MARY GAUDRON FUNDRAISING 101: CORRUPTION AND BIAS EXPOSED IN FAILED FAMILY PROVISION COURT CASE

Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales
Underwood v Gaudron [2015] NSWCA 269
heard by Basten JA; Macfarlan JA; and Ward JA\

1.  Bias in the Media
I wrote to Louise Hall recently, a journalist known as a “Court Reporter” with the Sydney Morning Herald, on behalf of Helen Underwood (Mary Genevieve Gaudron’s and Kathryn Teresa Gaudron’s sister). I alerted Louise Hall about the outcome of the Appeal, because when Helen learned she had lost her case for a Family Provision, she was too upset to reply, especially because Hall had refused to acknowledge Helen’s previous emails.  Louise Hall had curtly emailed Helen to ask her about the outcome of her Appeal as she couldn’t be bothered to attend either the hearing or handing down of the judgment.

I also alerted Louise Hall in this initial email to my previous post that said her reporting was “… a blight on the moral landscape” because instead of unbiased reporting, press-titute Louise Hall covered the story about the initial trial, favouring Mary Gaudron, the former High Court Judge.

Helen knew that the Fairfax media machine would continue to lie about the Appeal and that the Sydney Morning Herald would not report on the case, or if it did, it would be a short notice of the outcome only.  There would have been no in-depth research to report the facts of the matter.  According to George Orwell’s famous book “1984”, the omission is the worst type of lie.

As you would expect any bought and paid for press-titute for the Fairfax boys would laud Mary Gaudron’s glorious attributes to the Australian people in order to perpetuate the myth that Australian’s courts are fair and equitable and we live according to the rule of law, when in practice the opposite is true.  Australia is in fact a lawless country whose Constitution was never ratified, and is apparently for sale to the highest bidder.

After Louise Hall announced the dismissal of the appeal on her twitter post, I posted a reply that dared her to write an article on the court case without bias and from a moral standpoint, specifically addressing the question of where is equity and remedy.  I doubt Louise Hall knows the meaning of the words, let alone be capable of writing a essay that would pass the litmus test, a crucial and revealing test in which there is one decisive factor.  If she did have any morals, BIG Brother (the cabal who run the media) would not stand for taking out one of their own, unless of course it was in their own best interests to do so.

Unfortunately for Louise Hall, she has missed out on the chance to break the story, but as many of us are waking up to, the press is no longer independent and unbiased.  Unfortunately the job of educating the public is left to unpaid educators like me to tell the story.

2.  Three Disturbing Factors
As all press-titutes do when giving a favourable head-job to their slave masters; Louise Hall ignored three disturbing factors. The first being that the subject of bias in hearing the case for Family Provision cannot be avoided; the second was that Helen was poor, and thirdly that she was morally due her share of the estate.

3.  Questions That Need Answering
Of the four children, Helen is the only one to not receive a cent, and the one that the court has heaped the costs onto. What did Helen do to deserve the ire from her family?  Helen’s affidavits have asserted blame onto her conniving and cunning sister Mary.  Regardless, we must ask why the Mother’s Will was changed from leaving the estate to all four children to only Mary and Kathryn towards the end of her life.

Another important question that needs to be answered was what provision had the father made for the children especially considering his death predated the mother’s death, and that at the time of his death, divorce proceedings were underway.

The final outcome of the Trial and Appeal were especially strange considering Brother Paul suffered a severe disability due to a childhood accident.  Wouldn’t both or at least one of the parents want to leave a sizeable sum to Brother Paul to cover future employment problems and health care?

The most important question of all is why didn’t the Trial Court and Court of Appeal take these questions into consideration when making their decision?  Although Brother Paul was only named as an interested party in these proceedings, the facts surrounding his role within the family structure certainly clarify Helen’s assertions in her Affidavits.

4.  A Small Estate
Helen is by no means a greedy woman. She would have only received a comparatively small sum from the estate, but to her this small sum would have meant so much more.  It would mean a new life in private accommodation giving her a new start.  She could afford to buy some shoes and some nice clothes, some medical care, a car, update her computer, or even buy a caravan and travel the country.

