10:40 12 jul 2011 julian assange extradition appeal julian handed me one of the last three copies after

a young times journalist upset him with the word irresponsible after he discussed that there were no digital copies , I said NO DIGITAL? I chased after him and said julian may I have a copy? Twice until he heard me. He looked at me---as why, how---i said LA WEEKLY to let him know he has our support at urban nomad. I am mailing this directly to urban nomad jeremiah alexis of LA Weekly who would have loved to be here. Minutes from day 1 12 july 2011: Your lordship four points EAW failed to provide second inv v pros. Appellate not for purp of proseec but investigation disproportionate EAW third charges in charge3 failed to provide an intelligible averrment as to the time the respondent the english version contains a mistranslation is equivalent to on a particular date as matters stand there is no relation she is not to introduce evidentiary that much fourth issue whether executive prosecution not judicial autho ananda---

we o not propose t elaborate the simplest way housekeeping procedure on behalf of appellate grounds one this case concerns three incidents two women four charges 13, 14 aug sexual encounter second with 17th complaint charge four in wanrrant 3 eigth charge 3 while given there is a high degree of press interest in these matters these are extradition not re cred of complainant nor guilt evidential sufficientcy cts of these proceedings nothing should involve any attack on genuineness re regret with consensual sex or trivialize experiences disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing what this case will need dispassioante case whether for this case for crim law sexual defenses in this country overarching before I turn to the detail can I stand back in summary charge one AA consensually agreed to allow assange to remove her clothes consensually single bed lie naked there consent to sex till its conclusion

charge 2 end of encounter AA discovered that condom had split it is not alleged that he did anything to split it other than sex the third charge 18 AA continued to share a single bed he got an erection she got out of bed he took the matter no further 4th charge 17th minor rape took place SW had invited assange into her flat had consensual sex with a condom on three occasions third time the condom was not secure described subsequently half asleep she found him penetrate asked did he have sex consent allegations criminal in sweden??? swedish law does not recognize consent of complainant as essential to criminal whereas sexual act is only crim if complainant did not consent secondly the accused did not believe that she was consent we have a conceptual mishap btw two regimes extremely impt starting pt house of lords

specific mens rea not necessary for mens rea for EAW dual criminality statute facts and circumstances must be such that it is poss to infer state must discharge a crim std of proof that the ens rea is sufficiently est consent nt specifically averred in sweden sufficient clarity inevitable influence three different principles bearing differently on four charges reality exercise strand in respect to each of the four charges the description in the warrant does not describe a decription of the circumstances a challenge which stands alone req judges in the warrant not by judge secondly we say that on the true facts as are truly led by complainants there is no double criminality the conduct which of complained of does not constitute a crime in this country exercise the ct nonetheless has an impt residual jurisdiction to be residually described as being rape the third strand to the challeng n certain respects on some of the charges as pleaded in EAW the double crim would not be met in with alleged tear of condom

pause guiding princip from first round what particulars bc ct does not consider this a prima facie case a function of the extradition case the court has to form a double crim analysis re tickbox analysis it must follow in the fact session to see circumstances it enables a dual crim analysis transposition precisely what this court held in terms in Hector the particulars must enable a proper transposition exercise a failure to est events in warrants is gd for challenge dual crim cannot be satisfied if offense be described it would disable the trial its impt and we will see the way in which the court proceeded below in these pts received argument castillo point it took the point on the assumption on point would be . . . district judge appears to have turned skeleton into incorp by adoption on that face argument tho not included on closing submissions put in closing a s a free standing ground of challenge 315 skeleton argument district judge failed to rule on it what was raised castillo needs qualification

as the hearing emerged certain key items emerged the point is touched upon in less than clear written submissions for our lordships as free standing 351 not fair to criticize district judge this is an impt. The district judge rules under this rubric not others lacunae evidentially during course of the hearing the stmts were admitted b4 the district judge montgomery closed on that even with appellant the remainder of the swedish investigation file was not submitted assume: not helpful solicitor in sweden to get the file then the file be open to miss montgomery to challenge the proceedings we clear the docks on---b4 district judge there remains a that file represents what had been disclosed to bjorn hurtig b4 arrest warrant issued miss montgomery there is additional interviews the EAW the evidence that they will not give to british counsel or the appellate what is normal for themselves in countries with dossier the appellate would have access to dossier that must happen prior to final interview and prior to the formal final indictment so then 2 weeks b4 trial

