Key witness in Julian Assange case was lying as an FBI informant to get off charges of sexual crime against kids

How the US handles legal issues, it lies, and tortures it's targets, and uses fraudulent witnesses to boost their case.

By Dark Politricks

Get the full article here on stundin.is

A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justiceand FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution.

The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism. 

The United States is currently seeking Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom in order to try him for espionage relating to the release of leaked classified documents. If convicted, he could face up to 175 years in prison. The indictment has sparked fears for press freedoms in the United States and beyond and prompted strong statements in support of Assange from Amnesty International, Reporters without borders, the editorial staff of the Washington Post and many others. 

US officials presented an updated version of an indictment against him to a Magistrate court in London last summer. The veracity of the information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness, whose testimony it is based on.

No instruction from Assange

The court documents refer to Mr Thordarson simply as “Teenager” (a reference to his youthful appearance rather than true age, he is 28 years old) and Iceland as “NATO Country 1” but make no real effort to hide the identity of either. They purport to show that Assange instructed Thordarson to commit computer intrusions or hacking in Iceland. 

The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well. This activity was said to include attempts to hack into the computers of members of parliament and record their conversations.

In fact, Thordarson now admits to Stundin that Assange never asked him to hack or access phone recordings of MPs. His new claim is that he had in fact received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained. He claims he never checked the contents of the files or even if they contained audio recordings as his third party source suggested. He further admits the claim, that Assange had instructed or asked him to access computers in order to find any such recordings, is false.

Nonetheless, the tactics employed by US officials appear to have been successful as can be gleaned from the ruling of Magistrate Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4th of this year. Although she ruled against extradition, she did so purely on humanitarian grounds relating to Assange’s health concerns, suicide risk and the conditions he would face in confinement in US prisons. With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.

Other misleading elements can be found in the indictment, and later reflected in the Magistrate’s judgement, based on Thordarson’s now admitted lies. One is a reference to Icelandic bank documents. The Magistrate court judgement reads: “It is alleged that Mr. Assange and Teenager failed a joint attempt to decrypt a file stolen from a “NATO country 1” bank”.

Thordarson admits to Stundin that this actually refers to a well publicised event in which an encrypted file was leaked from an Icelandic bank and assumed to contain information about defaulted loans provided by the Icelandic Landsbanki. The bank went under in the fall of 2008, along with almost all other financial institutions in Iceland, and plunged the country into a severe economic crisis. The file was at this time, in summer of 2010, shared by many online who attempted to decrypt it for the public interest purpose of revealing what precipitated the financial crisis. Nothing supports the claim that this file was even “stolen” per se, as it was assumed to have been distributed by whistle-blowers from inside the failed bank.

More deceptive language emerges in the aforementioned judgment where it states: “...he [Assange] used the unauthorized access given to him by a source, to access a government website of NATO country-1 used to track police vehicles.”

This depiction leaves out an important element, one that Thordarson clarifies in his interview with Stundin. The login information was in fact his own and not obtained through any nefarious means. In fact, he now admits he had been given this access as a matter of routine due to his work as a first responder while volunteering for a search and rescue team. He also says Assange never asked for any such access.

Revealing chat logs

Thordarson spoke with a journalist from Stundin for several hours as he prepared a thorough investigative report into his activities that include never before published chat logs and new documents.

The chat logs were gathered by Thordarson himself and give a comprehensive picture of his communications whilst he was volunteering for Wikileaks in 2010 and 11. It entails his talks with WikiLeaks staff as well as unauthorized communications with members of international hacking groups that he got into contact with via his role as a moderator on an open IRC WikiLeaks forum, which is a form of live online chat. There is no indication WikiLeaks staff had any knowledge of Thordarson’s contacts with aforementioned hacking groups, indeed the logs show his clear deception. 

