Assange Appeal to U.K. High Court: skeleton argument [warning - explicit language]

Julian Assange (of Wikileaks fame) has concluded his appeal to Britain's High Court concerning an unfavourable lower court judgment in relation to extradition proceedings initiated on behalf of the Swedish Prosecution Authority and, the Justices retired to consider their verdict at the end of the day on 13 July 2011.

For perhaps the first time since the mainstream media began reporting on the issue, a relatively clear-eyed view of the complainants' evidence is publicly available concerning the circumstances of the alleged rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

The blog Sweden vs. Assange has posted the skeleton argument put before the Court by Assange's legal team.

The Assange defence team asserted on the basis of the two complainants statements:

Julian Assange engaged in ’rough and impatient’ consensual foreplay with complainant AA, and he complied with her wish that he used a condom once she expressed her desire for him to use one.

Julian Assange used a condom upon claimant AA’s request. The condom split.

Julian Assange pressed his naked erect penis against AA whilst they were voluntarily sharing a small bed. They had shared the bed for several days and engaged in consensual sexual activity previously.

In the context of repeated acts of consensual sexual intercourse, Julian Assange penetrated SW whilst she was ’half-asleep’. The penetration was met by consent on the part of SW, in full knowledge that Julian Assange was not wearing protection.

It is noted that the Swedish Prosecution Authority rejects the claim that all sexual activity was consensual. Details can be found in the translated European Arrest Warrant.

It is also noted that to date Assange appears not been formally charged with any sexual offense under Swedish law, as by the Swedish Prosecution Authority's own admission the investigation is still only currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation".

Publicly available documents presented to earlier U.K. lower courts hearings can be found here.

Kudelka deftly nails Abbott to the Policy Cross

The Australian 18 July 2011

According to Kudelka:
"Today we discovered that Peter Reith’s post-mortem of the Liberals’ election effort last year suggested that a bit of policy might not go amiss. Now this bothered me, firstly because he needed to be asked, and secondly because Peter felt it needed to be said."

Nobody but us hens in here!

We have had very cold nights and heavy frost in the mornings.
The temperatures have been as low as 2 and 3 degrees below zero.

So this afternoon I was not all that surprised when I went to put the chooks away for the night and found Arnold the not so little calf had decided to bunk down in the chook shed.

The hens were a bit upset that Arnold had decided that he would bunk with them. How would he fit that bulk onto the roost? Would the roosts take the 200 kgs plus weight, does he snore?

All this was being loudly discussed by the flock. Some had decided that they would have nothing to do with it and refused to go into the shed; others had a more inclusive approach, he may be a strange looking hen but he was friendly.

Arnold on the other hand had a look on his face that said “nobody but us hens in here”. If he could’ve clucked he would have.

It took a little persuasion and half a bucket of food to entice him out of his new home much to the hens’ relief.

Arnold wandered back up the paddock to join the rest of the cow herd, but I was sure I heard a gently clucking sound as he walked away.

Graphic from Pure Dawning

GMO News: Monsanto's unusual payments and CSIRO denial of link to biotech giant

According to an American Public Media Marketplace Morning Report radio segment on 30 June 2011:

NANCY MARSHALL GENZER: Monsanto's Roundup herbicide was a blockbuster for years. Then China made a generic knockoff. To counter that, Monsanto started a program to give distributors cash incentives to buy Roundup. The SEC wouldn't comment.
But the federal government has investigated Monsanto for alleged anti-competitive practices before. Monsanto declined my interview request. But in a conference call yesterday CEO Hugh Grant said the company is co-operating. The company also says it's phasing out the incentives. And its seed business appears to be blossoming.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has had cause to address the matter of unusual payments with Monsanto & Co. before as seen here:

Monsanto Company: Lit. Rel. No. 19023 / January 6, 2005
First, the Commission filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging Monsanto with violating the FCPA and seeking a civil penalty. The Commission further charged that the senior Monsanto manager devised a scheme whereby false invoices were submitted to Monsanto and the senior Monsanto manager approved the invoices for payment. The approximate $700,000 was derived from a bogus product registration scheme undertaken by two Indonesian entities owned or controlled by Monsanto. As a result of the conduct described above, the Commission charged that Monsanto violated the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA (Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). In a related proceeding, the United States Department of Justice has entered into an agreement with Monsanto Company to defer prosecution on charges of violating the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA.

Monsanto Company: Admin. Proc. Rel. No. 34-50978 / January 6, 2005
File No. 3-11789 In the Matter of MONSANTO COMPANY, Respondent. PTMK reports to Monsanto through Monsanto's Asia Pacific regional management, which is headquartered in Singapore. PTBS reports to Monsanto through Monsanto's Asia Pacific regional management, which is headquartered in Singapore. During the period, the Indonesian affiliates violated the accounting policies, controls, and procedures of Monsanto. Monsanto wanted to increase acceptance of GMO crops in Indonesia. The senior Monsanto manager is a citizen of, and was based in, the United States. On behalf of Monsanto, the senior Monsanto manager, management of the Indonesian affiliates, and the consulting firm employee lobbied for legislation and ministerial decrees favorable to GMO crops. In order to fund the $50,000 payment, the senior Monsanto manager devised a scheme involving false invoices. The invoices were submitted to Monsanto in the United States on December 20, 2001, several weeks before the second trip occurred.

Charles Michael Martin: Lit. Rel. No. 20029 /March 6, 2007
The complaint further alleged that to generate the funds to make the illegal $50,000 payment and to conceal the unlawful activity, Martin directed the Consulting Firm to create a set of invoices to falsely bill Monsanto in an amount sufficient to cover the illegal payment. Martin subsequently approved the false invoices for payment by Monsanto, and took steps to ensure that Monsanto paid the false invoices, thereby causing Monsanto's books and records to be falsified and circumventing Monsanto's system of internal accounting controls. Based, in part, on these allegations, the Commission previously filed a settled enforcement action and instituted settled administrative proceedings against Monsanto. SEC v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 1:05CV00014 (D.D.C. January 6, 2005); Monsanto Company, No. 3-11789, Exchange Act Rel.

Closer to home the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation denies it has links to Monsanto. The denial comes despite its collaborative efforts with that giant biotech corporation with regard to developing novel plant material based on Monsanto patented genes, especially Ingard Cotton in the 1990s and, the fact that this cooperation appears to exist to date if Monsanto itself is to be believed in 2011.

Indeed, these commercial R & D links being so well-known that they are often recognised in academic papers.

['Consolidating Control: Plant Variety Rights, Genes and Seeds']

One has to wonder why the CSIRO was so foolish as to make such a blanket denial.