then hurtig saw this miss NY shoed him he saw file how we are going to answer to say where we have complete statement of complaint well we interviewed complainants further manifest consistency not properly characterized as rape questions different circumstances the prosecution mad e a submission to ct of appeals whilst complaintants had been reinterviewed there was nothing new of substance what was the date 18th november b4 warrant swedish lawyert third statement on the 2nd of september in file went from dossier to see clarification we should really reinterviewed and when SW REINTERVIEWD THEN she was not fully asleep but when was awake fully consented. Which the three grounds of challenge UNLAWFUL COERCION naked press weight when she was checking for condom she said she would like to wear a condom which then he did performing transposition we do not aver again it is again then

pont castillo whether charge should specify the contact alleged when look at what the charge actually means condom had so on misdescribed in charge on the true facts it is not a case of double criminality then the district judge ruled wrong if a man deceived woman re: condom, that would not be a crime here in england even if this had occurred this would not erection press insufficiently described charge one EAW objectionally misleading fails to do what the act \ did mislead the district judge that was another issue which judge ruled and then fourthly then the charge minor rape full rape this description on true facts this jurisdiction do not say on the pleaded case was it rape section 76 2003 sex act creates a rebuttable presumption re penetrate a sleeping woman she cannot be presuemd to engage then he refutes

belief that fully consented that a woman is consenting the case overcame the double criminality facts express evidence that she did consentingthe misdescription that is why we need a proper accurate description lordships will see as required EAW sets out a description of the circumstances unlawful coersion used violence restriction of freedom of movement his body weight force and so on to vitiate consentingwhen on the true facts the event was consensual in moments the iniquity on which district judge gets it wrong AA discovers split molested her to violate her sexualintegrity initiated unprotectedsexual intercourse without her knowledge molestation characterization misrep potential to mislead judge sexual consent re condom deception not a crime in UK in the home pressed naked fingers to create a touchstone of nonconsent norris principlesinference of nonconsent makes better?? 17 august improperly exploiting that she in sleep helpless state still consummated unprotected sex actual two participants

there is not a second opinion and two points of view the allegation that there was an allegation happy to receive no agreed to receive aghgravating circumstances whilst in sleep in a helpless sex 76 rebuttable presumption it was known in fact that she was consenting re whether UK would consider this a crime---&^ montgomery if they had happened to be in london would sexual offenses act of 2003 it that first act had come in london he enterred her and assumed she appreciated it fact which goes to sentence knowing it is there express wish there common european union framework these offenses with the issue very odd idea of mutual cooperation purpose to identify by category of offense factually aggravating place request aggravating does it go to a greater

sex whilst asleep if in additionalappropriate penalty Q of swedish law the swedish authority not req to tell us when judicial amity comity mutual cooperation level of consentingcharge two offense there is no dispute whether dual criminality would it be a crime in great britain??? no tin relation to rape---its framework does this reasonably resemble what can be called rape in this country??? formal AA interviewedas part of annex portion of stmt of jennifer robinson finished on the day 2 two days b4 judgement form part of hearing and indeed made he could decide judgement not taking we need to be clear stmts were b4 district ct judges in the adversarial proceedings submission of other parties I make point at outset how she understood it complainant's stmt if you thought the rest of the file helps you

then pull it in too little in response to this intermission of what they have did not include for the interviews that is how we end up AA stmt evidence shows is that AA there has been evidence by police officer put into narrative summary should be provided to complainant'stheir equiv of a stmt. An issue of SW whether she had a chance to read it back press sec for swedish social dem originally planned to be away let every small apt in her absence returned to flat in touch be email and telephone they agreed he would stay theydrank tea neither she not assange had had alcohol first advance touch knee it felt awkward impatient ripped off close ripped necklace put more on he removed clothes she letallowe--him to take off clothes they lay in bed she was lying on back when he wanted to insert she turned her hips and squeezed her legs she could not reach a condom he must have known he asked what she was doing he let go and put on a condom