However it wasn’t the money that motivated Helen to pursue her share of the small estate.  It was the principal of the matter that was the driving factor.  Due to the dysfunctional family relationships, she had an axe to grind and wanted to confront Mary about her behaviour towards herself and her brother.  According to Helen’s affidavits she has known Mary as a serial liar, beginning her quest for fame and glory by using her mother’s favour to get what she wanted, to the exclusion and detriment of her siblings.  Kathryn was known for taking sides that were the most beneficial for her.

As you will see, there are good reasons why Mary Gaudron does not like to dwell on the past and doesn’t like bad press, as reported in Pamela Burton’s unauthorised biography.

5.  A David and Goliath Battle
Helen Underwood, the little sister of Mary Gaudron is the epitome of the mythical David, the underdog. In legal terms Helen’s economic status is known as impecunious, meaning she is seriously disadvantaged.  Helen survives on a small pension and carer’s allowance for her much older ex-husband of $450 per week.  She was self-represented, is not a lawyer although she partially completed her law degree and is self-taught, being a forensic accountant by trade.  To make matters worse she had to travel from Brisbane to Sydney in New South Wales to conduct the lawsuit.

On top of that she had no immediate access to legal representation or legal aid, no immediate access to precedents in NSW using Austlii, having only her own research skills to depend on. To top that off, she was simultaneously confronted on a daily basis with the possibility of an eviction from her housing commission unit because she dared complain about the poor sanitation; having faeces (not hers) flood her unit because the Government failed to address the plumbing problems in the unit block.  She is still facing a possible eviction due to the three strikes and you’re out policy of the Queensland government.

In direct contrast Mary Gaudron is Goliath of a figure in legal circles and the history of Australia.  She receives a judicial pension of $6,000 per week plus entitlements which equates to over $312,000 annually.  We should all feel sorry for the former High Court Judge (she who cannot be named) who obviously cannot manage on her judicial pension and her property portfolio (Struggle Street, I think not!).

She owns the townhouse at Lilyfield, an inner Sydney Suburb valued at $900,000 plus; a Beach House property at Greater Mackeral Beach in Northern Sydney on the Newport peninsula with a minimum value of $750,000; two properties in the Loire Valley, France (no value disclosed), all the while being Director of Hefano Pty Ltd which owns/manages fifteen (15) units in Newtown, a unit at Elizabeth Bay, both inner Sydney Suburbs, up to here admitted to.  Her first husband just died.  A Google Search shows Juan Investments Pty Ltd owns/manages units, the number not known with a possible location in Neutral Bay, Newtown.  The net yearly property income for a singular person as employee is some $315,000 (also $6,000 per week).

That means the former High Court Judge, now retired, is on a weekly income somewhere in the vicinity of between $6000 and $12,000 per week.  That’s up to a whopping $624,000 per year.

To top it all off, the subject of bias cannot be avoided due to her sister’s special status in the legal community, being a former High Court judge, and being senior to the judges sitting in the Supreme Court of Appeal.  Mary Gaudron was a specialist expert in the field of succession law and family provision law, receiving the Sydney University Medal for Succession Law.

While Mary Gaudron is a protected species, having easy access to case precedents, and open access to corruption at its worst, Helen was resigned to use the light of truth, often calling on her strong belief in Archangel Michael to help see her through difficult times.  Helen said that the ordeal of the trial and appeal was a “… pressure cooker from start to finish … the sheer severity and serious disadvantage was hell”.

6.  The Two Page Will
The two page Will generated a 105 page judgement from the initial trial with a transcript of 129 pages, while the Appeal totalled 39 pages of transcript, with all submissions ignored, generating a Dismissal Judgement of just 37 pages. This alone makes one wonder how a two page Will could generate such a long judgement yet be so glibly dismissed on Appeal.  It doesn’t make sense for reasons that will be explored in further detail below.

7.  The Trial
Helen was prepared to run the case on her own, however the trial judge recommended Helen have legal representation, and the barrister assigned for her on a No Win No Fee basis was Therese Catanzariti. This is where Helen’s problems started.  Therese Catanzariti was incompetent and was infatuated by the Defendant, Mary Gaudron.

