General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Defending Assange against sexual assault allegations [View all]Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You alleged support for your assertion could be found within the decision. Now you are claiming otherwise. You have fully contradicted yourself here. Either support can be found within the decision or it can't. If it can't then you should say so. If it can, then you should quote it. Riding the fence does not help your argument.
Even when Assange offered evidence that the prosecution was prejudicial, the court reminded him that the only matter they need consider was whether the warrant was valid or not in the country of origin. Once again the proof against your assertion can be found in the very reference you provided. What you would have or would not have done is irrelevant. Had you offered that defense, the court would have struck you down the same as they did Assange's defense of the prejudicial nature of the prosecution. They were clearly smart enough to have figured that much out. Furthermore Assage's defense is not in possession of the evidence. His lawyer was shown copies of the electronic communication from the accusers and was NOT allowed to retain copies because Assange has yet to be charged with a crime. So you are claiming that Assange's defense should have presented hearsay evidence when clearly had they done so it would have been rejected by the court even if they were of a mind to accept hearsay evidence (which undoubtedly they would not have). The question before the court was whether or not the warrant was legal in its country of origin. They very clearly stated that nothing else mattered. This is NOT a typical extradition case because both countries are members of the EU and it was an EU warrant that was issued.
You keep saying you're an attorney. If that is true (and I don't expect an anonymous poster to prove something like that), then you should understand the fallacy of an appeal to authority (especially when the authority can't even be verified). I have two members of the bar on my staff. I read legal decisions and opinions all the time. I know how jurisprudence works. You're not the only one who understands these things.