this is the crime then they have sex suspicion she felt condom was in place they continued to AA should not be named since her name is public in sweden lesser sexual offense attempt to anonamize her better to not name her we anonymized our skeleton argument appellate skeleton argument complainant redacted name she wanted to get it over with she noticed that he pulled out he tried to arrange the condom penetrated her she again felt condom edge which is why she then let him do it the way in which this is described is inevitably misleading he ejac EAW misleading in the extreme after the above mentioned event she states they had no more sex yet assaneg continued to stay with her thru 22 august he made advances to her every eve she rejected on each occasion wed 18 he took his clothes she felt it was awkward she moved to a mattress on the floor with a couple with previously existing sex there domestic sexual

proof not only that she did not consentingthat he unsderstood her not to consentingit may work in another way what takes place after in the following paragraph we hardly slept together bc he was up late a little further down an ultimate s he is worried about STDs AA voluntarialy but she would not let it without a condom. The position nothing consistent cleared allegationsend of the first turn then to charge 4 816 this is again a record of a aformal interviewed out of court 817 818 (do not resume after lunch break typed notes: missing content re: second atty for assange---re word) day 2 indictment serious thing ishmael court of appeal info avail to assange suspected with prob cause is in this jurisdiction arrest and no more when prob cause becomes crystallized we see the district judge cannot say b4 whether or when a prosecution has commenced the end of the district

no warrant to continue to say that nonetheless he is accused without reason to substantiate this firstly the ct may ct as an authority can hostile charge supplementary materials deires question further whether or not to prosecute paragraph 19 that is nothing like obviously charges first up necessary prelim procedure preparatory when the prosecuting authority has read and decided to absent self fm czech repub reality of this case which concerns pre-prosecution could be concluded at any time should the prosecutor quit interview could take place out of sweden under swedish law. 10:10 12 july 2011 it will follow then ct those cases cant be of any help---says judge--in essence ask: is there any case re the requirement is their a relevant case pertinent response we can say this case cn be looked at from ishmael the annex to the euro arrest warrant judge says

are their any euro law cases relevant to this case moseley section 23a this case is about wondering whether 23b ishmael drawn to other authorities if we say no in that case mr bartlettmwas charged consider 23b there is real confusion one draws ishmael into where there is no function at all. Judge: I do beg your pardon commentators in britain have dealt with this there is general concern re human rights (EAW was established for easy deportation, refoulement, extradition for USA client state federation EU) 1990 not that the b provision would prevent unfair extradition ----judge 2---simply being q about suspicion, b is the provision. ++++ I break missed transcript++++ EAW proportionality the acciused atty: very broad particular case the prosecutor OUSLEY appear by video by taking that up it was not proportionalityin the interest of the complainant'scannot be satisfied by protracted claims atty for JA indeed your lordship put it better there was a more proportionate way tho proceedings

dec 2010 report EU commision pages seven to eight an issue of proportionality rthe proportionality check the EAW trivial offenses there is an alternative approach that would be less offensive to both complainant and JA a revised handbook was issued with the EU council re this issue directly addressed there are measures avail to a judicial authority a EAW should be checked by a judicial authoritiesso far as it internal mechanisms are avail so as persuaded as section 2.3 you cant look at extrinsic info only if limits are put on 2.3 that one needs to look aty proportionality tehre is no need bc XXX does it for us exercise if one is being not really yr point there is another message the warrant itself is used for reasons it cant be----judge 2---simply for questions---attend nec formality---you are saying the warrant cant be used atty: my lord precisely sec 2.3 is proportionality check we do not need to look at it and secondly proportionality is a problem with our concern issuance of EAW first

and second the execution stealing a chicken---smthng like that--you see some discussion of diproportionate execution joseph and sarah harrison second row internalleft rt to left first row behind assange john pilger air friend jen rob head of london investigative journalism dagens nyheter spoke to aftonblabet.se and hello to norway aftonbladet hello wie gehts and hu mor du to assange who waved at the gallers gateth her assistant assange another assistant kristin hraffnsson judge says (favorable to assange) ben emmerson submission shall we go further your lordships the arguments can I summarize 2 or three firstly ananda 79 wrongly decided on its facts subsec 2 of 2003 ACT for extradtion framework makes clear a judicial authority is designated by the relevant state in ananda that was considered conclusive there was no investigationwhether the swedish police could be considered judicial