Barrister Therese Catanzariti failed to object to the Judge’s decision not to record a transcript; failed to read into evidence an important affidavit, and wouldn’t listen to her client’s directions.  Helen accused her of being unable to comprehend the English language.

8.  The Appeal
Helen found out that Ruth McColl was the original judge set down to hear the Appeal along with Basten J. and McFarlan J., however Ward J. was substituted for McColl J. at the last minute. Helen had previously found out, after speaking to a lawyer friend that McColl was ruthless, and that Basten J. was being put in the same position as Dyson Heydon, having to make a decision on his own previous decision, and that McFarlan J. was the thorough gentleman.

After doing some research on the internet, Helen found that McColl J. Had said this on Mary’s Wikipedia page:  “Former President of the New South Wales Bar, Ruth McColl, described Gaudron’s contribution to Australian law as “an extraordinarily humanising effect… the strong views she expresses in cases involving discrimination and like issues, are very influential and important in the development of the law in those areas.”  Helen immediately rang Karla in the Registry and told them she wasn’t happy with McColl J. and warned Registry that she would immediately put McColl on Notice. 

During the Appeal, the problems in the Lower Court were to be exasperated by the lack of acknowledgment of ‘apprehended’ bias that is the ‘appearance of’ not the ‘actuality of’ bias, whereby Helen was required to prove actual bias.  There was also a presumption of infallibility.

Whenever the name on the document “Mary Genevieve Gaudron” was viewed it would instantly summon an apprehension of bias by any hypothetical observer.  The trial judge’s instruction to court reporters to only record the orders on the day and not a transcript, therefore did not record the actual details before the court and the fact that an important affidavit was not read into evidence was evidence of protecting another Judge.  Helen also valiantly tried to get evidence admitted into the Appeal that was not in evidence at the time of the trial.

During the Appeal, the penny seemingly dropped for Ward J. that there were four different versions of the same Will, however they sought to trap Helen by putting incorrect words in her mouth.  The decision was initially reserved.

9.  Proof the Appeal Was Pre-Judged
Helen was so glad to have received what appeared like a fair trial; however a lawyer friend said to her that the appearance of a fair trial is a misnomer because “if they were inclined to not allow your appeal, it explains why you got such a good hearing. They often do that, if you are going to go down”.

Further the Judgement in favour of a Dismissal did not refer to the nineteen Acts and Rules Helen was referring to.  She used the case of Collette and Knox [2010] QSC 132 (unrep) McMeekin J, an unreported case in Queensland which does not appear in the references in the Judgement.  This is an extremely important case as it has become known as the “Collette Principal”, including Barrister Treston’s writings on “Succession: Emerging Issues”. The mere fact that these cases were not included in the references of the Dismissal of the Appeal proves the decision was written prior to the Appeal being heard.

10.  Criticism of Mary Gaudron on Wikipedia Backs up Helen and Paul’s Affidavits
Wikipedia states that at the time of her appointment to the High Court in 1987, the New South Wales legal magazine Justinian (magazine)published anonymous remarks saying that “a melancholy catalogue of sins of omission and commission … ” ought to have weighed against her appointment, and that she held “an emotional disposition inappropriate in a holder of judicial office.” When Gaudron announced her retirement, an anonymous academic said that … among the other High Court Justices, Gaudron was “erratic” and “certainly not among the court’s greats.” Another anonymous academic said that Gaudron’s Labor connections had delivered unearned promotion.

11.  Intention, Corruption and Bias
Gaudron hates her own sister so much Helen alleges she has had to resort to forgery, misappropriation, misrepresentation and maladministration to ensure that Helen was left destitute. Mary Gaudron took money from the estate for her own purposes in order to pay a private arrangement between herself and her brother Paul resulting from their father’s death in 1982.  Mary Gaudron loves her brother so much she tricked him into signing a form that stopped him from seeking any further monies from the estate.