The communications there show a pattern where Thordarson is constantly inflating his position within WikiLeaks, describing himself as chief of staff, head of communications, No 2 in the organization or responsible for recruits. In these communications Thordarson frequently asks the hackers to either access material from Icelandic entities or attack Icelandic websites with so-called DDoS attacks. These are designed to disable sites and make them inaccessible but not cause permanent damage to content.

Stundin cannot find any evidence that Thordarson was ever instructed to make those requests by anyone inside WikiLeaks. Thordarson himself is not even claiming that, although he explains this as something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him. How this supposed non-verbal communication took place he cannot explain.

Furthermore, he never explained why WikiLeaks would be interested in attacking any interests in Iceland, especially at such a sensitive time while they were in the midst of publishing a huge trove of US diplomatic cables as part of an international media partnership. Assange is not known to have had any grievances with Icelandic authorities and was in fact working with members of parliament in updating Iceland’s freedom of press laws for the 21st century. 

On the FBI radar

Thordarson's rogue acts were not limited to communications of that nature as he also admits to Stundin that he set up avenues of communication with journalists and had media pay for lavish trips abroad where he misrepresented himself as an official representative of WikiLeaks.

He also admits that he stole documents from WikiLeaks staff by copying their hard drives. Among those were documents from Renata Avila, a lawyer who worked for the organization and Mr. Assange.

Thordarson continued to step up his illicit activities in the summer of 2011 when he established communication with “Sabu”, the online moniker of Hector Xavier Monsegur, a hacker and a member of the rather infamous LulzSec hacker group. 

In that effort all indications are that Thordarson was acting alone without any authorization, let alone urging, from anyone inside WikiLeaks.

Read the rest of the article at stundin.is.

By Dark Politricks

© 2021 Dark Politricks

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay

Some alternate views on the EU and whether we should leave or stay

You have heard from the politicians, the Euro MPs, reporters and even had propaganda leaflets through your door from both the BREXIT and Better In Together sides of the EU Referendum debate.

Now I am bringing you some alternative views on the question.

So enough of the politicians lets listen to some alternative points of view. If you do like your #altnews, and don't rely purely on state news like the BBC or papers owned by people with their own reasons for wanting you to vote a certain way, then you should know this person.

David Shayler is an ex MI5 spy who was jailed after breaking the official secrets act and passing information about how we funded al-Qaeda liked LIFG terrorists to kill Col. Gaddafi but screwed it up and killed innocent civilians instead.

He was also passing info to the Daily Mail about how the security forces were scared of Labour MPS and spied on Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman. Once they had got into power under Blair it became apparent that this was true and that many Labour MP's were under the spotlight of the establishment.

This is why I suppose Blair was brought into the fold to make Labour an "establishment" party. Removing all traces of nationalisation, war mongering and following the USA's lead, and allow privatisation started under Thatcher to continue whilst creating the biggest police state in the western world.

We have the most CCTV cameras, lost our right to be silent under caution without judgement being made in court, lost the right to protest near Parliament as well as many other draconian laws which were brought in by the supposedly left leaning, people's party, Labour (or New Labour - Tory Lite).

Therefore he may have been attacked at the time for what he claimed, but when the British embassy was overrun in the aftermath of the attack on Tripoli by rebel forces, many documents were found that backed up his claims of MI6 collusion with al-Qaeda and even how we allowed certain rebel leaders to be tortured as we stood by and asked questions.

One of the main leaders of the rebels, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, even won the right to sue Jack Straw and the head of the MI6 over his kidnap and rendition due to this evidence coming to light.

Therefore don't knock what you don't know.

Sit back and listen.

You may not agree with some of the things he says but remember he was jailed for telling the truth before. Plus it is always good to get points of view from all sides whether you believe them or not.



View the original article on www.darkpolitricks.com

Help Stop Clare's Law being a woman only law - make all UK Law equal to Men and Women by writing to your MP!

Help Stop Clare's Law being a woman only law - make all UK Law equal to Men and Women by writing to your MP!

By Dark Politricks

If you read my latest article you will know I was a bit annoyed about the new Clare's Law which was being brought into the UK nationwide.