plainly wrong on its facts unambiguous in favor that the appellate made by ananda and ref to articl 6 by which content given to section 2 paragraph six and seven make it clear beyond parliament did not intend public prosecution to fall within judicial authority in resp to takinf ammendment and standing did not refer to a judicial authority but not mention judicial but an authority of territory but later added as an ammendment there is no reneg on previous treaties we expect EAW will be issued under judicial auth in compliance with this ammendment a judicial body our aobjections aree no diff than any other agreement magistrate is much closer than a prosecutioon the swedish prosecutor what we understand re human rts an authority must be independent of authority must be independent of the party and the executive (NY_BORGSTROM_BODSTROM_REINFELDT_ROVE) swedish prosecutor is not a judge not in principlesthe judicial axion 6 go back to cases a judicial authority independent drives embarassing eaw system who are the judicial authorities

for purposes of an arrest warrant it is the national police force this must change sweden's position in EU kronor half baked NATO in sweden the designated authority is the prosecutor designated for warrants are the police exactly as happened in ananda one doesnt strain judeg thru anglosaxon arguments as judicial authority precisely these issues---the prosecution---montgomery---to justify the initial does not satisfy the req of the ct emmerson: re franc3e your lordship judge you impt em: if lord approaches for full effect where 2003 act goes beyond the frameworkthen we are required this will not stisfy judge: european or continental authoritiesthat is not a judicial authority strasbourg why should a UK parlimentarian decide it should not be a prosecutor, but a judge em: this was inserted in the legislation

judge: the force of the argument goes back to much easier to go behind the law emm: ananda was wrongly decided and the swedish enforcement prosecution is wrong it is not enough to use framework as a guide but as a substantial law english interp parliament must have had a reason to assert authority your lordship: beyond judicial scrutiny. Well we know where prliament drew it. Okay---MONTGOMERY: the act if I can just start with the historical context prior to 03 act the 1999 act governed re 1997 conv eu on torture the framework of it considered in terms of it by using that in the 2 landmark instruments for extradition report yr lordship in 1957 treaty on extradition judicial authority include prosecutor and not police assange bulletproof vest scribbles on yellow post-it notes montgomery the decision to enforcementthe ct has convicted the carriage of the task in that sense for mister emmerson there is an antecedent which justifies the warrant itself that our EUROPEAN PARTNERS should

thompson 1961 lithuania 1966 poland 22 crete 68 dutch case make eyes with court clerks on left---as montgomery shows her teeth---smile as she nails coffin concentrate on waterboarding---pro---she looks concerned girl in white dress hands air to julian h hands to perice assistant and then to emmerson--a proper application---says montgomery---she quotes long history of euro extraditions montgom: ref. To ananda a pre 1989 request 1870 act post 1989 act another dutch case from the source holland looka t either of those speant nite at aussie's london flat with one who knew assange from childhood---aussie hacker community aftonbladet asked me if I am a supporter the phrase of the 99 act assange is glancing at air white dress she hands him reference sends to lawyer 2 at far lft who sits at front table with emmerson montgomery internal pagination 10:57 assange speaks to atty 2 over table district court

the conclusion montgomery nothing in the act as authentication there is no reason to be published 1970 act 1989 act incorporates euro convention for obvious reasons asmi understand as the minister infers what happens the positon infers that public prosecutor can issue warrant same as b4 2003 to get bac jen rob takes notes emmerson read what was intended by the ammendment continuation of the power to issue warrant and command arrest we expect EU incoming requests in euro language the meaning is clear the framework decision ananlysis court clerk approaches montgomery---the one with whom I have made extended eye contact meditating on waterboarding in guantanamo commentary there montgomery given the time I have you cannot conclude judicial authorities

your lordship is not

there are some cases in which a warrant can be issued horrible she wont anglicize the french!!!!! does she need some help??? judicial authority the expansion of the cout judicial authority and not for the authority pilger is behind gareth who wears white absolutely clear---says montgomery--gareth writes notes mont: with simplified procedures come to the interp there is no usher---clerk court tries to get gallery to sit down this embarasses the court authority free sources speeches the paragraph back my lord page 39 systems surrender frame of reference in relation to framework decisions page forty no doubt territory my lord finding on the result to be achieved obligation to interp framework tho it may not interp

contra legend regard specialized meaning expostively that it might be intended that is just to say to coing back it is worth noting what lord bingam has said out trust material the accordance on position four the substantive in trust with case any additional relevation and then interp same effect montg: page 2 50 parag (notes passing thru assange) seventy six equating interp as in so far as it is possible to do so directly interpretive criteria and tho ananda framework to allow loyalty their judicial authority correct on her say gallery gril from metro storysearcher bronwinn twitters