Gaudron was so used to lying about her sister, she stooped lower than low by committing perjury, deception and misleading the Supreme Court NSW to pervert the course of justice and everything in-between to ensure her sister did not receive any money or property or even a memento whatsoever.  Gaudron hid their mother’s death intentionally and Helen was never to find out in time.  The family joined in by keeping the death hidden from Helen.  Gaudron resorted to the full length breadth and depths of legal mis-conduct (professional and unconscionable) in order to not notify Helen who was an interested litigant.  This barely “allowable” method of conduct would only have been known to her being a specialist expert in Succession Law and Family Provision Law,

Gaudron has relied on access to corruption at its worst.  She could not face loss of her public standing on merit and has to be the protected species by buddies in the judiciary.  Whatever happened to their judicial oath?

12.  Brother Paul Exposes Mary’s True Nature
Brother Paul’s Affidavit corroborates Helen’s contention that her sisters and extended family purposely kept the death of her mother from her. Mary’s true colours were exposed when Paul lost his leg in an accident as a young boy; his father advised him that he and his late mother did not seek compensation for his accident on advice from his sister Mary and her university lecturers.   At the same time Paul’s father promised that he would leave him the house and all his property, as his way of providing Paul with some form of compensation for the accident.  Not only did Mary prevent Paul from receiving any form of compensation to go towards medical expenses, she thought it fitting that $80,000, a mere fraction of her annual salary, was sufficient for his future medical expenses and care.

13.  Explosive Family Secret of Aboriginality Revealed
There were some explosive family secrets revealed such as her brother Paul, DNA tested, proved his aboriginality, and therefore there is a strong probability that Mary, Kathryn and Helen are also aboriginal. Paul admitted his aboriginality in an affidavit, stating that his many medical expenses are paid to him through the Australian Government Closing the Gap (CTG) programme.  This revelation has many contentious implications for the Mabo hearings.  Mary Gaudron’s biography would be inaccurate if it did not also record that she was also the first aboriginal to be appointed to the High Court.

In Helen’s Affidavit she stated “In the event the death or incapacity of one or both defendants prior to the conclusion of these proceedings order the verification of the family’s aboriginal bloodline by accessing documents held by Births, Deaths & Marriages New South Wales or elsewhere”.  Of course now she is still denied the ability to claim ‘next of kin’ status; not an executor/administrator or a beneficiary under her mother’s will, with the documents protected by the mother’s privacy.  Even though the case has been dismissed the bloodline will in time be verified as Helen does further research.

14.  Further Explosive Revelations of Attempted Strangulation
Helen’s affidavit further alleges that Mary attempted to strangle her to death when she was a Baby.

15.  Corruption Embedded in Mary Gaudron’s Career
Of course, we don’t believe for one minute that Mary Gaudron succeeded because of her determination. More than likely the real story is that the well-known ladies man, Robert J. Hawke, former Prime Minister of Australia (1983-1991) granted her a favour or two.  Did Gaudron open her legs to make the appointment stick?

If you are wondering why the case was dismissed, you need only look at Gaudron’s moral backbone of being a labor (read socialist/communist) sympathiser.  Looking at Gaudron’s and Michael Kirby’s connection when younger to the communist agenda, they obviously took the much more time honoured approach of patience, a feature of Fabian Socialism, rather than the raw brutality and police state approach of communism.  When I saw Michael Kirby at a legal dinner, he wore his gold symbol of the brotherhood loud and proud.  In fact it does seem odd does it not, that in a time of great discrimination against gays and women, that a gay man and a woman would succeed in gaining the highest and most respectful jobs in the land?

In the time of corruption in the Neville Wran and Joh Bjelke-Peterson governments, Gaudron was NSW Solicitor General.  She was friends with a number of people of bad character such as Lionel Murphy, a disgraced former High Court Judge; Norman Thomas William Allan(­Chief Commissioner of police NSW 1962-1972)  and Sir Robert William Askin (32nd Premier of New South Wales 1965-1975).  There were many people that joined the divide between Queensland and New South Wales.  In the corruption scandal that engulfed the government of Joh Bjelke Peterson and the Wran Government, it is not too far-fetched to say that Mary Gaudron had an interest in keeping the lid on information getting out to the public, because she was directly involved.  Could this be the reason she advised the Wran Government that any member of the police be provided with disincentives to block them from coming forward with further information in regard to the Age Tapes.  There can be no doubt that Gaudron’s advice helped protect her Labor “mates” including Lionel Murphy.