This law would let women ask the local Police for any criminal history about their new partner. The new law would not apply to men who make up 40% of all domestic abuse victims.

The disturbing thing about this law is that it divides our judicial system into a sexist one where one law exists for men and another for women.

Also the police are able to give out "suspicions" and "allegations" to the inquisitive woman which might not be truthful or correct.

How many vindictive women are out there which would claim that their ex partner beat or abused them because they are upset or jealous that they split up?

I don't know, but I do know that we have had multiple recent court cases where women have been prosecuted and sometimes jailed for making false claims of rape against men. The most recent one being the case of Natasha Foster who was jailed for 3 years for making up a claim of rape against an ex boyfriend.

Therefore if you think this new law couldn't in any way affect you then think again.

Not only could your current partner lie and make a false claim of abuse but just by alleging an offence took place, even if it didn't result in a court case, it could still be treated as an "allegation" serious enough to be given out to future partners.

Also old crimes that should be "spent" after a period of time under the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will still be eligible for the Police to give out to future partners even if the crime happened many years ago. This goes against the whole point of the 1974 law as the crime is not even supposed to be on your record any more.

This turns the whole concept of our criminal justice act on its head. Supposedly, under this law, once you have spent your crime you are "rehabilitated" and therefore allowed to not mention it on job application forms of other legal documents that ask about criminal convictions.

This new Clare's Law, like the Criminal Records Bureau checks before it, have totally negated the nature of the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and could throw any chance of rehabilitation away for ex-offenders.

For example if you had a fight with a man 20 years ago this should supposedly be "spent" and no longer on your record. You should be able to apply to jobs and not even mention the event.

However under Clare's Law the police could give this information out if they felt it was "relevant". This in itself is leaving a very important matter up to a low-level Police officer rather than a Judge or Magistrate.

Here is what is "supposed" to happen when you have committed a crime and then "spend" it by passing a specified length of time which is dependant on the seriousness and nature of the offence.

I quote directly from the Home Offices own page on the law:

Subject to subsection (2) below, where an individual has been convicted, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, of any offence or offences, and the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a)he did not have imposed on him in respect of that conviction a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act; and

(b)he has not had imposed on him in respect of a subsequent conviction during the rehabilitation period applicable to the first-mentioned conviction in accordance with section 6 below a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act;

then, after the end of the rehabilitation period so applicable (including, where appropriate, any extension under section 6(4) below of the period originally applicable to the first-mentioned conviction) or, where that rehabilitation period ended before the commencement of this Act, after the commencement of this Act, that individual shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a rehabilitated person in respect of the first-mentioned conviction and that conviction shall for those purposes be treated as spent.

Read the full law here: The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Therefore after my earlier rant I wrote to my local MP about this matter and I got a response back telling me that he will raise the matter with the Home Secretary.

Here is the letter I received:

 

Dear Mr ....

Thank you for your email in which you pose some interesting questions which I shall submit to the Home secretary.  I shall let you know when I have a reply.

Best wishes

Sir Gerald Howarth MP Member of Parliament for Aldershot House of Commons London SW1A 0AA

 

Therefore I suggest anyone else, male or female, who is concerned about our whole criminal justice system being split into two - one for men and another for women, complain to their MP, or directly to the Home Secretary ASAP.

You can find your local MP and contact them directly online here > http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

Here is the letter I sent to my own MP. If you cannot think of your own version feel free to copy it and change wording as you see fit.

Dear [YOUR MP's NAME],

Can I enquire about the introduction of the new "Clare's law" which is apparently going to be rolled out across the country.

From the news reports it seems that this law is only going to apply to women even though a reported 40% of victims of domestic violence are now men.

I quote directly from a report made from Home Office statistics which was reported in the Observer > http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

"About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men, contradicting the widespread impression that it is almost always women who are left battered and bruised, a new report claims.

Men assaulted by their partners are often ignored by police, see their attacker go free and have far fewer refuges to flee to than women, says a study by the men's rights campaign group Parity.