montgomeryex facie ct obligation to eenquire judge ministry of justice (think borgsstrom--- bodstrom flees sweden---stockholm cables--- ---anna lindh____) when there is a gen challenge for authority tehre is no place for the challenge---montg judge execustive??? montgomeryappropriate way to challenge the swedish judicial authority the way to challenge is a petion combine judicial review the point is this--the cts ememrson has not a ct of compliance judicial auth diff subj judge: luxembourg thee only other european authority mont; scotland judge cracks joke! Irish times a lithuanian case paragraph

25 montgomery judicial authority framework decision think also white suited boy twitters by iphone make eye contact joke hair noose crack up red hair girl judeg 2 tainted by ananda see that in paragraph 36 everything you see tending to produce more restrictive extradition---there fore whatever nanda in mont. Conclusion only other uk text in body vol 2 relies upon ananda fairly and squarely with a prosecutor in belgium correct relies on this a relevant decision a decision of the administrative decision

now my lord I have to say about that issue it demonstrates the impt of not taking the language of the act yr lordship appeared analysis not simply to uncover themselveslanguage

who is montgomery---justiceforassange.co.uk notes her brains aussie friend accusation of accusation are auton concepts rather than form you get the same language obvious accused or prosecuted mean the same thing prosecution is the point at which to bring a case into a criminal process montgomery dont care what the questioning state calls it maintain scutiny of the facts or proceedings can be relied rather than for some sxtraneous purposes montgomery stutters I agree and about releative importance relative 2003 extraditionssufficient material to see person as accused b as was made clear in kenstar official protection could be accused b4 it was clear the purpose of the extraditions coul d be accused in investigative phase ismael that it is in investigative phase doesnt matter trial has some formalistic overtones btw the prosecution and the defense

if that were ight that would make extradition impossible to a state like sweden0stockholm criminal process---judge montgom---reasonable time requirement juge skeleton purely investigative other than crim process emmerson drinks water gallery chatterslaughs

you cannot say the only purpose is trial somewhere btw knock on door and trial then that is sufficientlythe fact that investigative procedures running irrelevant judge decide when the investigation assange consults case law writes note to?

Montgom: investigative trial dispute: whether judeg : what predominates is the prosecution and trial mont: we have an accusation and a desire to bring to trisl judge: subjective desire of prosecutor???????? montgomery part one warrant issued with a view that there is a prosecution

judge 2 I dont understand why you accept their investigation what more is required derogatory prt on that particular spectrum whereabouts is one in a case of this sort?????

there has not been a pretrial process where does this relate?????---judge montg: has their been a sufficiently formulated charge as opposed to being merely suspected and is there material on which we can say this is an issue for view on extraditionscan be montgomery we dont need to be anywhere near trial suspect flies redhanded to france (for example) we allege he has murdered his wife and we need to bring him to trial you can look at it an english way where he describes from arrst to suspicion in which nothing is proven to a process which goes forward in formulating the charge in my submission that is the way we are looking at this is this in sweden0stockholmmere suspicion or is this a case where a concrete allegation has been made on prob cause that this person has comitted a criminal act dist ct in sweden says yes montgomery 1917 942, 948

suspicion in its ordinary meaning---i suspect but I cannot prove---black's???? the autonomous need to be given toaccusation where not possible accusation must cover when accuse in england yes bc what the statuatory charge square the process---judge--if you apply what page??simialr in a way formality the system then montgomeryuse in a eurofriendlyway without regard judge: basic assumptions what you are really saying charge is what it really is mont: loathe unique feature defense judge: parliament if someone felt people are being extradited polyaginous way I can formal charge concrete allegationsreal purpose is they intend a trial montg: may I come back there is at least an argument that muruah is wrong and that what is required is said to be the accusation on the face of the EAW formalistic and the reason of that is bc that bc what parliament specializednec

element there is another reason why bc in the end what one is analyzing in terms of extraditionsprosecutors case what prosecutor is complaining about extraditionsmeans conduct complained of the acts and the state of mind which the prosecutor seeks to bring to trial so it has nothing to do with

mr em said I must make plain I would wih to argue the rt of ct emmerson: thereafter what I submit via castillo only allegation warrant decision effectively definitively there is an inadequate statement of that which the prosecutor compalins about----mont it is a pre-process there has got to be a clear stmt what they allege thirdly it must be one that makes a iff to the double criminality judeg2 law montgom laughs that is the principlesthe family basis of exteradtition is to take the facts as stated by the prosecutiona s that which should be used in trial there wasnt any evidential inquiry.