Sir Robert ASKIN (premier of NSW) and Norman Thomas William Allan 1967 (Police Commissioner NSW) and Shirley Margaret Brifman were involved in the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Qld

Wikipedia states that the allegations of corruption against Askin were revived in 2008 when Alan Saffron, the son of the late Sydney crime boss Abe Saffron, published a biography of his father in which he alleged that Saffron had paid bribes to major public officials including Askin, former police commissioner Norman Allan, and other leading figures whom he claimed he could not name because they were still alive. Alan Saffron alleged that his father made payments of between $5000 and $10,000 per week to both men over many years that Askin and Allan both visited Saffron’s office on several occasions that Allan also visited the Saffron family home, and that Abe Saffron paid for an all-expenses overseas trip for Allan and a young female ‘friend’. He also alleged that, later in Askin’s premiership, Abe Saffron became the “bagman” for Sydney’s illegal liquor and prostitution rackets and most illegal gambling activities, collecting payoffs that were then passed to Askin, Allan and others, in return for which his father was completely protected.”

The young female friend could have been the prostitute Shirley Margaret Brifman who was on Askin’s and Allen’s payroll at the time.  Brifman, 35, was supposedly found dead by her teenage daughter Mary Anne and supposedly ended her life in her Brisbane safe house on March 4, 1972, after fleeing Sydney.  Police declared a suspected drug overdose, and did not order an autopsy, however in one article it was stated that the daughter claimed that it was not a drug overdose as a person had visited that night and threatened her mother, and in another article the daughter said her mother was overdosing all the time, and still in another article that a woman who visited Brifman handed her a vial of drugs, telling Brifman to end her life or her children would be targeted.

Brifman was due to be the chief witness against a senior Queensland detective in a perjury case.  Brifman had been paying graft to corrupt police since the late 1950s, and in 1971 had gone on national television and blown the whistle on officers in both Queensland and NSW.  It is believed Shirley Brifman was murdered because she had arranged a live interview with the ABC to blow the whistle on Askin and Allen.

The plot thickens when Helen alleges that at the time of Shirley Margaret Brifman’s murder, Mary Gaudron also lived in the same apartment complex in Elizabeth Bay which was her family home.  Helen said that she thought Brifman was shot in the Elizabeth Bay unit, and she never knew anything about her fleeing to Clayfield, Brisbane, which is the story currently circulating in newspapers.  Considering the file on Brifman was supposedly destroyed and there was a gag order placed on the file contents for up to sixty years, it is clear that there has been a monumental cover-up concerning Shirley Margaret Brifman’s murder.

16.  Losing the Battle to Win the War
In another similar David and Goliath story of the McLibel case in the UK, McDonalds won its court case against some activists, but lost the war of public opinion.  While Mary Gaudron may have won the battle over the Will, moral activists can win the war of public opinion, so if you like this story, please make it go viral to force this story be covered on mainstream media.

Huge Win in Qld Court over Speeding Fine

Article mirrored from Truthology website

Special Emergency Response Team (Queensland)

As posted earlier below as a teaser by Mark Darwin, we can confirm that YES we had a Truthology member WIN in the magistrates court here in Queensland yesterday when arguing the legitimacy of a traffic camera speeding fine.

This victory could potentially have wide-ranging effects as a precedent. Why? Because it shows what we have suspected: it is highly unlikely that the Queensland Police are unable to issue any traffic camera infringement notices in the manner they have been doing so for as long as can work out …… perhaps since inception! That said, sadly, it will probably be short-lived as I’m certain that they will move VERY quickly to shut this down without doubt!

But nevertheless, it is a significant win, and perhaps the beginning of the winds of change in bringing reform to our system.

The man challenging the infringement issued to him, and doing the arguing, was no other than WA Lawyer Warren Black, a fellow Truth teacher and Truthology member, and we can assure you that he was on fire yesterday in the court !

Let me tell you, it takes big balls to walk into THEIR court and challenge them head on, especially when it has to do with their ‘lawful and legal’ ability (under their interpretation) as to whether or not they have the right to do so, and especially as he has so much to lose being a lawyer presently licensed under their system. He performed admirably to say the least, I was there, and enjoyed every minute of it.

