’t be so glib, next time.

    • 4.1
      Felix The Cat

      The defense showed clips of Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, a far-right Tea Party loving, Right Wing Republican outlet. They aren’t representative of the US (otherwise Romney would be president). Their commentators are clueless idiots who embarrass themselves on a regular basis.

      • 4.1.1

        Felix is the sort of moron who would rather DIE than explain WTC # 7.

        if you think Romney the chinese rep has any american interest you are beyond stupid,,, try Dr Alan Sabrosky on youtube or 911missinglinks dotcom can both help you stop embarrasing yourself.

      • 4.1.2
        Scary Devil Monastery

        A number of US senators and congressmen have demanded Assange be tried for espionage in wartime, and a few have gone out in public asking for an executive decision to have him assassinated.

        So it isn’t “just” Fox news. And even so, Whether Fox is owned by a far-right republican or not doesn’t change the fact that many politicians sitting in congress are openly calling for Assange to be executed. By any means necessary.

      • 4.1.3
        Scary Devil Monastery

        Fox may be sensationalist claptrap owned by a far-right extremist but the comments shown are accurate enough. Numerous congressmen and senators have openly called for Assange to be prosecuted according to wartime espionage law, executed, or simply assassinated.

        You may call that insane but the fact remains those are part of the highest strata of legislative power in the US.

        The same people who enabled GWB and Cheney to go to actual war while lying through their teeth about the “justification” for it.

        Whether it was Fox News or the flying spaghetti monster who conveyed the honeyed words of those politicians on behalf of the defense is just about egal. The threat of Assange simply getting shipped off to vanish into some 3rd world hellhole operated by the US the second he sets foot on Swedish soil is quite real. After all, Sweden has done exactly that before.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          Sorry about the double post – was sure I’d been glitched out on the first one…

        • gurrfield

          The very core of human nature shows when something that a person has learned he is “entitled to” is lost or taken away. When those things are threatened, not even outrageous and irrational lies about “child porn” or war or even worse means can stop ‘em.

  5. 6
    Caleb Lanik

    Thanks for covering this, Rick. Is there any reason you weren’t able to get press credentials to be present at the trial itself rather than hearing audio as a member of the public?

    • 6.1

      I could have, I just didn’t expect (or anticipate) that pre-registration would be required for the actual trial room. But we had audio AND video of the other room in our room, which I actually prefer – that means you see everything and yet can cough or sneeze without disturbing the trial.


      • 6.1.1
        Caleb Lanik

        Ah, that makes sense. Well, thanks a lot for covering this, it’s the only news I’ve seen on the hearing all day, and likely the most accurate I’ll see at all.

  6. 7
    Johan Tjäder

    Very good. Some comments.

    The Stockholm city district court notes that the detention order has not been executed. That means that Swedish law does not consider Assange to be detained. So this is not a case about long detention periods.

    On “flight risk”. The Swedish law talks about absconding or in some other way evading prosecution. When there is probable cause for suspecting a crime has been committed by someone without permanent residence in Sweden he may be detained regardless of the seriousness of the crime, if by leaving the country he may evade prosecution or punishment. Obviously. Assange is evading prosecution. He may think he has good reasons to, but evading it is anyway.

    On the EAW-process in England. It is unfortunate that the EAW dragged on for such a long time. This is a clear violation by the English justice system of the rules governing EAWs. Such proceedings should normally be completed within 60 days and certainly not more than 90 days. During this time UK authorities were responsible for the detention and bail conditions. It cannot be held against Assange that he exercised the options available to him by English law. However I don’t think it can be held against Swedish authorities that such a process takes more than the required 90 days.

    On Ecuador. The decision of Ecuador to grant asylum has no importance in this case. It explains why Assange has been able to avoid being apprehended by UK authorities, but it matters not on the issue of Assange being detained according to Swedish law. In fact, when Sweden grants asylum to people that are suspected of having committed (political) crimes, they of course know that regardless they cannot return home or visit another country.

    Nor is it as simple as rescinding the Swedish detention order, thereby nullifying the European arrest warrant. Assange is wanted by UK authorities for breaking the conditions of his bail. If there is a stale mate, Swedish authorities are not the only ones to blame.

    On appeals. The prosecution can appeal a decision to rescind a detention order. These things happen.

    It would be interesting to get a proper reference to the supreme court decision that was referred to.

  7. […] is providing live coverage of the ruling here. Swedish Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge also live-blogged the hearing from the Stockholm District […]

  8. 8


    Good work. Who makes the ecision in the Appeal Court? Is it a single judge as in lower court or a panel of judges? If a panel of judges, how many?


    • 8.1

      The general rule in Sweden is that there is a single judge in the District Court (lowest), a panel of three judges in the Appeals Court (middle), and a panel of five judges in the Supreme Court (highest in Sweden). In addition to these three, which are on the Swedish level, there’s also the European Court of Justice which is a fourth appeals level at the European level (but which takes years and years and years if you want to go there).

      To add to this, in criminal cases, there’s always a panel of five people judging. Something resembling jury people is added to the schooled judges until the total number of people on the panel equals five.