Mr emmerson's trial can see that---judge too---one ignores some of the more elaborate conspiracies we will see where we go montg: what is at trial is emmersons his idea of consensual sexal encounter to 19th century law hooshoowu for grey. Only my lord if you were re true vacts prosecutor brings case of violence maybe her case is not strong---montgom incontrovertible case in my solu there is noth to sugg that the prosecutor has any intention to bring case in the way that it is draw up that issue those particular charges has been b4 district ct and sve ct of appeals full argument of hurtig se atty dossiier has supported (and hurtig's career has been destroyed with swedish bar) 2 what has been analysed montgomery what I next propose is we look at the charges and compare against the evidence in thre dossier it is perfectly plain that what one is looking at is that it was noncons coerced sex coerce basis sweden0stockholmconsent UK they did not freely consent via trap via force submit to attentions they let him continue that probably both of yr lordships re sexual offenses act

judicial activism re characterize consensus unfortunately useful way whether castello applies I would say it is nonconsensual I let him means submission and not free consentingc perceptions are in aid of consent not a substitution of it relevant I did not give free choice relativism tearing necklace montgomery talks about penis as if she was the rapee page 39 father has sex with 13 year old bc she woke up and did not stop she might have consented the ct has moved on consent agrees the freedom to make choice yr lordships will see that the reference barris head cooperationmental health case this is difficult to think of an act more one does not consent to sex in general but to this act at this time there is undue focus on earlier consentingthe assumption that the compalinant cannot be presumed to consent to later agreement

there is an analysis re brooking debunk 199 paragreaph doesnt qualify on seventy six cannot be flow as yr lordships will see not only will we disagree that the case makes plain even is deception is made plain as a matter of evidence page what lies told police to speak capable of depriving her of free choice even if did not 76 qual a s a deception so as they say in that case they have not been seized the freedom to choose whether or not to have the freedom to choose section 75 and 76 74 not in substitution I do respectfully suggest if the charge alleges violence 75 7 4 relevant both evident a s amatter of presuemption it will affect the terms whether defendant has reasonable belief which emmerson does not mention

clearly where violence was used clearly steps have been taken to whether

I ought to make it plain that I do not make it plain B does not permit a positive deception of the use of the condom why they say it 89 but because b is with deceptions implied not positive you cannot simply say it was limited to a single purpose not limit sex grat 2 purposes sex grat and procreation in my deception re: procreation within lang of the act may be regarded within the language of the act re: deceptionsb is the only case in the area judeg 2: re now mont: I agree with mr emmerson the final nature of the adoption full authority deception to that case ceases cannot be deals with implied deceptions judgeL not saying norm is positive dual crim---judge 2---re england and wales constant suspicion montgomery---the law---ascertain---decisively show (activism judicial)

montgomery arguably wrong in approach to 76 weigh in balance doubly irrelevant framework of this case truly we have to deal with this point it doesnt arise---judge one-emmerson five as violence judge parliament 2003 violence parliament set up that is not this case montgom: I just dual crim by the judge I do not recognize long assertion she did not consent to unprotected sex placed in a judge emmerson: speaks softly can we get the shariah of jen rob wish jen rob was against montgomery is jen rob solicitor? Montgomery;IN MY OP making a decision I TELL YOU WHAT MY SUBMISSION IS