The alleged infringement was issued by the QLD Police, and was for the sum of $150 and a loss of 3 points, for allegedly exceeding the posted speed limit by only 14kms per hour.

Coat of Arms of Queensland

Coat of Arms of Queensland (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It was quite amusing that in the early stages of the trial, a young police prosecutor spoke directly to Warren. He tried belittling the attempt as a complete waste of time and resources for all concerned, that Warren should just pay the fine and be done with it, and had little chance of success, and the result for the effort did not warrant Warrens outcome! Needless to say, Warren let that slide and continued on with the matter at hand.

Now in this instance, Warren was arguing a number of points. The main issue that Warren was arguing was that the infringement was issued under the personal name of the officer concerned, a local Police Sergeant, supposedly on behalf of the Queensland Police force. However, as Warren pointed out, there is currently NO AUTHORITY or LEGISLATION in Queensland of any sort in place the grants this person, the right to do so, and even if it did, it must be clear that the police officer is doing the prosecution on behalf of the relevant authority, eg. Queensland Police, the Crown or State.

An example or analogy of this argument is, as the magistrate pointed out to the police during the trial, “what would stop me as the magistrate, Mr Bloggs, from going to a Justice of the Peace and stating that i saw you doing 75km per hour in and 60km zone, and then issuing a summons against you? There has to be some authority or head of power to do this!”

The Police tried to duck and dive, and circumvent this in every way possible, bringing up other issues, but to the Magistrate’s credit, he remained firm and told the Police to answer Warren’s question and provide the relevant proof.  Warren also raised some other points.

Queensland Police Service Traffic Branch Commo...

Queensland Police Service Traffic Branch Commodore SV6 Sportswagon (Photo credit: Highway Patrol Images)

He raised the point that the Queensland Police, SPUR, the Crown, the Queensland Government, are separate entities, yet somehow all involved in the issued infringement. He raised the point that for an entity or Government to raise an infringement, it had to be written in legislation as under any kind of criminal law, an offence had to be clearly specified, and the chain of legislative authority as to who ultimately prosecuted had to be clear. He wanted clarified as to who was who, and what role they all played in this infringement, and where they were mentioned in legislation or regulations. Again, to the Magistrate’s credit, he agreed with Warren, however this argument was not explored in-depth, nor was it ruled upon.

He also raised the point that if the matter was criminal and not civil, the issue was, who was harmed and suffered loss as a result of the alleged infringement and who was the accuser in the matter? (as previously outlined in our website templates) If the Police Sergeant issued the charge, was he personally harmed, and if not, who was harmed, and which entity did he represent! Again the Magistrate agreed, and insisted the Police show their authority.

What was amusing was there were 5 (FIVE) Police officers in the court yesterday, including the head of Brisbane’s Traffic Camera Branch (so we believe). The trial went from 9.30am till 3pm with more than 6 adjournments, (requested by the police) so that they could find ANY legislation or Authority (which they couldn’t) to hang their hat on and make their case. They literally tried EVERYTHING to find it….. let me assure you it was EMBARRASSING to watch them squirm for SO long and the prosecutor was forever saying…”can we just adjourn for 5 minutes so i can ring my boss”…SERIOUSLY !!!

The lengths they went to were extraordinary, and they even tried to withdraw the infringement, and issue a ‘bench warrant’ on the spot to get around it. As correctly pointed out by the Magistrate, this action would be an abuse of process and he instantly rejected it!

Queensland Police Service Toyota Aurion SX6

Queensland Police Service Toyota Aurion SX6 (Photo credit: Highway Patrol Images)

What was fantastic about this case was the Magistrate was very fair and unbiased and was firm on both Warren and the Police about procedural fairness, and following the law. He seemed quite amused at the police incompetence in trying to justify their position, and granted them more than enough time and adjournments to try and get a result. He even appeared to give them a chance to withdraw the charge, which they refused to do, and at one stage, he suggested to Warren with some humour that he may wish to “plead guilty to bring this veil of tears to an end”!