The charity's analysis of statistics on domestic violence shows the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought. Its report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states:

"Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture."

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09."

Therefore can I ask you the following questions:

-Will men be able to find out if potential new female partners are violent and in this age of supposed equality surely any law should be equally applicable to men and women?

-What actual information will be given out to women enquiring about their partner?

-How does this new law effect the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in which convictions are supposedly "spent" after a number of years. For example if I was arrested and convicted for a street fight against another man when I was 18 will that information be given out?

-What about if a women had made a false claim of rape against me which led to no charge or conviction? From the reporting it seems that even "accusations" true or not can be given out. How would that effect men who have been falsely accused of rape or other violent crimes.

-How are you going to handle "deliberate" misleading reports of domestic abuse by former partners who are upset that their relationships have broken up. I can see no better way for an annoyed ex to get back at me than claim to the Police that I hit or abused her and therefore ensure any future partner I might have could be told about it. It could potentially ruin relationships and allow manipulative women to purposefully ruin lives.

Also I would like to state that in a country where we are all supposedly innocent until found guilty the only way guilt is proven is by a conviction in a court of law.

Therefore giving out "accusations" and "rumours" goes against a supposed long standing maxim of our country that all are equal under the law until proven guilty.

Can you please ask the Home Secretary how she can claim we live under the rule of law when it is not applied equally to all?

Surely in this day and age of female equality when websites exist that let women brag about beating men up > http://www.likelike.com/pollcommentary/2408 we should all be equal under the law, rather than having two sets of laws dependant on the sex you are born as.

Yours sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]

 

Hopefully if enough of us can get questions raised in Parliament or MP's actually thinking about the consequences of their new laws they may think again.

I have no problem with sensible measures to protect women from horrible domestic abuse.

However any law in a democratically country should be equally applied and it should not negate previous laws in doing so.

Please help our politicians understand this.  

View the original article on Clare's Law an unfair law to be rolled out across the country here on the main site www.darkpolitricks.com

Read the The response from my MP to Clare's Law on my main site: http://www.darkpolitricks.com

The new world of Too Big To Prosecute Banks

The new world of Too Big To Prosecute Banks

By Dark Politricks

Whether you are from the right or the left. A libertarian or Socialist. A person of religion or atheist. It should be clear from all the reports on this site and the many other #altnews (alternative news) sites that a globalist attack on the common person is occurring and probably already here and flourishing.

Guns are only a small part of it and whether you are against gun control in the USA or for it there is no stopping the two tier system that is being constructed around us with every terrorist attack, new domestic spy agency, the war on our liberty and now the two levels of law that plainly exist between us and the too big to prosecute banks.

This was proven the other day when it was basically admitted that HSBC was too big to be prosectued or have people go to jail for their behaviour when  they were caught out breaking numerous embargos, banking with Iran, using Mexican Drug Cartel money and basically being the "bank for terrorists" even going so far as to tell Iranian banks how to format digital transfers so that the USA would not spot and block them.

Just so you don't think I would make something like this up. Here is an extract from the New York Times:

LAST month, HSBC admitted in court pleadings that it had allowed big Mexican and Colombian drug cartels to launder at least $881 million.

The bank also admitted to using various schemes to move hundreds of millions of dollars to nations subject to trade sanctions, including Iran, Cuba and Sudan, in violation of the Trading With the Enemy Act. “On at least one occasion,” according to a statement by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, “HSBC instructed a bank in Iran on how to format payment messages so that the transactions would not be blocked or rejected by the United States.”

Those were some of the transgressions uncovered during a two-year investigation led by the Justice and Treasury Departments and acknowledged by HSBC in a settlement, known as a deferred prosecution agreement, that was filed in a federal court in December. 

Not a single executive was charged with a crime. Instead, the bank paid $1.9 billion in fines and forfeitures — or roughly 10 percent of the pretax profits it earned in just 2010, one of the more than five years during which it admitted to criminal conduct.