JUDGE IT DOESN TMATTER judge kils ct---montgomery my I then take yr lordships to demonstrate the essential parts of the allegations as made by the prosecutors

what they say is clearly describing coercive violent sex and mr assange so far as charge one is concerned material by way of A 1882 prelude to the events assange ripped clothes break necklace tries to get dressed let him says he most have known forcibly

assange scrbbles three women at the bech with assange

note to gareth assistant judge: it is not said that they didnt give they do give it is coercive

not free choice she felt she had let it go to far to characterize as consensual as nonconsensual the charge relates to actions which nobody suggests lie on her and insert his into X her (((((after years of waiting nothing changes hold breath head rush charge whatever wrong consent irrelevant charge we need fedoras more 1950s PRADA mafia rosenberg set designated))))) montgom body language l rt hand forward left to the side she did not consent one doesnt consent in general one consent to each act re hold arms judge 2 precise as man and woman they lie together in bed this an assault begins can divide that up and none of the context re none of the offense the job to split is up (spiders)

montgom: consent quarters re: consenting subsequently consents J; on what we must assume is not the charge irrelevant to the charge not to our exercise M: lord need s to concentrate swedish addresses the cruel european rape attitude re force requirement that is why the swedish law deals with force bc that is ec for english juries judge: forget swedish law the act that she may have consented stage 1 and stage 2 stage 3 does not vitiate an evidential point which does not concern we are concern with the warranted charge amts M what is charged what complainant'smade crystal clear to a friend the witness there says 86 what had happened had gove beyond limits of what she had consented to what happened had consent judge 2: you cannot pursue whether totally consensually

misleading specify one way or the other assumed not charged M: prosecutors have to make the case the question was while are there appropriatey clear facts no not at allegationwe can see how prosecutor can make case when she has not all the facts what is the conduct complained of the answer is that knowing that he physically stopped her by holding her arms charge 2 the allegation is made that the condom being broken ought to be described as an accident in my view totally concerned describing belief that assange had broken the condom two points of evidence semen deposited in her that he had rippped condom he had broken off intercourse to arrange the condom 9with break) assange denies that the condom broke woman A had broken ejaculated sperm into her he denied 18 95 98 case admits there was a conversation re A saying condom had been affected he said not true second one of other witness said knew condom knew was delib broken 1895 supported verbally that had broken

bc she heard a smacking sound of the rubbebr being torn that there is condom when dna is checked where knowing consenting my solution is women can submit to sexual intercourse sys (at this point I m asked to move to the left by a man who taps my bare arma t rec of ct clerk) what is alleged is a sexual assault without consentingn no reasonable belief JUDGE allegation of torn condom look at he knew he was not using condom is that m delib molested the party without her knowedge it wouldnt matter if it were accidental as charged that ((((security guard touches three women to get them from leaning over the gallery to see the expressions and strain to hear the light proceedings)))))) judge 1 difference in terminology judge 2 /// m

deliberately affected her integrity the facts as relied to integ disrupts the typing observation of the orchestra seating gareth returns book to montgomery true it is in a one bedroom studio flat does not allow him to presume montgomery penis word count:IIII very simple case and that she voluntarilay consented to . . . mr assange she had rejected exual invitation by him this is a point my assange's swedish lawyer a lady beide me asks me to stop typing bc the audio is low she tells me it is difficult to concentrate montgomery made it clear that unprotected intercourse via julian asange is suspected with probable cause this illustrates why th4 earrest judge one the judge does mean ((security grabs my arm again when I go to get my coat against his touching of my arm)))) itold him not to touch the other girls whose backs he touched he touches my arm rt forearm and tells me not to leave my laptop there

consumation---judge2 when judge shows that the act continued get officers name and number judge: you are not saying it is crime m what she was describing

judge to M: to acquiesce what happened intially the montgomerydont analize evidence bit prosec will make allega of the only montgomery the security number 34 will not give me his name he hides his name badge from me after touching my arm I tell him not to touch the other two girls he then grabs my arm after interupting my transmission and after I get my coat to cover my arms against his unwanted touching he keeps his badge hidden I ask to move he follows hovers beside me I look hi name is again hidden I ask his name he shows number 34 he says you do not need to know my name

he goes away glares at me from across the gallery outside julian passes out copies of case says there is no digital norway linger squietly julian only has a few copies I refrain somebady says someone scanned it he says there are no digital then man in grey suit asks him if he was irresponsible julian walks away the man says it was a fair question I call after him julian may I have a copy he looks at me like why will it be wasted security guard calls me madam--I tell him this is an insult in america--ushers me out--I say LA WEEKLY as a guide to my geographical coverage area and due to the fact that I am the only representative of urban nomad and nashville community access but firstly I am myself I am braingarbage I am maryeng1 on scribd I desire a larger united states market for what is transpiring speak to italian rep whi says this is a return to the 17th century eye contact again with norway who now has primo seating will try to get in to orchestra seating due to the ugly bullying of 34