  9. […] the court proceedings on Wednesday, Assange’s defense team argued that law enforcement officials have had the opportunity to question Assange during the past four […]

  10. 9

    One is left wondering what is in it for the Swedish system to be acting so obviously for USA in this saga. How dependent is Sweden on the USA re trade etc? What is the real agenda here? Of course rendition to some USA prison hell hole – on extended remand – is the plan or they would have come to London to interview him. Shocking that Sweden is not independent. Also, If the two women did not intend to press charges (as is reported) what is stopping them speaking out? They were very keen on him after all according to texts that are in the public domain!

    • 9.1

      Sweden as a country is not very dependent, but we have been fed american culture since after WWII so there is a big informal “status” in everything american. Of course also govt employees, law professionals and bureaucats in the state are affected by that ( who isn’t? ). The marshall plan money was well invested. Effectively bought our hearts and souls for decades.

      That’s why illegal file-sharing really is free (gratis) advertisement and free PR for America, although of course they pretend it isn’t.

  11. 10

    Shameful! Is the Swedish court bought and paid for???

  12. […] LIVE: Detention Lift Hearings For Assange, Stockholm District Court […]

  13. […] LIVE: Detention Lift Hearings For Assange, Stockholm District Court […]

  14. 11
    Caleb Lanik

    I hope you will do more stories like this. It seems that a lot of important political stories are happening in Sweden these days, and your coverage, while not without its bias, does seem comprehensive. Far more so than the mainstream media, which, to my knowledge didn’t cover the story at all.

  15. […] «  Julian Assange’s actual crime was “pissing off the United States »” . […]

  16. […] Falkvinge live-blogged the hearing, offering detailed accounts of the prosecution and defense […]

  17. […] For a detailed account of today’s court hearing visit Rick Falkvinge’s live blog. […]

  18. […] Julian Assange’s lawyers have lodged an appeal in Sweden against the arrest warrant which is keeping Assange detained inside the Ecuadorian Embassy. They state that the prosecutor’s failure to question Assange in London “is in gross breach of Swedish law”. Background to the appeal can be read here, and coverage of the previous hearing can be read here. […]

Add a Comment

+ 6 = 8  

On Facebook

Popular Articles

US Capitol Buildings

Quality Legislation – Nozomi Hayase

Quality Legislation – Nozomi Hayase


Quality Legislation – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Quality Legislation – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Open water - Photo by Flickr user elisfanclub

Reflections – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Reflections – Zacqary Adam Xeper


Civil Liberties – Christian Engström

Civil Liberties – Christian Engström

Other Recent Headlines

Bitcoin concept

Cryptocurrency – Nozomi Hayase

Cryptocurrency – Nozomi Hayase


Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Screenshot from Librep-2014-08-10-take1.mp4

Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties

Librep July 12 frame

Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties

Money cut into pieces - Photo by Flickr user Tax Credits

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper


United States – Zacqary Adam Xeper

United States – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Adobe the leech - original photo by OakleyOriginals on Flickr

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper


Swarm Economy – Lionel Dricot

Swarm Economy – Lionel Dricot


Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

European Parliament

Pirate Parties

Pirate Parties

About The Author

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. He has a tech entrepreneur background and loves whisky.

More On Infopolicy

NSA Seal Holding the Heartbleed Logo

Infrastructure – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Infrastructure – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Bitcoin concept by Antanacoins. CC-By-SA, Flickr.

Cryptocurrency – Charlie Shrem

Cryptocurrency – Charlie Shrem

Bottles of Snake Oil - Photo by Jagrap on Flickr

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Copyright Monopoly – Zacqary Adam Xeper


Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper


Infopolicy – Henrik Brändén

Infopolicy – Henrik Brändén


Copyright Monopoly – David Collier-Brown

Copyright Monopoly – David Collier-Brown


Infopolicy – Christian Engström

Infopolicy – Christian Engström

"God Hates Signs" next to "God Hates Fags" protesters

Freedom of Speech – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Freedom of Speech – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Many different currencies - CC photo by epSos.de

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Diversity – Zacqary Adam Xeper


Copyright Monopoly – Lionel Dricot

Copyright Monopoly – Lionel Dricot

Valve mechanism

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech

Books before copyright

Copyright Monopoly – Johnny Olsson

Copyright Monopoly – Johnny Olsson

Collaborative whiteboard at OuiShare 2012, full of wonderful ideas for venture capitalists to ruin - photo by Natalie Ortiz

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Swarm Economy – Zacqary Adam Xeper

Border Patrol In Montana

Activism – Travis McCrea

Activism – Travis McCrea

Spices - Marrakech 09 Souks

Swarm Economy

Swarm Economy

This publication is protected under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden. Any problem you have with this publication remains exclusively yours. Accountable publisher: Rick Falkvinge.
All text on this site is Public Domain / CC0 unless specifically noted and credited otherwise. Copy, remix, and inspire. (Troll policy.)
Log in | Original theme design by Gabfire themes (heavily modified)