There are now banks that are too big to fail and now with HSBC banks that are too big to prosecute!

Whereas we mere mortals can be hauled up to the local courts for non payment of our loans and mortgages and are charged high fees by our banks when we miss a direct debit or go over drawn we are playing on a very uneven playing field.

We are playing against banks who know that they can take our savings and pensions and gamble them on the worlds biggest casinos e.g Wall St and the London Stock Exchange. 

They all know that if they land on black whilst betting red the tax payers of the countries they bet in will be forced to bail them out.

Now with the "Too Big To Prosecute" Banks like HSBC, we have banks that know that they can circumvent laws a normal business cannot, take and launder drug money or even give the local terrorists loyalty cards for being such good customers.

They won't end up in court like you or me.

They have reached the pinnacle of globalist entities where national laws no longer apply and being an international entity is protection enough from countries wishing to stop their illegal behaviour.

These global monsters are eating up our economies and whilst the poor are being over taxed, worked to death and losing their side of the social contract left, right and centre the swinging doors between business and government allows these beasts to do as they want.

We often heard during the banking crisis that the only real liquidity in the system at the time was drug money and I suspect that the reason HSBC isn't going to be punished is down to the knowledge by politicians that it was this drug money that was keeping the house of cards that we call our global economic system from toppling over.

As that recent article by Washington said:

• Criminal fraud is the main business model adopted by the giant banks. See this

• Largely because they are out-of-control criminal enterprises, the economy cannot recover unless the big banks are broken up

• The Obama administration has made it official policy not to prosecute fraud. Indeed, the watchdogs in D.C. are so corrupt that they are as easily bribed as a policeman in a third world banana republic

• Instead of prosecuting, the government throws money at them

• There are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. See this, this, this and this.

• The system is rigged to allow the big banks to commit continuous and massive fraud, and then to pay small fines as the “cost of doing business”. As Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted years ago:

The HSBC scandal is just another nail in the coffin of capitalism and the myth that we all live under the same rule of law and can expect to be treated evenly and fairly by  the courts if ever convicted of a crime.

We are living under a globalist Corporatocracy in which global entities can ignore local tax codes by placing their headquarters in tax havens and threaten whole governments that they will just up sticks and move if threatened with over bearing rules and regulations.

Dastardly threats that should they have to play by the same rules as all of us or even have to pay an extra tiny tax on their high frequency trading, trading that means computers trade against others causing huge dips in markets, they will just move to a more "lax" climate. As if there were any more lax places left for them to go.

If you are foolish enough to think that your money is safely invested in one of these bankster operations then you are an idiot.

All we are to these monstrosities is extra spending cash for the casino and if your rich enough to trade properly at big enough amounts then you are just a series of trades to be jumped in front of by the super computers wired up to the trading floor. All so that the Morgan Stanleys and Goldman Sachs of the world can front run you and make money of their knowledge of your own business dealings.

They are no longer companies who's aim is to make money for their customers. No their aim is now to make money for themselves by using their customers as tools to aid them with their illicit and immoral money making schemes.

This is not capitalism.

This is not even socialism, apart from when the banks fail and get disproportionate hand outs by us tax payers.

This is a mix of gangsterism and fraud all signed off and under written by your very own government.

The more of us who understand this new business model we are now living within the better.

Whether you are from Occupy Wall St or a Tea Party follower you should be just as disgusted as the rest of us who see what is happening in front of us on the daily news channels.

In this new world we are all just worker ants getting ready to serve the Queen for low wages, low benefits and no equality under the law when it all goes tits up.

We are living in a new feudal system in which the hope of King John signing a new Magna Carta or a real Bill of Rights that applies to all of us equally being formed and kept to, is as far fetched as Piers Morgan actually being deported from the United States of America.

Welcome to the new century of too big to fail, too big to prosecute and too big to care a tiny shit about you and your inconsequential problems.


View the original article "The new too big to prosecute banks that blow away any dreams of an equal society" at the main darkpolitricks.com site darkpolitricks.com