Ultimately the Police dodged a bullet, as the matter was won on another issue. The Police tried to adduce camera evidence, however, Warren challenged it on the basis that the Police had not provided him with witness statements from the camera operator. The Magistrate agreed, and excluded the evidence, so the Police had no evidence to base a charge. The Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the charges, and then grant all costs to Warren for his troubles.

Warren literally had them on the back foot for the entire trial, and then slowly on the ropes, then on their knees, and finally WHAMO …..KO’d !!!!!! a truly fantastic result.

It is important to note, that in Western Australia, they DO have this power outlined in their legislation. You can bet after yesterdays court win, that Queensland will pass similar legislation for future use … so if you are challenging speeding fines now… and want to use this argument and be QUICK about it!…. you will have to check for yourselves in all other states.

What also happened was Warren and I had a number of talks with the Police there, and as time went on , we became more and more friendly. Warren made it clear to the Police that he was totally supportive of road safety, however, he did not agree with a system that undermined the rights of citizens, and swung the balance to favour in favour of the Police. What was interesting was a few of the Police agreed with us, and were very open to where we were coming from!

Transcript Of Julian Assange Speech From Ecuador Embassy In London August 20

Julian Assange Speech Ecuador Embassy

Julian Assange, from Wikileaks, at the SKUP co...

Read the full transcript of Julian Assange’s speech from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, on August 20.  

Julian Assange: I am here because I cannot be closer to you.  Thank you for being here.  Thanks you for your resolve and your generosity of spirit.

On Wednesday night, after a threat was sent to this embassy and the police descended on the building, you came out in the middle of the night to watch over it, and you brought the world’s eyes with you.  Inside the embassy after dark I could hear teams of police swarming up into the building through the internal fire escape. But I knew that there would be witnesses.  And that is because of you.

If the UK did not throw away the Vienna conventions the other that is because the world was watching.  And the world was watching because you were watching.  The next time somebody tells you that it is pointless to defend those rights we hold dear, remind them of your vigil in the dark before the Embassy Of Ecuador, and how in the morning the sun came up on a different world and a courageous and a courageous Latin American nation took a stand for justice.

And so to those brave people I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and granting me political asylum.  And so I thank the government and the Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino who have upheld the Ecuadorian constitution and its notion of universal rights in their consideration of my case.  And to the Ecuadorian people for supporting and defending this constitution. And I have a debt of gratitude to the staff of this embassy whose families live in London and who have shown me hospitality and kindness despite the threats that they received.

This Friday there will be an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of Latin America in Washington DC to address this situation. And so I am grateful to the people and governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Venezuela and to all of the other Latin American countries who have come to defend the right to asylum.

To the people of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia who have supported me in strength even when their governments have not and to those wiser heads in government who are still fighting for justice your day will come.  To the staff, supporters and sources of Wikileaks whose courage and commitment and loyalty has seen no equal.  To my family and to my children who have been denied their father forgive me we will be reunited soon.

As Wikileaks stands under threat so does the freedom of expression and the health of our societies. We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.  Will it return to and reaffirm the values it was founded on? Or will it lurch off the precipice dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?  I say that it must turn back.

I ask President Obama to do the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch-hunt against Wikileaks.  The United States must dissolve its FBI investigation.

English: Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-B...

English: Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg Deutsch: Julian Assange und Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States must vow that it will not seek to prosecute our staff or our supporters.  The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.

There must be no more foolish talk about prosecuting any media organisation be it Wikileaks or the New York Times.

The US administration’s war on whistleblowers must end.

Thomas Drake and William Binney and John Kiriakou and the other heroic US whistleblowers must – they must – be pardoned and compensated for the hardships they have endured as servants of the public record. And the Army Private who remains in a military prison in Fort Levenworth Kansas who was found by the UN to have endured most torturous detention in Quantico Virginia and who has yet after two years in the prison to see a trial must be released.

Seal of the United States Department of State.

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And if Bradley Manning really did as he is accused he is a hero an example to us all and one of the world’s foremost political prisoners. Bradley Manning must be released.  On Wednesday Bradley Manning spent his 815th day of detention without trial. The legal maximum is 120 days.

On Thursday my friend Nabeel Rajah was sentenced to three years for a tweet. On Friday a Russian band were sentenced to two years in jail for a political performance.

There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.