Parliament amended legislation in 2014 because of Sweden's abusive EAW against Assange. ie extradition w/t charge.
-
-
Replying to @AssangeLegal @DrJillStein
No, the amend was in response to Symeou case. And Assange would not meet s21B conditions, as refused q’s.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nearlylegal @DrJillStein
Symeou & Assange. Supreme Court distanced itself from Assange extradition decision in 2013, as legally incorrect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AssangeLegal @DrJillStein
No, it found it was legally correct. What sort of lawyer are you?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nearlylegal @DrJillStein
You obviously don't know what I am refering to do you? What case am I refering to?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AssangeLegal @DrJillStein
Go on then, when did the SC say it’s own decision was “legally incorrect”? In those words.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nearlylegal @DrJillStein
So you don't know. Here's a hint: November 2013. I will send you an invoice. I charge 'non-lawyer' rates. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AssangeLegal @DrJillStein
That does not surprise me. Go on then, where does the SC say it's own decision was wrong in law?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nearlylegal @DrJillStein
Yes: In 2013 SC says the single point that decided Assange's case was wrong in law.Why I shd do your work for you?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AssangeLegal
In Bucnys the SC judgment repeatedly confirmed that Assange is good law.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Correct on the case, wrong on your claim. See paras 36 and 39 of the judgment. [2013] UKSC 71
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.